AA17CR23

AS (2017) CR 23

2017 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-third sitting

Wednesday 28 June 2017 at 10 a.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are reported using the interpretation and are marked with an asterisk

3.        The text of the amendments is available at the document centre and on the Assembly’s website.

      Only oral amendments or oral sub-amendments are reproduced in the report of debates.

4.       Speeches in German and Italian are reproduced in full in a separate document.

5.       Corrections should be handed in at Room 1059A not later than 24 hours after the report has been circulated.

The contents page for this sitting is given at the end of the report.

Mr Gutiérrez, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.10 a.m.

      The PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Joint debate: A comprehensive humanitarian and political response to the migration and refugee crisis in Europe and Human rights implications of the European response to transit migration across the Mediterranean

      The PRESIDENT – We now come to the joint debate on two reports from the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons.

      Before we begin the debate, we will hear statements from Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, and Mr Georgios Kaminis, Mayor of Athens.

      The first report is titled “A comprehensive humanitarian and political response to the migration and refugee crisis in Europe”, Document 14342, presented by Mr Duarte Marques with an opinion presented by Ms Ioanneta Kavvadia, Document 14351, on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. The second is titled “Human rights implications of the European response to transit migration across the Mediterranean”, Document 14341, presented by Mr Miltiadis Varvitsiotis with an opinion presented by Ms Tineke Strik, Document 14359, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

      A number of amendments have been received to both reports. In order to make time for speeches this morning, the votes on these amendments, and on the draft resolutions and recommendations, will take place at this afternoon’s sitting.

      I remind the Assembly that at Monday morning’s sitting it was agreed that speaking time in all debates today would be limited to three minutes.

      I am very pleased to open today’s debate dedicated to addressing the current migration and refugee crisis in Europe. We cannot hide behind the fact that, despite our efforts and discussions, Europe has failed to provide an adequate common response. We have failed to respond with humanity, dignity and solidarity. We have failed to share responsibility. We have failed to put an end to the massive loss of life. We have failed to respond to our citizens’ fears. We have failed to implement effective integration policies. We need to reverse that trend, and that can be done only if we engage in an all-inclusive reflection process aimed at moving from national self-interest and fortress mania to an approach based on the principles of solidarity and responsibility sharing.

      The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, as Europe’s largest political forum, has a responsibility to do its part on this. That is why we came up with the idea of organising a major debate in which the challenges are analysed from different perspectives: political, legal, cultural, social and egalitarian. I am glad that members of the Assembly and many committees have replied positively to this call.

      I now have the honour of introducing our guest speakers for this morning’s sitting. We are grateful that Mr Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, has agreed to be our first speaker. Mr Jagland, in recent years you have taken many steps to strengthen the Organisation’s response to the current migration and refugee crisis, including by monitoring closely migrants’ and refugees’ access to their rights and reacting strongly to worrying developments in our member States. You also appointed a Special Representative on Migration and Refugees, Mr Tomáš Boček, in January 2016. I am sure that in your statement you will highlight how we can work together to support the Council of Europe’s activities in these fields.

      (The speaker continued in Spanish.)

      The second speaker is Mr Georgios Kaminis, who has been Mayor of Athens since 2011. It is a great privilege for me to welcome you to the Council of Europe. We recognise that you are in touch with your citizens on a day-to-day basis. I had the privilege of being the mayor of a city in the south of Spain for 21 years, so we can speak mayor to mayor. You and I met last summer at a refugee camp. Although it has received very little practical support, Athens is making greater efforts than any other city to integrate refugees into the community and to demonstrate solidarity with them. Migration policies to deal with the refugee crisis have to take account of the views of local mayors, or those policies will have no future. The policies that we discuss in the Council of Europe are rolled out locally by mayors, and we recognise the solidarity that Madrid, Barcelona and other cities have shown.

      We must work together to create and support social Europe, underpinned by law; otherwise, democracy will have no meaning. Athens is the birthplace of law and democracy, and it stands as a symbol of solidarity. When you return to your city, I hope that you will be able to tell your neighbours and friends that we in the Assembly of the Council of Europe are conscious not only of your efforts, your concerns and the problems that you face, but of your hopes and aspirations. We stand by them, and as of today we will be working to draw conclusions that ensure that the Europe of peoples moves forward together. You are most welcome.

      I would now like to welcome Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Mr Jagland will now make a statement.

      Mr JAGLAND (Secretary General of the Council of Europe) – I commend the Parliamentary Assembly for devoting so much time to a discussion on migration and refugees. I have read the reports with great interest; they are very solid and interesting, and a good basis for discussion.

      We are all aware of the ongoing tragedy in the Mediterranean. It continues: migrants and refugees continue to risk everything in search of a better life in Europe. Some 84 000 have crossed the Mediterranean Sea so far this year, and more than 2 100 have drowned or gone missing. It is not just the volume of arrivals that is staggering; so is the build-up of people in certain areas and the consequences for those countries. Thousands of people remain stranded on the Greek islands and mainland. Thousands more are waiting to have their asylum applications processed by countries struggling to cope. And 3.2 million refugees and other migrants are currently living in Turkey, the highest number in any country. Too few countries are being asked to cope with too great a number of arrivals, which can fuel nationalism, populism and xenophobia among the citizens.

      As soon as an individual arrives on the European continent, that is the starting point for us. We cannot deal with the entire refugee or migrant problem in Europe; we do not have a mandate for that, as we are not in charge of managing the migration system. But what we can and must do is see to it that those who arrive have certain rights on this continent; that is our mandate. As soon as they set foot on European soil, they are under the jurisdiction of a member State, and of course they are covered by the European Convention on Human Rights and have a right to make an application to the Court of Human Rights.

      Governments have specific obligations, and therefore they must take the lead. Let me start with one of the most pressing aspects, about which I feel very strongly, and where we can make a difference: the protection of refugee and migrant children. Last year, 100 000 children arrived in Greece, Italy, Bulgaria and Spain alone. More than a third of those children were unaccompanied; they came alone. These young people are extremely vulnerable; they are vulnerable to smuggling and trafficking, to crime and exploitation, and to sexual and gender-based violence and abuse. Without parental care, they are at the mercy of other people and bureaucratic systems, and we know that those granted only temporary residence simply disappear because they are afraid of being sent back when they turn 18. It has been estimated that we have 10 000 children in such a situation, and the number is rising – and they are then, of course, more vulnerable than ever.

      From their treatment on arrival through to building a secure future, these minors have rights under both the Geneva Convention and the European Convention, and we are empowering our member States to deliver them. At last month’s Committee of Ministers session in Nicosia, a new action plan protecting refugee and migrant children in Europe was adopted. That plan rests on three pillars: first, ensuring access to rights and child-friendly procedures, including every child having a nationality, which is very important; secondly, promoting effective protection, with guardianship systems in each member State, measures to prevent violence, exploitation and arbitrary deprivation of liberty, and the fast and efficient provision of family reunification in line with international standards; and, thirdly, enhancing the integration of children, with the provision of quality education and the means to participate in their new community. We should be judged by our treatment of the most vulnerable in society, and here at the Council of Europe we are determined to pass that test.

      Of course, all arrivals – young through to old – should be received fairly, in line with the law. That means ensuring that the right to apply for asylum is respected in practice, and that asylum seekers are not simply pushed back to the border. It means that those who arrive are accommodated in appropriate reception facilities. And it means that new arrivals do not end up in detention because there is nowhere else for them to go; certainly, it is difficult to consider that immigration detention is in the best interests of the child. Asylum procedures must also function efficiently and fairly, so that people are not left dangling in a state of uncertainty over a prolonged period of time.

      It is no surprise that countries experiencing unprecedented migration flows sometimes struggle to meet these standards, but they must do so: that is the law. The Council of Europe is taking a range of steps to help our member States comply. We provide training to border guards and we are looking at ways to strengthen the mechanism for complaints about law enforcement on borders. The Council of Europe Development Bank is investing in facilities such as the Eleonas refugee camp in Athens, where our next speaker, Mayor Georgios Kaminis, has made real efforts to ensure that new arrivals receive a decent standard of treatment. And our steering committees on human rights and legal co-operation are working on alternatives to migrant detention and on standards of detention. Our efforts must also, of course, take into account recent work done by the Committee for the Prevention of Torture. For member States struggling to maintain good asylum procedures, we are also providing support through our HELP e-learning course, which builds the capacity of those involved in the claims process to meet the terms of the Geneva Convention and the European Convention.

      But immediate measures are no substitute for a long-term strategy. It is in everyone’s interests that new citizens are able to integrate, adapt and contribute to wider society. For this, we need national governments to provide a combination of social rights and integration policies. The European Committee of Social Rights and ECRI set the targets for which they should aim. For example, children deserve decent health care but so do the long-standing population. Grievance, resentment and prejudice are more easily stoked when some citizens feel that others are better cared for. Where equitable provision of rights and services is made, that tension is eased. It is also eased when communities within that society are integrated and pulling in the same direction. Not enough attention has been paid to this area by every member State.

      The Council of Europe has long organised initiatives to help countries give their arrivals the language skills they need, and there are now moves towards standard-setting in this area. We also provide guidance on recognising refugees’ and migrants’ professional and academic qualifications so that they can find work more easily. There is a range of measures to break down intercultural barriers, including teaching democratic culture and intercultural dialogue, training young people to spot and discredit hate speech on the Internet and intercultural cities’ networks, through which 120 cities worldwide are pioneering policies that break down community divisions and enhance security and economic roles.

      The challenges are unprecedented, but the law is clear and the Council of Europe stands ready to help all member States apply it. I hope that my appointment of Ambassador Tomáš Boček as my Special Representative on Migration and Refugees is a clear signal of my personal commitment.

      Mankind has never achieved anything by focusing on problems, but has always achieved a lot when focusing on opportunities and solutions. The Mayor of Athens is a very good example; a lot is being done under very difficult conditions. It is a shame that the same is not the case across the continent. History tells us that a lot can be achieved with joint action and solidarity. If we apply these very good methods, Europe can deal with the problems and find solutions to them as well as becoming much richer as a continent.

      I welcome this debate and hope that we can bring it down to the national level. I know that there is a lot of debate taking place, but at the national level we should be aware of standards and of what the Council of Europe is doing to help all member States apply the law.

The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Jagland, for your most interesting address.

I would now like to welcome Mr Georgios Kaminis, Mayor of Athens. Mr Kaminis, you have the floor.

Mr KAMINIS (Mayor of Athens)* – Mr President, it is a great honour for me to be here participating in the parliamentary work of the Council of Europe. I thank you for your very flattering words to me. Above all, Greece should never forget the resolute support we received from the Council of Europe during the military dictatorship.

(The speaker continued in English)

It is with great honour that I accepted the invitation to speak on migration at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In the past two years, this issue has questioned our core values as Europeans and is most likely to raise many more debates in the years to come.

Migration is an issue that I am particularly sensitive to, ever since I was the Greek ombudsman for seven years until my election in 2010 as the Mayor of Athens. I am proud to say that the office of the Greek ombudsman was the first public authority in Greece to draw attention to the rights of migrants and refugees and their living conditions in Greece, starting in 1998. Today, as the Mayor of the city of Athens, one of the cities that has seen the heaviest influx of refugees during the most recent refugee crisis, I can clearly state that the protection of the rights of refugees and migrants and their integration in our societies remains one of the biggest challenges for Europe.

Traditionally a country of emigrants, Greece faced the first migration wave in the early 1990s as a direct consequence of the political developments in eastern Europe. Migration grew in the late 1990s and early 2000s, mainly from the Near East and Africa. Today, migrants make up approximately 20% of the city’s legal residents.

As the Greek ombudsman, I reviewed thousands of cases and complaints pertaining to migration and refugee issues. I frequently observed that the State’s recognition of this new reality for Greece was much slower than the situation required. In our reports over the years, we repeatedly stated that our country was making very slow progress in drawing up a clear and effective legal framework, whether for legal migrants, undocumented migrants or asylum seekers. This slow progress unfortunately led to repeated condemnation of Greece by the European Court of Human Rights on issues such as detention conditions, asylum procedures, discrimination in the distribution of social benefits to non-nationals and, more recently, forced migrant labour.

Over the years, the ombudsman’s annual reports critically noted that the policies and laws that were adopted helped reproduce the social exclusion of migrants. Even when the conditions in the country were more favourable, a comprehensive integration strategy for the newcomers was never put in place.

In 2011, I took office as Mayor of Athens. My mandate coincided with the beginning of a severe economic and fiscal crisis. Social cohesion and solidarity became the biggest priorities of my first term as Mayor. While building an extensive network of social services, we adopted a non-discrimination policy for all the people residing in our city. We also fought against the rise of xenophobia by taking a very clear stance against the neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn, for which I was physically attacked in 2013.

The rising influx of migrants and refugees reached a peak of massive proportions in the summer of 2015. Within a few months, Athens became a transit point for thousands of people on their way to Europe through the Balkan corridor. People were sleeping in the city’s public squares and parks, and political response was very slow. Our country lacked the necessary infrastructure to deal with the crisis, but the problem kept growing. In 2015 alone, almost 900 000 refugees crossed Greece trying to reach other European countries.

      Our municipality was the first in the country to respond. We immediately offered municipal space for the creation of an accommodation centre within city borders. It still operates today, hosting more than 2 500 people. In the winter of 2015-16, despite the lack of competencies and resources, we decided to take an even more active role. We designated a vice-mayor for migrants and refugees and established a new department in the municipality focusing on refugees and migrants. We did not have experience, but we were willing to step forward to secure humane living conditions for people in transit. There was no time for political debate; it was a moment for practical solutions.

      Following the European Union relocation agreement, the municipality of Athens has implemented a housing programme with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees designed to accommodate people in transit. After the closing of the borders in March 2016 and the common European Union-Turkey statement, many people found themselves stranded in our country. We currently provide housing in 300 apartments rented by the municipality in order to secure decent living conditions for refugees. Our new department is growing. Using European funds and donations, we have managed to create a co-ordination centre in the city to provide a variety of services addressed to those people in need, and we are gradually focusing on integration.

      Today, conditions for refugee and migrant integration in our society are tougher than before. The economic and fiscal crisis has created social tensions in our city and a xenophobia that makes our task more difficult, and new vulnerable populations have emerged, such as unaccompanied minors. In addition, many people granted asylum status in Greece, traumatised by their journey and in a state of passivity for many months, have no real desire to stay in the country but have been left with no other choice. How do we integrate a population that does not want to be integrated?

      I would like to highlight the role of European citizens and their cities. Many European citizens have shown that in times of crisis, they are willing to share the heavy burden of responsibility and work out effective solutions. Last year, the city of Athens launched an initiative that we called Solidarity Cities in Europe. It is a network of European cities, including Madrid, Amsterdam and Barcelona – yesterday we heard from the Mayor of Strasbourg that this city will also participate – created to deal with the multiple challenges of our time created by the refugee crisis. So while member States fight over relocation quotas, there are some big, important cities taking the opposite stance and saying, ‘Bring us refugees.’ The refugee crisis has shown that more than ever, local governments can play a crucial role in protecting human rights.

      Finally, allow me to draw your attention to what I believe can be a useful lesson for all of us. First and foremost, the migration issue is here to stay. It is not temporary, it is far from being solved and it will keep knocking on our doors for many years to come. It is a concern for all European countries equally, and this is how it should be dealt with. Countries of entry cannot carry this heavy burden by themselves. Europe needs to provide answers and practical solutions to the migration challenges by protecting the fundamental human rights of those people as well as their right to build a new life in Europe. Experience has shown that every delay or refusal to face this reality turns into a structural problem that is much harder to solve. European States now have substantial experience on which to build better integration strategies.

      At the same time, peaceful co-existence requires that the newcomers accept European values and ideals. European cities and local governments can play a central role in implementing integration policies that promote peaceful co-existence and mutual respect among our citizens. We have the advantage of being the governing entities closest to citizens, and social cohesion is at the core of our policies. However, we cannot act on our own; we need support – better co-ordination with regional and central governments and more competencies and funding allocation. We need our role to be acknowledged. Migrant and refugee presence should be seen as a unique source of wealth for European cities and a main component of our inclusive and dynamic development. How we handle these issues will determine our future as a continent in the years to come. A Europe that fights fear and nationalism by promoting openness, tolerance and diversity is the Europe that we want to build. The European institutions should see cities as a major ally in determining our common future.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Kaminis, for your most interesting address.

I call Mr Duarte Marques, rapporteur, to present the first report. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

Mr MARQUES (Portugal) – It is an honour for me to present the first report of our migration day here in the Parliamentary Assembly. We in the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons have worked very hard to prepare these four reports for this debate. We have made every effort to provide a complete picture of the questions, issues and concerns raised by the current large-scale migration flows into Europe, and to avoid duplication while knitting together the themes of our reports. I know that the committees providing an opinion have also examined the reports carefully, and have proposed mostly constructive additions. That is the case for our report; I thank Ms Kavvadia for her proposals.

I pay tribute to the Council of Europe for its action on migration in many sectors, including the Secretary General’s nomination of a special representative and the work of the Commissioner for Human Rights, the youth sector the Child Rights Division and other bodies with which the committee is in constant dialogue.

The report must be understood as a contribution to a pragmatic approach to the refugee crisis, not a romantic or a populist and irresponsible one. This Assembly already has a mature understanding of the situation and knows well the weaknesses and strengths of the European approach. Our main objective is to find ways and initiatives to reduce the humanitarian impact of the crisis and be ready to answer future problems properly. The report calls on all of us in our national parliaments and in the international and regional bodies to which we belong to play our part. It is an appeal. We need to share responsibilities and fight xenophobia and false prejudices against foreigners.

Migration of all types will increase in future. States are therefore urged to acknowledge that immigration could be instrumental in renewing the dynamism and modernity of our societies and in helping Europe survive the demographic winter.

      We heard the Secretary General and the Mayor of Athens speak about two ends of the same equation: at this end, here in Strasbourg, along with other institutions, we set standards for human rights and democracy and then monitor the efficiency of the implementation of those standards for protecting the rights of everyone who finds themselves in Europe. At the other end, in our countries, we are, I hope, doing our best to ensure that those standards, norms and values are respected. Dear Mayor, if there is a good example of European values, it is Greek citizens; in the middle of a huge crisis, they have had the space in their hearts to host refugees well.

      In the context of migration, there is still far too much discrimination between the rights afforded to the citizens of our States and those of refugees. There are differences in treatment, in living conditions and in the right not to be detained. Yesterday, I presented an information document about my visit to Hungary in May. That visit illustrated fully that solutions for ensuring respect for the rights of migrants while dealing with the situation cannot be the same for each country. Each context is different. Nevertheless, despite those differences, it is essential to ensure that the basic rights of refugees are respected, even in periods of “critical pressure”, as Ms Huovinen puts it in her report.

      In the case of Hungary, I join many others in pleading for more transparency and co-operation on the ground with non-governmental organisations such as the Hungarian Helsinki Committee and the Cordelia Foundation. They were doing a good job, but, whether they specialise in legal assistance, social and medical care, psychological support or working with children, they have been stopped from carrying out their job in the so-called transit centres. The fundamental rights of migrants should be protected equally wherever they find themselves, but there are no universal solutions to the challenges of migration countries that suit very different geographic, economic and social situations. States should have the liberty to seek appropriate solutions while complying with international law and sharing best practice.

      The migrant and refugee crisis is the greatest challenge facing European countries. So far, we have failed to co-operate sufficiently in addressing its causes and compensating for its consequences. We have failed to show unanimous generosity and openness, and failed to find lasting, solid and consensual solutions with the European Union. We took too much time to react and then we failed.

      This crisis is a political issue of migration management policy rather than one of lack of capacity. We have the means but lack the agreement to address the problems rationally and properly. In my work on this report, it was extremely frustrating to realise that most of the potential immediate and viable solutions, as well as road maps for the future, exist at both national and international levels. Efficient transnational information systems must be developed. Comprehensive solutions must involve dialogue with countries in situations of armed conflict. European institutions should also increase co-operation and humanitarian aid to their neighbours – the first host countries of refugees. In view of the urgent need for responses to the present situation, member States of the Council of Europe and neighbouring countries should pursue efforts to resolve conflicts and continue denouncing abuses of the rights of refugees and asylum seekers.

      Finally, I draw your attention to the draft recommendation, which asks the Committee of Ministers, in the context of the Council of Europe’s 2018-19 programme and budget, to set up a steering committee on migrants and refugees to provide a common platform for exchange, experience sharing and policy making among Council of Europe member States, and a solid basis for steering the Organisation’s action in the area of migration. That will add coherence and create synergies between the Organisation’s many activities, while enabling agreed positions on reception, asylum and integration to be promoted, followed up and evaluated. I call upon the Assembly to adopt that proposal in the recommendation and to promote its acceptance by the Committee of Ministers. This Assembly is not an NGO. This Assembly is not a think tank. We should act like an institution. We should act better to protect these people.

(Mr Jordana, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Gutiérrez)

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Marques. You have five minutes and 33 seconds left. I call Ms Kavvadia, rapporteur, for the opinion. You have three minutes.

      Ms KAVVADIA (Greece) – I thank Mr Marques, whose report rightly looks at the overall challenges raised by large-scale migratory and refugee flows, including their root causes during recent years, but also anticipates future challenges, such as forced migration caused by unbalanced climate conditions. It is clear from the report that the word “crisis” does not do justice to the challenges that European countries face. The migratory and refugee flows that Europe has experienced for the past few years are driven by geopolitical and economic dynamics in the neighbourhood and beyond, such as the Syrian and Libyan conflicts but also the overall situation in Africa, which, regrettably, can be expected to continue in the years to come.

      A comprehensive humanitarian and political response should be based on the principles and values defined, inter alia, in the fundamental text of European legal culture, the European Convention on Human Rights. That should be the message of the resolution we adopt. The principles of solidarity and responsibility sharing call for a fair and efficient system for the allocation and relocation of refugees.

      I underline that, for the member States of the European Union, solidarity is not just a political principle; it is a legal obligation, emanating from Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and a fundamental principle of European Union law. That principle was translated into concrete decisions by the European Union in 2015 about the relocation and resettlement of migrants and refugees, which were designed to share the burden and responsibility among member States. I hope that the court in Luxembourg, which is currently examining the cases of Hungary and Slovakia in this respect, will remove any doubt about the legal obligation of member States of the European Union to implement decisions they have already taken.

      In conclusion, I recall Václav Havel’s speech in Aix-la-Chapelle in 1996. He said that the European Union represented an unprecedented attempt to transform Europe into a democratic space governed by solidarity. Let us all work together in not proving him wrong.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Varvitsiotis, rapporteur, to present the second report. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

      Mr VARVITSIOTIS (Greece) – I am honoured to say that my ex-professor of constitutional law, the Mayor of Athens, is present today. We have worked with him to deal with critical situations. All member States must understand that working together to deal with the challenge of migration, which will last a long time, is the only possible response to it.

      Migration is not new – we have always seen population movement – but Europe, instead of exporting migrants to other parts of the world, has become attractive to extra-European immigrants in a way we have never seen. We have seen population movement within European countries. We saw migration in the early 1990s after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and my country hosted more than 1 million people from Albania in the 1990s and early 2000s. Other countries had similar experiences. What we had not seen was the massive movement of people from outside Europe.

      The crisis became so great, especially in 2015, that Europe looked very weak in dealing with it. Two years later, my report tries to assess what has happened in the Mediterranean. The situation is definitely much better than it was. European funding is sufficient, and there is an agreement between the European Union and Turkey to deal with migratory flows in the Aegean. Italy has reformed its legal system to deal with the challenge better, and Europe has agreed a European relocation mechanism to share the responsibility and the burden. Is everything all right? By no means. Are there still things to do? There are definitely lots of things we need to do, and we will discuss and decide on them today.

      What do we need to do? Europe must ensure that its decisions about relocation and sharing responsibilities are observed. Reception facilities should be reshaped and made better. Coherent immigration policies should be applied, and the asylum process should not take so long in both Greece and Italy. A policy of voluntary returns would help to lift the burden. There should be transparency in the use of the funds provided by Europe and increasingly greater accuracy in how those funds are spent. For example, Europe does not fund the Mayor of Athens to deal with this crisis; the European Union funds NGOs working in Athens, but not local authorities in Greece and Italy, which is unbelievable.

      The relocation mechanism that has been agreed must definitely be made to work. Only 15% of the places provided for relocation have been used. In the Mediterranean, particularly in Greece and Italy, there remain thousands of unaccompanied children who have been left without any protection. There are 23 000 children in Italy and 2 000 unaccompanied minors in Greece in that situation. Only half of them live in shelters designed for unaccompanied minors. They should certainly be the No. 1 priority, as the Secretary General said.

      Before I finish – I want to keep some minutes for responding to the debate – I want to thank Ms Strik and the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights for their amendments. We have accepted most of them, but some will be debated later. I also thank Agnieszka Nachilo, who accompanied us on our fact-finding missions.

      Unfortunately, it has not been possible to visit Turkey, but I would love to go there. As I will propose through my group, I ask the Assembly to have a follow-up report, because I believe that Turkey has played a crucial role in handling this issue. I must say that, in dealing with more than 2 million refugees, Turkey has made a tremendous effort, but there is still more to do. The message from this Assembly is that nobody should be able to avoid sharing responsibility for dealing with this issue.

      The PRESIDENT – Mr Varvitsiotis, you have five and a half minutes left.

      I call Ms Strik, the rapporteur for opinion. You have three minutes.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – I thank the rapporteur for the work he has done on the report. I also thank the Mayor of Athens for being present and for his wonderful statement.

      The report by Mr Varvitsiotis, our colleague from Greece, is partly a follow-up to our resolutions of last year on the European Union-Turkey statement and on the situation of refugees in Greece, and partly an extension of our work on the situation in Italy. As the report focuses on human rights implications, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has been asked to give its opinion. The committee has carefully studied the draft resolution in relation to human rights. The main goal of the committee is to contribute its expertise and to reassure the Assembly that a report reflects the essential principles of international law and the key human rights issues at stake.

      The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has two observations. The first is that the tone of the report is surprisingly positive and optimistic – especially in the rapporteur’s country, Greece – and that many of the concerns expressed by the Assembly last year have either been resolved or have proved to be unfounded. The committee says that improvements made after the adoption of resolutions by the Assembly are of course to be applauded, but that does not necessarily mean that the Assembly’s concerns were unfounded.

      The second observation is that there are inconsistencies between the rapporteur’s description of the situation in Greece, as well as to a lesser extent in Italy, and the recent findings of bodies such as the Committee of Ministers, the Special Representative of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, the Greek ombudsman, the German Federal Constitutional Court and the UNHCR. These are not politically motivated activists, but austere, cautious and reliable authorities, so it is important, for the sake of the Assembly’s authority, credibility and reliability, that we are not at odds with such institutions on the key human rights issues. For example, there is a need for action on the registration and processing of asylum applications, but the report concludes that that has “become much more efficient”.

      The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has focused on omissions from and misleading statements in the draft resolution that must not be left uncorrected. Let me emphasise that this is a matter not of politics, but of facts derived from the most authoritative and independent sources. It is very encouraging that most members of the Greek delegation support our amendments, because admitting that there are problems is the first step towards solving them. Our amendments support the Greek authorities, as they call on member States to comply with their relocation and family reunification obligations. If our amendments are adopted, we can assure the Assembly that the draft resolution openly and accurately addresses the essential human rights issues.

      The PRESIDENT – We now move on to the debate. I call Ms Kyriakides.

      Ms KYRIAKIDES (Cyprus, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – In recent years, Europe has faced the largest refugee and migration crisis since the end of the Second World War and we have heard the Mayor of Athens say today that this crisis is here to stay. It is a crisis of multiple dimensions, being the dire consequence of violent conflict, persecution and destabilisation in the wider region. It is a crisis that involves millions of men, women and children, who are on a desperate quest for a better future. They have been either forcibly expelled or displaced from their homes.

      To this huge wave of human suffering, another equally painful one has been added, which is the migration of people due to extremely adverse economic conditions in their home country. In this regard, the draft resolutions of the reports that we are considering today are the most important tools in our efforts to address effectively the human rights implications of this crisis and to take the necessary measures and actions. As the European People’s Party, we sincerely thank the rapporteurs for these thorough and constructive reports; correctly, they not only praise efforts but recognise weaknesses. As has been said, we are here to set standards, to find ways forward and to set the bar.

      The recipient countries have undoubtedly borne the greatest burden and we all know that they were understandably unprepared to deal with the specific issues of the many vulnerable groups of women, disabled people and unaccompanied minors. However, they have exceeded themselves in providing the best care possible. Greece, Italy, Turkey, Lebanon and others are all trying to cope with an unprecedented humanitarian crisis.

      Nevertheless, we need to do much more. We need to humanise the pictures we see. Sometimes the pictures are so painful that we turn our eyes away; I felt this yesterday when I was watching the video at the side event organised by the Italian delegation. However, by turning our eyes away we do not see the truth in people’s faces. It is by seeing this truth that we can do better. We can do much more, not by being migrant-phobic or asylum seeker-phobic but by opening our countries, and receiving and supporting people. As the Mayor of Athens said, we need to look at migrants and asylum seekers as a source of wealth. People do not choose to be in a position of desperation. Instead, they choose to try and find new homes, and we must give them that opportunity.

      Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland, Spokesperson for the Socialist Group)* – This day devoted to migration is important for our Assembly, first and foremost because we will deal with tragedies that affect millions of displaced persons. They are either victims of the horrors of war and persecution, or people fleeing from poverty, hunger and the absence of any prospects, and they all come to our countries to seek protection, assistance, a modicum of humanity and the hope of a better tomorrow. This day is also important for us because the migration issue is a massive challenge for our continent. The right of asylum is a fundamental right that commits us to help, but there are words and there are deeds.

      In the face of these problems, tens of thousands of migrants and refugees have had to make the arduous journey across the Mediterranean. Europe has not always risen to the challenge it faces and it has been divided, with the bulk of the burden being borne by a few countries – the countries of arrival, such as Greece and Italy. What can we say then about the relocation role carried out by other States? It is true that there are budget, poverty and unemployment issues in many of our countries but, given the increasing poverty at our doors, each and every one of us must be involved in a common hosting endeavour. The dignity of Europe is at stake.

      We should recall here some of the fundamental principles that should steer our decision making on this issue. For the Socialists, the situation is clear. No one forsakes their country and roots for the fun of it. People are forced to leave their countries because of war, insecurity, persecution and poverty. Of course, the prime cause may indeed be climate change. We can try to address these causes of asylum seeking through peace, democracy, better sharing of wealth, fighting corruption, targeted and effective development aid, and a resolute battle against climate change.

      After people decide to leave their countries, they then face the odyssey across the seas, which involves numerous dangers. We can try to mitigate those dangers by offering assistance to countries on the frontline, providing direct access to asylum in our embassies and using family reunification programmes to ensure that such journeys are made more secure. There must also be an unstinting fight against smugglers, and we must do everything possible throughout the journey to provide assistance, protection and care that is tailored to migrants, especially unaccompanied minors and women. Then, when people come into our countries we need to show humanity and refuse to use inhumane forms of reception. We should provide generous aid that will ensure that Europe is in step with its values of justice and fraternity. What should guide all our decisions is solidarity and care for the migrants, and a feeling of humanity and respect for the fundamental values called for by our democracies.

      Ms YAŞAR (Turkey, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group)* – The human tragedy in Syria has exposed the limitations of the humanitarian support mechanisms. These limitations have become particularly evident in the mass refugee and asylum claims, leading to a very poor response to the migration and refugee crisis. The two reports have adopted different approaches and different perspectives, and I thank both rapporteurs for all their efforts.

      One of        the most important aspects in giving an effective response to this crisis is fair burden sharing by all members of the international community. The international community should not refrain from taking over the responsibility vis-à-vis these crises; it has to bear that responsibility. It is particularly important that we strengthen the burden-sharing mechanisms among Council of Europe member countries.

      Although some countries have only recently understood the impact of this crisis, countries such as mine, which neighbour Syria, have faced this tragedy for more than six years. This crisis has led to the displacement of more than 5 million Syrians. Turkey alone is hosting 2.9 million Syrians. If we combine those people with the number of refugees from Afghanistan and Iraq, we are hosting 3.2 million refugees altogether. We are hosting 260 000 refugees in camps. Many new babies are being born to refugees. To tell you the truth, if you ask refugees they say that, if possible, they would like to have even more babies, simply as a response to or a protest against genocide and their uprooting.

      I listened keenly to the speech by the Mayor of Athens. Kilis, a city in Turkey, is hosting so many refugees that their total number is three times the population of the city. I believe that some towns and cities need to be given particular emphasis.

      Mr Varvitsiotis said that he could not visit Turkey. There might be different reasons for that, but I still think that it is a shortcoming in the comprehensiveness or completeness of the report. I would like such a visit to be made and the report to be extended further by referring to the particular situation in Turkey.

      There used to be 20 million people in Syria. Currently, 5 million of those people are outside Syria, so most Syrians are still in their country and want to stay there. The best contribution that we can make is to enable Syrians abroad to go back to their own country, and to free the country of war and violence.

      Mr DAEMS (Belgium, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) –Migration has always existed and will always exist. Let us be clear: Europe is basically the result of migration flows. Today’s migration flows are, though, exceptional, and require, as the report says, a comprehensive humanitarian and political response. ALDE believes that both reports are balanced and that they put on the table some new elements, in addition to the fact that we in the Council of Europe need to defend human rights unreservedly.

      I applaud the fact that climate change is cited as a major reason for migration flows – it is important that that is acknowledged in the report. The fact that human rights must be defended unreservedly should in some way be linked to the fact that the rule of law – another principle that the Council of Europe needs to defend – must be applied unreservedly. We have a problem in the sense that, to some extent, cultural relativism is accepted, meaning that in some ways we accept exceptions to the rule of law because of religion and cultural background. We should defend human rights unreservedly, but we should also defend the rule of law unreservedly.

      The report is supposed to be a political response to the migration and refugee crisis, but one element is lacking, because it does not tackle the real cause of the problem: the geopolitical fight involving the different interests in the Middle East and between the big powers. If the Council of Europe is to respond to this crisis, we should also respond to that situation by saying that the geopolitical game that is being played in the Middle East should come to an end. If we want the migration crisis to stop, the big world powers should agree on how to go forward, instead of fighting each other behind the scenes, with the results being laid on our table here in Europe.

      I have a simple example. Climate change has been cited in the report, and rightly so. I mentioned geopolitical games and national interests: the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Accord will cause more problems with respect to the migration crisis. The Council of Europe should have the guts to produce a report on the damaging effect of conflicting geopolitical interests on the world scene; otherwise, all we are doing is sticking a band aid on a wooden leg. I urge colleagues to produce a new report, separate from the excellent one we are discussing, to state that the responsibility lies with the geopolitical conflict of interests between the big powers. Perhaps Europe should be more united and become a player on the world stage, and use its weight. The geopolitical conflict of interests should stop, and we should produce a report on that.

      Ms CHRISTODOULOPOULOU (Greece, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left)* – I shall speak in Greek so that I can finish within the allotted three minutes.

      We need to find a strategy or policy that allows us to implement solutions to the migration and refugee crisis. I should say that it is no longer a crisis, which is a one-off or ad hoc. This is a durable phenomenon that has lasted for several years and will last for many more. It needs to be stressed that it is testing the resilience of member States and their governments. All the solutions we have brought to bear have failed. The relocation programme was not particularly brave, but even that is not being implemented. Extreme right governments and liberal governments in rich countries and poor countries are separate in their approach to the issue. So far, we have managed to relocate some 14 700 of the more than 60 000 who were to be relocated. Even these timorous solutions have not been implemented fully.

      In paragraph 9.2 of the report, Mr Marques refers to the processing of asylum applications outside European Union or Council of Europe territory. The idea of offshore hotspots outside European territory is not consistent with current European Union policy and the various international conventions that have been signed and ratified. If we decide to legalise a policy of offshore hotspots where asylum applications would be processed before the individuals concerned reached European territory, we will essentially be adopting a policy of prohibiting entry to Europe. That would be a denial of the rights of refugees and immigrants. We would be going for utility rather than legality, and we cannot allow ourselves to do that.

      Europe needs to deal differently with all the people who want to come to our countries to be reunited with their families, to study, to integrate – all these young adults, and especially the unaccompanied minors, who want to find a better life in Europe. We are talking about immigrants and refugees, but we keep forgetting that they are human beings and that Europe is a continent of human beings.

      The PRESIDENT – Does Mr Marques or Mr Varvitsiotis wish to respond at this stage? That is not the case. I call Ms Doris Fiala, General Rapporteur of the Campaign to End Immigration Detention of Children. You have three minutes.

      Ms FIALA (Switzerland) – Thank you, Mr President, for calling me to speak in my capacity as general rapporteur for the Parliamentary Assembly’s campaign to end the immigration detention of children.

      We have lost our innocence. We must live in solidarity. The aim of our campaign is to make sure that no migrant child is detained in Europe. As Resolution 2020 (2014) rightly stated, alternatives to detention must be adopted. Such alternatives should be based on “the best interests of the child and allow children to remain with their family members and/or guardians in non-custodial, community-based contexts while their immigration status is being resolved”. I have seen it for myself. I have witnessed children behind bars, standing with adult men. I have seen very young boys – as young as eight – who are not with their families. You can imagine what can happen. The detention of children is a trauma that can lead to radicalisation further down the line.

      Our campaign has been supported by more than 750 parliamentarians, along with representatives of national authorities, civil society and the international community. All have signed the petition to end the immigration detention of children. Our campaign uses a range of methods and activities as we work towards stopping this harmful practice. We have living libraries, round tables, seminars in national parliaments and visits to alternative centres, and we hear about the good practice in member States. In co-operation with the Council of Europe’s children’s rights division, we organise training on the monitoring of detention centres at which migrant children are deprived of liberty. Outside the Chamber, you can put on virtual reality glasses and go to virtual territories. It is like being in a very bad camp in Jordan – you can feel what it must feel like for those children.

      We launched a debate on the important topic of age assessment procedures. It was shocking to learn that unaccompanied minors are subjected in a number of European countries to invasive and degrading procedures to determine their ages. Most of the time, the children are proclaimed to be adults and are therefore excluded from child protection. We must end the degrading and barbaric practices to which migrant children arriving in Europe are subjected. Turning that objective into reality depends on all of us as parliamentarians. We need to change our laws to guarantee that children are treated first and foremost as children.

      Ms de SANTA ANA (Spain)* – I thank the rapporteurs for their comprehensive reports on this complex and important issue of refugees. Europe faces huge challenges, and one of the most important has been managing migration and the refugee crisis since 2015. How do we resolve this phenomenon? What is being done in Europe? How is the Council of Europe involved? Those are the important questions we are addressing today.

      Europe has to keep moving forward towards a common migration policy. It must continue developing a comprehensive asylum policy, which is fundamental. Europe should be the key to resolving immigration issues to ensure effective management based on political co-operation and migration agreements with third countries.

      We have a major crisis in the central Mediterranean route, but headway has been made in combating traffickers. We should not forget that people fleeing their countries have another fundamental problem in that they fall into the hands of the mafias who exploit them. There is serious loss of life on the central Mediterranean route. The European Union trust fund, which Spain has supported, has been vital in mobilising hundreds of thousands of euros to support better management of migration in countries of origin and transit and to tackle the deep-lying causes that trigger migration. We have strengthened operational capacity with Frontex to ensure that people do not fall into the hands of the mafias. We are also co-operating with the International Organization for Migration to step up voluntary returns from Libya to third countries, with the co-operation of the UNHCR, for examples, and in compliance with human rights law and the law of the sea.

      Small positive steps have been taken, but a huge amount remains to be done in this major endeavour. I should also highlight the European Union-Turkey Agreement. I commend Turkey for its efforts and solidarity with refugees. There is a continued reduction in irregular flight to Greece, which we have seen for ourselves, and more than 6 000 Syrians have been given safe and legal transit to Europe thanks to the one-for-one mechanism.

      This pressing and fundamental problem affects all members of the Council of Europe. Let us not forget that many people fleeing countries face flagrant violations of their human rights because they are fleeing war and are in the hands of the mafia.

      Mr HAJDUKOVIĆ (Croatia)* – We can all agree that the huge challenges thrown up by the migration crisis have demonstrated clearly that, when faced with global challenges, we are some way from agreeing what should be done. The migration crisis we have witnessed is almost certainly not the last. Political instability and insecurity were the main reasons for the most recent migratory waves, but we will soon witness forced migration because of extreme climate change. For that reason, it is vital that we find sustainable and comprehensive solutions to the current migration challenges, as well as solutions to tackle the social, political and other aspects of the considerable migration flows to Europe.

      I should underline that a series of initiatives and agreements have been drafted to find solutions to the problems I have mentioned. Unfortunately, they are only partially implemented or not implemented at all. The task of the Parliamentary Assembly, and our role as parliamentarians in our own countries, is continually to draw attention to this state of affairs. In the context of our role as a supervisory body for the executive, it is important for us to point out that we cannot solve this problem alone. Europe as a whole needs to find solutions to the challenge of migration, and they should be implemented throughout the continent. We should be clear that isolation and building walls is no solution. Support for the resolution is a step in the right direction.

      Ms HOPKINS (Ireland) – The mass migration of people is a complex global issue and we do not see an end in sight. It is a result of conflict, violence and poverty. On Sunday last, the Irish naval vessel LÉ Eithne rescued 183 people in the Mediterranean just north of the Libyan capital, Tripoli. The Irish navy has played an important role and has rescued more than 15 600 migrants. That clearly demonstrates the value of Ireland’s involvement in the humanitarian response, but no one country can solve the crisis. This agonising challenge demands that the international community, including the Council of Europe, works together. That is why the report is important in making progress on solutions.

      Ireland has agreed to accept 4 000 refugees under the Irish refugee protection programme. Progress was initially slow, but the numbers coming to our shores in search of safety and opportunity are increasing. I know many of those men, women and children because an emergency reception and orientation centre was recently set up in my home town of Ballaghaderreen in the west of Ireland. There are currently about 200 people living in the centre, about half of whom are children. They have come in search of a better future and better opportunities. Settling in to a new community is a complex process. If we are to have success, people must be at the heart of our approach – both the refugees and the local people in our communities. We must ensure that additional budgets, support and resources are in place, and that they filter down to our communities, such as Ballaghaderreen, to support people, particularly in the areas of health, education and housing, so that they can rebuild their lives and have a better future with us.

The Council of Europe – the international community – has a collective obligation to look at all the options for implementing solutions, and that involves conflict prevention and resolution, political dialogue, humanitarian assistance and an international focus on human rights.

Ms SANTERINI (Italy)* – The refugee challenge calls for a response that is both political and humanitarian and I thank the rapporteurs for having brought those two aspects together in their work. The challenge calls for a political response, because it calls into question law-based Europe, and taking action on a shared basis means supporting and strengthening Europe itself. After all, opening up to refugees is an investment in the future, which is political. As the International Monetary Fund has indicated, the economic impact of refugee flows on Europe’s gross national income is scheduled to be 0.2% by 2020, so openness equates to growth. That is why we suggest that the Council of Europe support a revision of the Dublin Convention so that people would be able to choose where to make their asylum claims and the principle of solidarity and a fair distribution of responsibilities between member States, pursuant to Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, would be applied. Certain countries – Spain, Greece and Italy – currently bear the brunt of the impact of the arrival of these people. Some 361 658 people have arrived in Europe in 2016 – 181 405 in Italy alone.

Providing an appropriate reception is a humanitarian response, particularly with regard to unaccompanied minors whose rights run the risk of being reduced in the Dublin reform being discussed by the European Parliament at this time. As Mr Varvitsiotis’s report says, we should keep at least the same level of standards in search and rescue at sea. We are also talking about NGOs that are saving human lives – they put some of the rest of us to shame. I call for the Council of Europe to support not just search and rescue actions but also the identification of the 30 000 victims at sea, so that we can give answers to families who are worried about the fate of their lost family members. There are proposals by civil society associations and churches that require support to provide safe arrival for vulnerable people.

THE PRESIDENT* – Mr Kross and Mr Kronbichler are not here, so I call Mr O’Reilly.

Mr O’REILLY (Ireland) – At the outset, I wish quickly to draw a distinction between refugees and migrants. Might I make the point that, as my colleague said earlier, Ireland is delighted to properly take part in our duties in relation to the reception of refugees? We are making considerable progress on that. Indeed, I congratulate my Irish colleague, Senator Hopkins, on her courageous pioneering work in this area in her local town. We are having a good experience in this area and it is important that we go on doing that. It is also important, of course, that every European State, and indeed every Council of Europe member, meet its responsibilities in this sphere.

I would like to turn briefly to the question of migration and to say that we should see migration as an opportunity. There are many Western European countries with labour shortages at the moment and there is a lack of willingness among the native population to take on roles in the farming, catering, manufacturing and food processing sectors. Migrants are willing to take on those roles and we should celebrate that and welcome them, recognising the economic imperative and the economic benefits they bring to countries. With an ageing population in many European States, the influx of migrants has had a beneficial effect on demography. They bring a new culture.

It is incumbent on all members of the Council of Europe to be courageous in our approach and to oppose, in our own constituencies and everywhere we can, any populist, anti-migrant sentiment, any Islamophobia that might go with that, and any negativity, xenophobia or other condition that might in some way create a rift between people. It is our duty to celebrate multiculturalism and multicultural society. We must create the space for our migrants, celebrate their distinct cultures and integrate them into the lives of our communities. Where that is done, the results are enormous. Our rapporteurs have done us a great service with their reports, and this is a very worthy and important debate. However, the duty we have is our own specific duty in our own countries, to be friendly, warm, receptive places for our migrants, to recognise them and celebrate the need for them in our economies and receive our refugees with sensitivity.

Ms BLONDIN (France)* – Our colleagues’ reports rightly remind us that the migration crisis in Europe must be met with solidarity and cohesion by our States, a point also stressed by Mr Jagland. However, that is not what is happening. In 2015, the European Union proposed a mechanism that sought to relocate 160 000 people from Greece and Italy, but a number of European countries have rejected any sharing of migrants and, as of today, only 16 340 individuals have been relocated. That number is pitiful when compared with the 3 million refugees hosted by Turkey. I very much regret that the recent European Council was not able to come to an agreement on a deadline by which to reform the Dublin Convention.

The crisis persists, the situation is deteriorating and an urgent co-ordinated response is required by Europe as a whole. It is absolutely necessary that we ensure decent living conditions in our reception centres and that we put an end to the scourge of violence in them, especially vis-à-vis the most vulnerable groups, by which I mean minors. Regarding improving the conditions in reception centres, the humanitarian corridors initiated by Italy are an interesting solution. Unfortunately, I was not able to participate in the side event organised yesterday by Ms Santerini, who is the co-ordinator of the No Hate Parliamentary Alliance. The initiative could be particularly interesting because it is a partnership among religious communities, States and associations with a view to receiving refugees on national territory. These programmes are targeted at the most vulnerable groups and funded by associations that provide safe travel, take care of individuals and support them. The State, in turn, undertakes to simplify the administrative procedures – for example, the granting of humanitarian visas – required for the resettlement of such individuals. In March 2017, France signed an agreement to receive 500 Syrian refugees from Lebanon.

      Humanitarian action is not sufficient; we must also tackle the root causes of migration. If we want to reduce the migration pressures on the borders of the European Union, we must work towards ending conflict and geopolitical crises and we must support economic and human development in countries of origin. I really believe that we should focus on the positive impact of such migration.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Blondin. I call Mr Kronbichler, who was not here earlier but who is now present.

      Mr KRONBICHLER (Italy)* – Today in the Italian Parliament in Rome – perhaps at this very moment – the President of the Chamber of Deputies, Laura Boldrini, is awarding the Alexander Langer international prize to two organisations that work for refugees. One association is Greek, and the other is Italian. In the context of today’s debate, it is appropriate to remember Alexander Langer – a German-Italian South Tyrolean and a committed European who died by his own hand 22 years ago – who advocated peaceful co-existence among different communities. Multi-ethnic communities will become the norm rather than the exception, and we must learn to co-exist while retaining our own identities. We must not have either forced inclusion or forced exclusion; we must be able to work with each other. The more we do that, the better we will understand each other.

      I hope that the definition of “belonging” in the world will become less rigid. We should not exclude others. We must accept pluralism in society and make plain our acceptance of multi-ethnic communities, so that everyone feels at home. Rights and laws are vital, but they are not sufficient. Ethnocentric standards encourage ethnocentric behaviour, so we need mediators to bridge the gaps and break down the barriers between different communities. We must prohibit all violence and encourage the creation of inter-ethnic groups, made up of pioneers of cultural co-existence.

      Ms JOHNSEN (Norway) – I am grateful for these two important reports. The challenge of migration is one of the largest facing Europe. It has put core European values to the test, and it threatens to destabilise the continent. We have debated it numerous times here in the Assembly, and we have adopted texts calling for greater co-operation in Europe.

      Secretary General Jagland said that we must focus on solutions, not on problems. The Mayor of Athens – the city on which migration has had the greatest impact – focused on solutions. He stressed the need for legal frameworks and infrastructure to handle the influx of migrants. In 2015, 900 000 people crossed Greece through the Balkan corridor. That is a huge number for any region to deal with. We thought that we had problems in Norway when the number of migrants increased from around 7 000 a year to some 30 000 a year; we had difficulty handling that.

      In the Assembly, we discuss detention, asylum procedures, xenophobia, discrimination, radicalisation and the need for solidarity. All our debates and proposals highlight the need for a common human and political response to the refugee situation, which is here to stay. Now we see refugees from the war in Syria, and from Iraq and Afghanistan, but the next wave of refugees could be the result of climate imbalance or man-made ecological disaster. The influx will not stop.

      An agreement has been reached between the European Union and Turkey, the European Union has allocated money to deal with the challenge and the legal systems of some countries have been improved, but that is not enough. Europe needs more answers, better integration strategies and better co-operation. We must develop a more efficient system for processing asylum applications. We must share best practice and work with non-governmental organisations.

      The situation can only be solved politically, but the debate cannot be limited to discussing quotas for refugees in Europe. Further co-operation is required with countries of origin and transit, and we must develop a mechanism for relocation. Many refugees who are integrated into Norwegian society want to travel back to their countries of origin once peace has been established.

      Our most pressing concern is the protection of the more than 100 000 children who arrived in Europe last year. They are extremely vulnerable and often traumatised, and our priority must be to ensure that they receive education so that they do not remain illiterate. I thank those who work with unaccompanied children in need of protection.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – I thank the rapporteurs and the Mayor of Athens, and I wholeheartedly support what the previous speaker said. She talked about refugees, rather than simply about migration; there is a major legal difference between the two. Refugees have a particular legal status under the Geneva Convention, and we cannot impose quotas on them because they are entitled to protection and reception. Some 60 million people have had to flee their countries. Europe is making a contribution, as it is legally obliged to do, by dealing with 1.6 million refugees.

      I am glad that, following the closure of the Balkan route, we are not talking about closing the Mediterranean route. Far more serious than that is the plight of refugees who are forced to return to failed States such as Libya. There are appalling conditions in Libya. I refer you all to the most catastrophic situations, those of women, children and slaves.

      We really need to show solidarity. We need to speak about this very clearly and openly. We must also say that we will put a stop to the export of weapons and honour all our obligations under United Nations agreements, because some States are failing to fulfil their obligations. We need to show proper solidarity, and to have a mechanism for that in Europe.

      Climate change will deepen the migration crisis. What is happening in Turkey is not positive either; we want refugees to be recognised as refugees, rather than as guests, in Turkey. At present, they are not enjoying the protections that they should be afforded.

      Missing children is also an important issue. There are 20 000 missing children in Europe. Secretary General Jagland mentioned that figure 18 months ago, but now it is much higher. In Austria, we have a programme of measures with this issue in mind, because there are 1 700 missing children there, but overall there are 20 000 missing in Europe. That is a very high figure, and we must do everything we can to put this right.

      (Ms Mikko, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Jordana.)

      Mr OVERBEEK (Netherlands) – I thank the rapporteurs and the rapporteurs for opinion for their work on this important topic. The multitude of motions, reports and resolutions adopted in the Council of Europe illustrate just how important it is that Europe finds a consistent way to deal with the challenges we face. We are talking here on the one hand about the situation of refugees and individual migrants and on the other hand about migration as a social process. It is important to make that distinction, even though these areas overlap.

      First, I reiterate that, as many speakers have stated, the most important principle that we must all uphold is that anyone whose life and well-being is under threat as a result of war, persecution or natural disaster has the right, under international and European law, to seek protection, and all our governments are held by international law to provide protection for refugees and access to health care, work and education, and to guarantee the principle of non-refoulement.

      The infamous European Union-Turkey deal was in my view problematic from its inception, but we can now all see one year later that, in terms of protecting the rights of refugees in practice, it falls short in all respects. The report by Mr Varvitsiotis paints a much too rosy picture, and I urge the Assembly to adopt the amendments of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights drafted by our colleague Ms Strik to restore balance to the text of the resolution.

      I also warn against the current thrust of European Union policies of outsourcing the legal obligation to protect. Setting up reception centres and hotspots outside Europe does not exonerate us from the obligation to observe international law and to effectively ensure that refugees are protected from inhumane treatment and refoulement.

      There is another aspect of our discussions today that I wish to address briefly. Immigration creates benefits for migrants and host societies, as the Marques report convincingly shows, but, contrary to the image that so many portray, immigrants do not arrive in a utopian harmonious society. Rather, they find themselves inserted into societies already riven by social, political and ideological cleavages and contradictions, and in which the immigrants usually end up at the bottom of the social hierarchy, resented and discriminated against by many. Just to ignore, or to moralistically denounce, social unrest surrounding large-scale immigration is a dangerous form of self-deception.

      That is also true of the unfounded proposition that immigration can be the answer to what Mr Marques calls the “demographic winter”. A study by the United Nations Population Fund has calculated that in order for Europe to stop ageing through the aid of immigration – to keep the ratio between the 15 to 64 and the 65-plus age groups constant – it would have to take in an annual, I repeat annual, number of 27 million immigrants. The European Union accounts for half of that figure. I do not think that even Angela Merkel can fix this.

      Refugees and migrants deserve our protection, and we must do everything we can to provide it while at the same time working to address the root causes of refugee movements and irregular migration, such as military intervention and economic exploitation. But this moral imperative does not mean that immigration is without problems. To make unfounded and false claims about the supposedly wholly positive impact of large-scale immigration is a dangerous self-deception which will ultimately play into the hands of the extreme right.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I remind you that our speaking time is three minutes sharp.

      Mr MELKUMYAN (Armenia)* – The subject under discussion is extremely important, and we must find a good solution to it. Thus far, we have not had a common instrument or overall methodology to assess the effectiveness of the money spent on measures to deal with migrants and refugees.

      The problem of migrants and refugees is topical for Armenia as well. More than 22 000 migrants have arrived there from Syria. Since 2016, we have received these persons, but we have not received corresponding appropriate assistance from the international community. My country is spending vast sums to receive and integrate these migrants, even before we manage to resolve the problem of refugees from Azerbaijan.

      Currently, the most pressing problem in Armenia – and across Europe, I am sure – is to ensure the safety of these refugees and assist in their social integration. Our 22 000 Syrian refugees have settled in our country now and have jobs. The Republic of Armenia has done a great deal of work to achieve that. Our view is that the social integration of refugees requires first and foremost that they be provided with appropriate employment and can engage in vocational retraining, and to solve the problem of their security. That yields positive results and is promising for the future of both the refugees and the welcoming country. We must calculate not only the economic and financial impacts, but also the social and moral ones.

      In order to deal with the problem of refugees and migrants, we need a stable regional environment. In terms of Armenia, however, Azerbaijan is putting into question the efforts of the co-chairs of the Minsk Group to find a peaceful settlement to the conflict. That cannot be ignored. It is therefore necessary to put in place surveillance and detection mechanisms along the entire frontier to identify instances of cease-fire violation. This issue is already on the agenda of the negotiations, but Azerbaijan has blocked the process through its military operations. However, one point is clear: there is no alternative to a peaceful settlement to the conflict. We appeal to Azerbaijan to cease its activities, and I am convinced that we will succeed.

      The Republic of Armenia will support the solution to the problems I have mentioned.

      Ms ANTTILA (Finland) – I thank Mr Marques for his important report. Migration will continue to be one of the main challenges in Europe in coming decades. The migration crisis has become political through the problems of migration policy management, in particular in respect of the implementation of the Dublin Regulation. The failure to find a comprehensive solution to the crisis has led to growing anti-migrant attitudes across Europe. We need to help those who are seeking safety and combat the business model of people smugglers who take advantage of the vulnerability of migrants, especially women and children. Illegal and dangerous transports are unacceptable.

      When looking for sustainable solutions, we need to have a global perspective and recognise the various root causes of irregular migration. First, the European migration policy needs a shift from poor implementation and disproportionate responsibility to a fairer system. Secondly, we need to focus on the underlying trends such as globalisation, climate change and economic inequality that will continue to affect the trends of irregular migration. Thirdly, we need to focus on the integration of migrants in order to prevent radicalisation and devastating terrorist attacks.

      As stated in the report, the protection of the fundamental rights of migrants should be equal everywhere, but member States’ right to seek appropriate national solutions in line with human rights standards is also highly important. It is not possible to find a universal solution to the migration crisis in countries that are economically, socially and culturally different. Instead, we need to improve the implementation of existing legal migration instruments as well as sharing best practice.

      I agree with the report that in order to strengthen and harmonise the European asylum system, we need to facilitate practical co-operation between the member States of the Council of Europe. I also agree that we need to keep pursuing dialogue with countries in situations of armed conflict and work hand in hand with NGOs.

      Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – I thank the Bureau and the rapporteurs for this full day’s debate on addressing the extremely important issue of migration and the ongoing refugee crisis, a crisis which Europe has not coped with in a worthy manner. Our response so far seems to be a country-by-country means to prevent people from applying for protection rather than a common policy for reception and the fair sharing of responsibility.

      As a result, neighbouring countries and those in the southern part of Europe are left to handle the situation more or less on their own. Among the Nordic countries, Denmark and Norway are taking the lead in being the most restrictive, which I am not proud of. It is neither a very future-oriented approach, nor is it in our own best interests. Instead of naming migrants as fortune hunters for short-term national political purposes, we should recognise one of Mr Marques’ main points, namely that this is first and foremost a question of forced migration, caused by armed conflict and oppression. He also points out the forthcoming challenge of climate change refugees. In this respect, the election of an ignorant bully as President of the United States is maybe the greatest challenge of all.

      I should also like to comment on the report of Mr Varvitsiotis on the human rights implications of our lack of common response. The European Union-Turkey Agreement serves as a dam, redeeming the former agreement with Libya and preventing migrants from reaching Europe. For the time being, the number of arrivals and fatalities has dropped, but for how long?

      Mr Varvitsiotis also raises another important issue: how to secure legal access to family reunification and resettlement. We lack a common European answer. Both our Secretary General and our Commissioner for Human Rights have urged safe pathways for application, so far without much success. In the meantime, necessary steps have to be taken concerning unaccompanied minors as well as improving the living conditions for those stuck in the Greek islands.

      The most important course of action, rather than adopting more recommendations, is to find a working mechanism to implement all our former resolutions and recommendations. Together they form a comprehensive solution, so far neglected by all our member States. We should feel obliged to raise the recommendations in our national parliaments. Even more importantly, the Committee of Ministers must start to put pressure on all our member States to do so.

      Ms DURANTON (France)* – I commend the relevance of the choice of our joint debate. The migratory crisis has indeed been an immense challenge for Europe in both humanitarian and political terms, revealing the shortcomings in European solidarity. The reports are steeped in the humanity of our Portuguese and Greek colleagues, Mr Marques and Mr Varvitsiotis, and are an excellent basis for discussion.

      In 2015 and 2016, Europe faced a massive influx of irregular migrants on its territory. There were more than 1 million arrivals, 885 000 via Greece and 154 000 via Italy. For the most part, this refugee flow related to the crisis in Syria but there were economic migrants as well. Admittedly, this flow, which has been exceptional in its speed and scale, has significantly reduced since the closing of the Balkan route and the agreement between the European Union and Turkey in 2016. None the less, we should not forget that there is an older and more sustained migratory pressure on Europe’s borders. This fits within a global movement of intensified migration – there were 244 million international migrants in 2015, compared with 173 million in 2000 – affecting all regions of the world. Indeed, these arrivals are continuing, especially in the central Mediterranean, where the flow has been further fuelled by the deteriorating situation in Libya. Ultimately, as the rapporteurs were right to stress, migratory pressure at Europe’s doors can only continue or even intensify.

      Europe has not always been equal to the challenge, which has made brittle its cohesion and triggered a crisis of confidence in its ranks. Europe has not been able to predict events and has been lacking in political will. However, I will be less harsh than our rapporteurs for several reasons. First, the scale of migratory flows had a surprise effect which we should not underestimate. Europe sat up and took a host of emergency measures such as launching a maritime operation that – even though there were too many victims – saved lives, the establishment of hotspots at arrival points for migrants on European territory, as well as financial commitments. It also undertook deep-seated reforms, some of which are still under way.

Moreover, the responsibility for the initial inertia should not be entirely ascribed to European institutions. Some member States – we all know who they are – showed themselves more than reluctant to tackle the problem head on, generally for reasons of domestic policy and especially if they were not the countries of destination. Others, such as Germany, reacted responsibly and with dignity. To respond to the global crisis of refugees, we need close co-operation among all the key players, States, European institutions, United Nations agencies, NGOs and civil society.

      Mr MİROĞLU (Turkey)* – I thank the rapporteurs for their outstanding reports on European identity and Europe’s future. The refugee crisis is directly related to European identity and Europe’s values. It also pertains to Europe’s role around the world. The question is whether Europe will simply close its doors against refugees, or live up to its European heritage and respect human rights. Unfortunately, until now many European countries have not lived up to their standards. Some have used military force to close their borders. Many innocent people died and simply became statistics.

      Asylum law was set up after the Second World War, and now countries make all kinds of excuses not to use it properly. Even more unacceptably, some countries have actually confiscated refugees’ personal property to pay for the costs of dealing with them. I am sure that such practices will continue to be a source of shame for many European countries.

      Turkey decided to open its doors to refugees. Turkey hosts the highest number of refugees in the world; so far, we have spent $26 billion on refugees. The European Union committed to sending €3 billion to Turkey, but so far only €800 million have been sent. Some countries are flipping back to hosting no more than 1 000 people, while Turkey is currently hosting 3.3 million refugees and unfortunately, some countries belittle our efforts. We know that the situation in Turkey is serious and beyond comparison with other European countries. As the report states, it is important for us all to bear the burden.

      To return to what the distinguished Mayor of Athens said, solidarity is important. The Turkish cities of Kilis, Mardin, Istanbul and Gaziantep are part of the network of cities working with refugees. Again, it is important that we all bear our burden. I hope that the countries that have so far failed to do so will revisit their approach and uphold European values.

      Ms DUMERY (Belgium) – The condition of migrants arriving at European borders from the Mediterranean Sea should concern us all, and we should take action where we can. Both rapporteurs have the ambition to do so. They stress that reception of migrants needs to improve and procedures need to be more efficient. The recommendations to the Greek and Italian authorities are therefore more than useful.

      Mr Varvitsiotis asks in his report, especially with regard to the reception area in Greece, that we focus more attention on the specific needs of unaccompanied and separated children. Here I stress a link with my motion ‘Refugees and migrants as an easy target for trafficking and exploitation’, which confirms that the profile of asylum seekers has changed to include an increasing number of unaccompanied children. Therefore, I demand a greater awareness of the disappearances of unaccompanied minors arriving in Europe. Specialised support and care are absolutely necessary, as well as the establishment of co-operation and co-ordination among police forces in Europe, including with key regions of departure for migrants such as North Africa and Libya.

I am convinced that the Council of Europe is best placed to raise awareness and identify concrete measures to improve the situation. I thank both rapporteurs for their excellent work on this important matter.

Mr SABELLA (Palestine, Partner for Democracy) – Mr Jensen, the Finance Minister of Denmark, addressed the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy on migration, among other issues, during our meeting on Bornholm Island two weeks ago. His approach is that, during the next 10 to 20 years, Europe should support employment opportunities for millions of young Africans who will want to make their way to Europe if they do not find those opportunities in their own countries. I add that Europe not only needs to find answers within its own borders but should heed the advice of the Danish Finance Minister. We need to help provide work opportunities for young Africans and other young people.

Europe also needs to work in concert to find practical solutions to the political conflicts raging in the southern Mediterranean region. Europe cannot develop a migration policy that will work without checking the arms trade that robs millions of Africans, Arabs and others of their basic human right to security. In my opinion, that is one of the biggest reasons why people want to come to Europe. Europe must not be self-justifying or xenophobic, but must help provide opportunities for young people in the southern Mediterranean region and Africa who otherwise will flood your gates. If you want to avoid that, you must come up with an integrated and overall strategic policy of conflict resolution and employment opportunities for potential young immigrants to Europe. I would prefer for those young people to stay and build their own countries rather than coming here to be marginalised communities in Europe.

The PRESIDENT – I cannot see Mr Mullen, so I call Ms Pashayeva.

      Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan)* – There have been physical attacks against migrants and asylum seekers. We have also seen cases of sexual harassment, abuse and hate speech. As the rapporteur said, there is a huge difference between the rights of citizens and of refugees. We must take serious steps to prevent such discrepancies. Populist parties and media in Europe are very intolerant of refugees and asylum seekers. We must be critical of such comments, whether they are made by political parties or the media.

      I speak as a person whose relatives have become refugees. I know how difficult it is to be one. As you know, 20% of our land has been acquired by Armenia. We should put an end to this occupation, but unfortunately, Armenia simply fails to fulfil its responsibilities. We have also accepted thousands of Ahiska Turks into our country and done our best to integrate them. We realise that hosting tens of thousands of people is not easy, but it is important that we do our utmost for these refugees. Let us not forget why these people left their own homelands and risked their lives to come to our country. We should see the issue from their perspective. We should also not forget that Turkey has opened its doors to 3 million refugees. When I talk to refugees in Turkey, they say that the Turkish people have embraced them very warmly.

      The civil war in Syria has forced millions of people to leave that country. It is a humanitarian requirement to embrace those people. It is important to remember that Armenia uses refugees as part of its occupying strategy – it is actually putting refugees in Azeri land that it has occupied. In other words, Armenia takes people who have fled wars in their own regions and places them in occupied Azeri territory. I urge you all to speak up about that. Mr Melkumyan told some lies about my country. The best response is to refer to Resolution 1416 (2005), which clearly states that his country is the occupier. As I said, we must look not only at the results of migration but at its root causes.

      Mr SCHWABE (Germany)* – I, too, thank the rapporteurs, who have ensured that a number of amendments have been tabled to take on board the human rights aspect, which is very important. I was at the seminar organised by the Italians yesterday. It was really heart-wrenching to see exactly what is happening, what people have seen with their own eyes and the dreadful fate that they have had to experience. We should not tolerate that any more. It is important for us to see what is happening, so that we can talk about it afterwards. We must do what we can to protect people.

      We are talking about human beings; we are not talking at all about illegal people. It is important that we use the right language. We are dealing with difficult times, and we are here to protect the rights of people who are travelling in this continent. We must ensure that those rights, which have been developed over the years, are protected, not damaged. We have heard an accurate portrayal of the situation, and we need to come up with solutions based on human rights and conventions.

      We must take note of a few points. First, we are dealing with human beings who are here in Europe. We can of course organise “deportation shows”, but I think we want most of those people to stay. However, we must have fair agreements in place in the event that they have to return. Secondly, we must say clearly to other people that there is no possibility of sending people back, for instance, to North Africa. That is neither possible from a legal point of view nor realistic. We need to show people who have that idea why it is not possible. Thirdly, we need to do what we can to save people. If they reach the European coast, asylum procedures must be launched as quickly as possible, and we must then reach clear agreements with countries that are not taking asylum seekers. We should ensure that those people can be sent back if their asylum application is rejected, but if they are accepted in the European Union it is important for States to play their part. Those that refuse to do so must have sanctions applied against them.

      We need to be realistic in the way we deal with this issue. We are here to protect human rights. We also need to create alternatives for people fleeing their countries. Quotas are one system. We were talking about fair treatment and equality. These people make a clear choice to flee their homeland because they have no prospects or opportunities there. We need to look at what sort of trade agreements can be made with other countries and try to invest resources to provide humanitarian aid. 130 million people desperately require protection. 25 billion dollars must be spent, but we have managed to invest only half that. That is a scandal, and we must look at what can be done to improve the situation.

      Mr KÖCK (Austria)* – We are addressing the most important subject to face Europe in recent years and I thank the rapporteurs for their excellent reports. We need to consider what measures are appropriate.

Austria was heavily involved in developments in the Balkan area. We were criticised for that here and elsewhere, but things nevertheless improved. People are not dying in such large numbers. We have to look at what is happening in the Mediterranean post the Balkan route measures. People are rescued at sea and brought to Europe. The more that happens, the more people will drown in the Mediterranean. We must really think about what we are doing. The Balkans is a good example of how best to address these issues. Clearly, we have to do something so that smugglers do not lure people out of African countries in such huge numbers to drown in the Mediterranean.

      You might think this is an overstatement, but smugglers often organise the breakdown of the boat that they take people on and then find that European rescue services provide a taxi service to the European coast for the people on board. We must take a step further to see how things actually operate. Of course we are for human rights – any death is a death too many – but even well-intentioned assistance can be the wrong kind of assistance. We have to improve the situation and work together to ensure that southern Mediterranean countries can control their coastlines better. We have to give the Africans reasons for our attitude and improve their economies and reduce the number of people who die at sea. It is all very well to say what is going wrong and what might go right, but the measures that we have taken for the past few years continue not to work. If nothing changes, people will continue to die.

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – There are three elements to these excellent reports – the humanitarian side, the political side and the call for a comprehensive response – but in my judgment, one element is not given sufficient emphasis: pressure from the increase in population. I shall come back to these figures, but according to the United Nations population statistics that were published last week, the population of Africa will double by 2050 to 2.5 billion. Nigeria, for example, had 38 million people in 1950. Today, there are 191 million people in Nigeria, and according to United Nations projections, forgetting the effects of climate change, there will be 411 million by 2050. That would make it the third most populous country in the world.

      On the humanitarian side, there should surely be no dissent from the position that it would be wholly immoral to pass by on the other side. More than 2 000 individuals – people with dignity – have drowned in the Mediterranean. Equally, we must look at integrating those who are here, and we must of course find legal means of immigration and treat everyone decently. But the political journey of Chancellor Merkel demonstrates some of the problems. She made the wonderful moral gesture of inviting in 1 million people. That has now altered to an emphasis on border controls and integration. The European Union published a report last week about stabilising Libya, but also about providing a major investment fund to stem the flow of people who, understandably, want a better life.

      To return to the figures showing the scale of the pressure – 38 million Nigerians in 1950, 411 million by 2050 – are we seriously saying that we in Europe should be ready to welcome everyone who wants to come here? Clearly, there are questions of women’s rights, family spacing and so on, but where are the extra Nigerians, for example, to be fed, housed and schooled? Many of them will inevitably look to Europe. This challenge on Europe’s horizon will test our human rights credentials to the very limits.

      Mr STROE (Romania) – I congratulate both the rapporteurs on their comprehensive work on these reports. People should have the right to live their lives in their home country and in the region in which they were born and grew up and where they have their cultural and social roots. At the same time, it is the right of any human being, as guaranteed by international laws and agreements, to flee their home country and seek shelter elsewhere if their life is in danger. Human mobility is unprecedentedly high, with 244 million international migrants. Unfortunately, the number of refugees is also on the rise, reaching levels that have not been seen since the Second World War. The data currently available reveal that the number of refugees has increased by more than 50% in the past five years, with 6.7 million refugees in long-lasting displacement situations.

      I fully acknowledge the need for a common commitment in managing migration challenges at European level. Although my country is not directly affected by migration flows, it has decided, in a spirit of solidarity, to participate in all the measures that are currently being implemented by the European Union. However, solidarity is not a one-way street: every country must take its fair share of responsibility. I therefore welcome the initiative to launch a parliamentary diaspora network that, as part of the solution of the ongoing crisis, will help to transform diaspora communities by providing newcomers with a network of support for faster integration.

      We are all aware that the humanitarian aid system is extremely overstretched and that its financial resources will never be sufficient to respond to forced displacement crises. The rights and dignity of millions of fellow human beings will be further diminished if they are left to languish in refugee camps or on the margins of cities, without access to basic facilities and income opportunities. If we are to avoid duplication of effort on all migration-related policies and processes, maximise the impact and effectiveness of global aid and ensure that the main focus is on development, all of us should at the same time maintain a strong dialogue with local and international NGOs, civil society organisations and local authorities in partner countries, as well as with the United Nations, on the elaboration, implementation and evaluation of migration, displacement and refugee policies.

      Lord BLENCATHRA (United Kingdom) – I thank the rapporteurs for all their work on these reports, but I find the report on a comprehensive response to migration in Europe fundamentally flawed because it says nothing about the tens of millions of people who will flood in from Africa in the next few years. It says that we can expect more migration to Europe because of climate change, but where is the evidence for that? There is no such evidence in this report, and saying so is mere speculation. Can anyone point to countries that will suffer climate change to such an extent that people will decide to come to Europe to escape the climate change that Europe will also suffer? It is a fantasy.

      What is the essence of this comprehensive solution in the report? It seems to be nothing more than repeated calls for solidarity and the compulsory sharing of refugees around Europe. Of course there are genuine refugees and asylum seekers coming to Europe from Iraq and Syria, and they should be dealt with according to the rules of the Dublin Convention. However, the threat Europe faces is that at least 10 million or 20 million people – perhaps up to 50 million people – from Africa will seek to migrate to Europe in the next 10 to 15 years. They will not be refugees or asylum seekers fleeing war, persecution or starvation, but upwardly aspiring people with iPads and iPhones who think they will have a better quality of life in Europe as opposed to staying in their own country. Their attitudes and culture would fundamentally change the Judaeo-Christian liberal enlightenment and the whole European renaissance that has shaped the European way of life for the past 500 years.

      I suggest that a proper comprehensive solution would be to direct much more overseas aid from European countries to African countries to give potential migrants the hope that they can be as well off if they stay in Africa as they would be if they came to Europe, and to give them the hope that they can create their own businesses and become as middle class in Africa as they could in Europe. That is now the United Kingdom’s policy, and France and Germany are looking at it as well. I believe that that is the solution to dealing with the tens of millions of people who may wish to come to Europe. I regret that the report did not cover that aspect of the issue.

      Ms OHLSSON (Sweden) – We are discussing two good and relevant reports on migration. The challenge will be to deal with what happens after we have voted tonight and, I hope, adopted the reports. Are the Council of Europe States going to follow up on them? This is too important an issue to be only about good words, documents and reports; it must also be about concrete action and making those texts a reality.

      More than 65 million people have now been forced to flee war, persecution and violence. That number is even higher if we include people fleeing the effects of climate change and poverty. We must ask ourselves what each of us can do as politicians, because when we stand together, we are at the same time standing up for respect, human rights and the rights of asylum seekers. As the reports say, we must do many different things at the same time. We must ensure that refugees and asylum seekers have access to legal protection and assistance, and that they have a right of appeal. Every member State must work together in solidarity by sharing responsibility, following international treaties and co-operating. It is necessary to respect the rights and dignity of all refugees and asylum seekers, particularly those of vulnerable groups such as children and women refugees, and those of unaccompanied children.

      At the same time, we must deal with the actual situation of refugees and asylum seekers on the ground, and co-operate to ensure that their journeys are legal and safe. That may involve resettling a quota of refugees, allowing family reunification and enhancing the fight against smugglers and traffickers, because every day we see women, men, boys and girls drown when crossing the Mediterranean in unsafe boats. We must work on prevention – peacekeeping to stop wars and conflicts, and efforts to combat men’s violence against women and children, as well as crimes of honour – as these are other reasons why people are fleeing their homes. It is also important to combat climate change, because many people are now leaving their region because of it, and that trend is likely to increase.

      We can do much more together by co-operating in the Council of Europe and by following up on our decisions. We must also co-operate with United Nations organisations, such as the UNHCR, the International Organization for Migration, UN Women and UNICEF. We can do even more together.

      Mr ALBAKKAR (Jordan, Partner for Democracy) – I thank the rapporteurs for their reports. We say that the Council of Europe is a house of democracy, but I represent a country that is now considered a house of refugees. Jordan, which is a small country, today hosts more than 2.5 million refugees out of nine million inhabitants. The situation in the Middle East is becoming very complicated and the political solutions for the Syrian crisis, the Palestinian issues and the situation in Iraq and other countries are now becoming increasingly complex. The future of our region has started to become more vague than before.

      As Jordanians, we look for more efforts from the international community to help those countries that are hosting refugees. Jordan now ranks second in the world for receiving refugees. It faces a lot of challenges and suffers from a lot of difficulties related to the economy, especially now that we have begun to introduce quality services for refugees, especially in health, education, food and security.

      In Jordan, the Zaatari refugee camp is now considered the fourth biggest city in Jordan in terms of population. In Jordan, we suffer from a budget deficit, which has now reached 20% of the total budget; public debt is now at 96% of GDP; and unemployment is now at its highest level, due to competition with refugees for jobs. Despite all these challenges, Jordan is trying to maintain the process of reform as best we can, because, as you know, Jordan is fighting against terrorism; indeed, it leads the war against terrorism.

      We look for help from the international community, especially Europe, to keep Jordan stable and secure, and so that we can introduce more services for the refugees in our country.

       The PRESIDENT – I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers list who have been present during the debate but who have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office for publication in the Official Report. I remind colleagues that texts are to be submitted, electronically if possible, no later than four hours after the list of speakers is interrupted.

      Does Mr Kaminis wish to speak for a couple of minutes? The floor is yours.

      Mr KAMINIS* – Thank you, Madam President, for giving me this second opportunity to address the Parliamentary Assembly. I had not been here in the Assembly for a number of years, but I must say that, despite the fact that many years have elapsed since I was last here, the quality of your debate is as high as before. The message that I have heard from you today is that here there is a different discourse, a different line of speech and thought, than in national parliaments, in that you stress the protection of human rights, and one does not hear that in the European Parliament either.

      In so far as managing the migration and refugee crisis is concerned, cities are most directly involved. It is mayors, working with their fellow citizens, who have to find solutions. A mayor cannot hide behind a pillar and pretend that there is no problem. Unlike a national parliamentarian, he cannot say, “Oh, we’ll draft a law and solve the problem through legislation.” No, the hands-on, nitty-gritty work is done by mayors.

      If you are in some small town and there is a large number of migrants and refugees, then you are confronted with the most dangerous enemy when it comes to dealing with them, which is ignorance. Ignorance is at the very heart and foundation of racist, xenophobic and anti-immigrant speech. Let me give you an example. We have 300 apartments rented by the municipality in which we house refugees. We went to the districts concerned, we explained our policies and they were received positively by the residents, so there was not a problem.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Varvitsiotis to reply to the debate. You have five minutes.

      Mr VARVITSIOTIS (Greece) – I thank all colleagues who took the floor and engaged in this discussion.

      I will comment on one or two things. First, I have been criticised for being soft on Greece. I make it clear to everybody that I am in the opposition in Greece. I am not praising the government; I actually criticise the government in-house and outside. However, I am an optimistic person and I want to see the glass as half-full, not half-empty, meaning that if the situation has become better since 2015, the wording the Council of Europe adopts should also be better, and it should acknowledge the steps that have been taken and the progress that has been made.

      Some of the amendments proposed by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights are the same as amendments proposed in 2015 and 2016. Then, such amendments represented the situation in Greece; now, they do not. In the committee, I have done the same thing for both Greece and Italy. I saw in an amendment that there is “torture” being directed at migrants, in order for them to be fingerprinted in the hotspots of Italy. I said, “I’m not accepting this wording. Torture hasn’t been reported to me. We made a fact-finding mission in Italy and all the allegations of torture were proved false, and I don’t want to quote such allegations.” That was accepted by the committee.

      Therefore, I ask everyone to be honest and to understand that we are doing what we can, and we have to make things better. We have to give examples from countries such as Jordan. What is the situation in Jordan? Is there not a human struggle in Jordan, in order for these people to survive? The Jordanian population are doing their best to deal with the situation, with minimal help.

      Is 2017 the same as 2015, when thousands of people were living in fields in northern Greece, trapped in camps in the mud, with no shelter, heat or food? Is that the situation now, or is it better? Should we acknowledge the countries that have dealt with the issue and at least say, “You are moving in the right direction.”? That is what I ask the Assembly to do for Italy, Turkey and Greece, who have to deal with this situation. If we keep repeating ourselves, nobody will listen to us when we make recommendations about the policies that should be adopted. We should be taking a step forward by introducing new ideas, as my friend Mr Marques has done in his report, and as we have done in the discussions we have had today and previously. We should not throw stones at the countries that make the effort.

      I believe that Italy will face a challenge this year, and it will probably face a greater challenge next year. If we are not ready to take measures to support Italy and to build capacity in Libya, very soon we will see the events of 2015 repeated in the middle of the Mediterranean – not in the eastern part – and there will be a horrifying number of deaths.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Marques to respond to the debate. You have five minutes.

      Mr MARQUES (Portugal) – My work on this report over recent months was one of the most important tasks in my political life. It was a great honour to work with Penelope Denu, and she should be pleased with the report, too. I learned a lot from listening to many people around me.

      I understand two things: first, we have a big problem to solve, but everyone is trying to throw rocks at the institutions; secondly, others are trying to make this a problem of ideology. I listened to many people here, and most of them agreed with us. A few – only one or two – think we should be building walls. Others – again, just one or two – think that we should open the doors and let everybody in without any control and that if people risk their lives to cross the sea, it is our duty to let them in. We need to be realistic. As many people said, a comprehensive approach should be a careful approach. We should try to understand people and their needs and necessities, but we must also try to understand the reality. If we need to build hotspots outside Europe to prevent people from getting caught up in smugglers’ networks or dying at sea, that is the best thing to do. If we have to open humanitarian corridors to help people to escape from war and to avoid people dying at sea, that is what we must do.

      My country is relocating 1 300 people, but when people come, they leave two days later. If we want to integrate people into our countries – into my country or many others – and to host and help them, we need to put in place some rules and ask them, at least for a while, to stay here. States need to organise themselves and the logistics. They need to provide support and work on integration. We need to deal with all that.

      We need to be pragmatic. Forget ideology: here the only ideology we need is solidarity and realism. If we base these debates on passion, we will not help these people. We also need to look for the problems on the other side. Europe is spending money on aid and development all over the world, but we are not doing that in countries such as Jordan or Lebanon, which are hosting people who have escaped from war. That is why a comprehensive solution must be a realistic solution. The report was not written to please either those who want to put up doors or dig holes, or the others who think we should open everything up.

      The crisis is also a result of European success. Somebody said something along the lines of, “People want to come to Europe, because Europe offers the new American dream.” We need to be happy about that. Historically, when some of us went to Africa to take its wealth and people, we thought that that was okay. Should we now block people from coming here? Of course not. If we have success, we should be the first to help those people. They will definitely want to go back if conditions improve back home. That is why we should provide aid not only here, to encourage integration and to ensure decent conditions, but to help other countries, to stop the wars, to build new facilities and infrastructure and to improve conditions, so that their citizens can return. That would show leadership from Europe and set an example.

      If, together, we can forget ideology, we can solve the problems. We have money, rules and political will, so why is it not working? Because we are fighting from both sides instead of working in the centre. The Council of Europe and this Assembly have shown us that the vast majority of the political will is in the centre, not at the extremes, so I think we can find a solution. We should listen to people like the Mayor of Athens, who is doing the job on the ground but not receiving money for it, because that just does not make sense.

      The PRESIDENT – The debate is closed.

2. Next public sitting

      The PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3.30 p.m., with the agenda that was approved on Monday. Dear colleagues, do not forget to have some lunch. Bon appétit!

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 1.05 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Joint debate: A comprehensive humanitarian and political response to the migration and refugee crisis in Europe and Human rights implications of the European response to transit migration across the Mediterranean

Statement by Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe

Statement by Mr Georgios Kaminis, Mayor of Athens

Presentation by Mr Marques of report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, Document 14342

Presentation by Ms Kavvadia of opinion of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, Document 14351

Presentation by Mr Varvitsiotis of report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, Document 14341

Presentation by Ms Strik of opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 14359

Speakers: Ms Kyriakides (Cyprus), Mr Fridez (Switzerland), Ms Yaşar (Turkey), Mr Daems (Belgium), Ms Christodoulopoulou (Greece), Ms Fiala (Switzerland), Ms de Santa Ana (Spain), Mr Hajduković (Croatia), Ms Hopkins (Ireland), Ms Santerini (Italy), Mr O’Reilly (Ireland), Ms Blondin (France), Mr Kronbichler (Italy), Ms Johnsen (Norway), Mr Schennach (Austria), Mr Overbeek (Netherlands), Mr Melkumyan (Armenia), Ms Anttila (Finland), Ms Christoffersen (Norway), Ms Duranton (France), Mr Miroğlu (Turkey), Ms Dumery (Belgium), Mr Sabella (Palestine), Ms Pashayeva (Azerbaijan), Mr Schwabe (Germany), Mr Köck (Austria), Lord Anderson (United Kingdom), Mr Stroe (Romania), Lord Blencathra (United Kingdom), Ms Ohlsson (Sweden) and Mr Albakkar (Jordan)

Replies: Mr Kaminis (Mayor of Athens), Mr Varvitsiotis (Greece) and Mr Marques (Portugal)

2. Next public sitting

Appendix / Annexe

Representatives or Substitutes who signed the register of attendance in accordance with Rule 12.2 of the Rules of Procedure.The names of members substituted follow (in brackets) the names of participating members.

Liste des représentants ou suppléants ayant signé le registre de présence, conformément à l’article 12.2 du Règlement.Le nom des personnes remplacées suit celui des Membres remplaçant, entre parenthèses.

ÅBERG, Boriana [Ms]

AMORUSO, Francesco Maria [Mr] (SANTANGELO, Vincenzo [Mr])

ANDERSON, Donald [Lord]

ANTTILA, Sirkka-Liisa [Ms]

ARENT, Iwona [Ms]

ARIEV, Volodymyr [Mr]

ÁRNASON, Vilhjálmur [Mr]

ARNAUT, Damir [Mr]

AST, Marek [Mr] (TARCZYŃSKI, Dominik [Mr])

BADEA, Viorel Riceard [M.] (BRĂILOIU, Tit-Liviu [Mr])

BAK, Osman Aşkın [Mr] (TORUN, Cemalettin Kani [Mr])

BALÁŽ, Radovan [Mr] (PAŠKA, Jaroslav [M.])

BALIĆ, Marijana [Ms]

BAYKAL, Deniz [Mr]

BERNACKI, Włodzimierz [Mr]

BĒRZINŠ, Andris [M.]

BİLGEHAN, Gülsün [Mme]

BLENCATHRA, David [Lord] (GILLAN, Cheryl [Ms])

BLONDIN, Maryvonne [Mme]

BOGDANOV, Krasimir [Mr]

BRASSEUR, Anne [Mme]

BRUIJN-WEZEMAN, Reina de [Ms] (MULDER, Anne [Mr])

BRUYN, Piet De [Mr]

BÜCHEL, Roland Rino [Mr] (MÜLLER, Thomas [Mr])

BUSTINDUY, Pablo [Mr] (BALLESTER, Ángela [Ms])

BUTKEVIČIUS, Algirdas [Mr]

CENTEMERO, Elena [Ms]

CEPEDA, José [Mr]

CERİTOĞLU KURT, Lütfiye İlksen [Ms] (DİŞLİ, Şaban [Mr])

CHITI, Vannino [Mr]

CHRISTODOULOPOULOU, Anastasia [Ms]

CHRISTOFFERSEN, Lise [Ms]

CILEVIČS, Boriss [Mr] (LĪBIŅA-EGNERE, Inese [Ms])

CIMBRO, Eleonora [Ms] (BERTUZZI, Maria Teresa [Ms])

CORSINI, Paolo [Mr]

COZMANCIUC, Corneliu Mugurel [Mr] (CIOLACU, Ion-Marcel [Mr])

CROZON, Pascale [Mme] (KARAMANLI, Marietta [Mme])

CRUCHTEN, Yves [M.]

CSENGER-ZALÁN, Zsolt [Mr]

DAEMS, Hendrik [Mr] (BLANCHART, Philippe [M.])

DAMYANOVA, Milena [Mme]

DIVINA, Sergio [Mr]

DOKLE, Namik [M.]

DUMERY, Daphné [Ms]

DURANTON, Nicole [Mme]

DZHEMILIEV, Mustafa [Mr]

EBERLE-STRUB, Susanne [Ms]

ENGBLOM, Annicka [Ms] (BILLSTRÖM, Tobias [Mr])

FAZZONE, Claudio [Mr] (BERNINI, Anna Maria [Ms])

FIALA, Doris [Mme]

FILIPE, António [Mr] (ROSETA, Helena [Mme])

FRIDEZ, Pierre-Alain [M.]

GAFAROVA, Sahiba [Ms]

GAMBARO, Adele [Ms]

GATTI, Marco [M.]

GENTVILAS, Simonas [Mr] (ŠAKALIENĖ, Dovilė [Ms])

GERASHCHENKO, Iryna [Mme]

GHILETCHI, Valeriu [Mr]

GIRO, Francesco Maria [Mr]

GJORCHEV, Vladimir [Mr] (ZZ...)

GOGA, Pavol [M.] (MAROSZ, Ján [Mr])

GOGUADZE, Nino [Ms] (KVATCHANTIRADZE, Zviad [Mr])

GOLUB, Vladyslav [Mr] (BEREZA, Boryslav [Mr])

GONÇALVES, Carlos Alberto [M.]

GONCHARENKO, Oleksii [Mr]

GOY-CHAVENT, Sylvie [Mme]

GÜNAY, Emine Nur [Ms]

GUNNARSDÓTTIR, Bjarkey [Ms] (JAKOBSDÓTTIR, Katrín [Ms])

GUNNARSSON, Jonas [Mr]

HAGEBAKKEN, Tore [Mr] (VALEN, Snorre Serigstad [Mr])

HAJDUKOVIĆ, Domagoj [Mr]

HAJIYEV, Sabir [Mr]

HALICKI, Andrzej [Mr]

HAMID, Hamid [Mr]

HANŽEK, Matjaž [Mr] (ŠKOBERNE, Jan [Mr])

HEER, Alfred [Mr]

HETTO-GAASCH, Françoise [Mme]

HOFFMANN, Rózsa [Mme] (VEJKEY, Imre [Mr])

HOPKINS, Maura [Ms]

HRISTOV, Plamen [Mr]

HUOVINEN, Susanna [Ms] (GUZENINA, Maria [Ms])

HUSEYNOV, Rafael [Mr]

IONOVA, Mariia [Ms] (LABAZIUK, Serhiy [Mr])

JENIŠTA, Luděk [Mr]

JENSEN, Mogens [Mr]

JOHNSEN, Kristin Ørmen [Ms] (JENSSEN, Frank J. [Mr])

KALMARI, Anne [Ms]

KANDELAKI, Giorgi [Mr] (BAKRADZE, David [Mr])

KANDEMİR, Erkan [Mr]

KARLSSON, Niklas [Mr]

KATSARAVA, Sofio [Ms]

KAVVADIA, Ioanneta [Ms]

KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR, Filiz [Ms]

KESİCİ, İlhan [Mr]

KIRAL, Serhii [Mr] (SOTNYK, Olena [Ms])

KLEINBERGA, Nellija [Ms] (LAIZĀNE, Inese [Ms])

KOÇ, Haluk [M.]

KÖCK, Eduard [Mr] (AMON, Werner [Mr])

KOX, Tiny [Mr]

KRESÁK, Peter [Mr]

KRIŠTO, Borjana [Ms]

KRONBICHLER, Florian [Mr]

KÜRKÇÜ, Ertuğrul [Mr]

KYRIAKIDES, Stella [Ms]

LE BORGN’, Pierre-Yves [M.]

LE DÉAUT, Jean-Yves [M.]

LEITE RAMOS, Luís [M.]

LESKAJ, Valentina [Ms]

LEŚNIAK, Józef [M.] (MILEWSKI, Daniel [Mr])

LOGVYNSKYI, Georgii [Mr]

LOMBARDI, Filippo [M.]

MADEJ, Róbert [Mr]

MAGAZINOVIĆ, Saša [Mr] (BOSIĆ, Mladen [Mr])

MANNINGER, Jenő [Mr] (NÉMETH, Zsolt [Mr])

MARQUES, Duarte [Mr]

MAURY PASQUIER, Liliane [Mme]

MEALE, Alan [Sir]

MELKUMYAN, Mikayel [M.] (ZOHRABYAN, Naira [Mme])

MENDES, Ana Catarina [Mme]

MIGNON, Jean-Claude [M.]

MIKKO, Marianne [Ms]

MİROĞLU, Orhan [Mr]

MULARCZYK, Arkadiusz [Mr]

MUNYAMA, Killion [Mr] (TRUSKOLASKI, Krzysztof [Mr])

NĚMCOVÁ, Miroslava [Ms] (BENEŠIK, Ondřej [Mr])

NENUTIL, Miroslav [Mr]

NICOLETTI, Michele [Mr]

NISSINEN, Johan [Mr]

NOVIKOV, Andrei [Mr]

OBREMSKI, Jarosław [Mr] (BUDNER, Margareta [Ms])

OHLSSON, Carina [Ms]

ÖNAL, Suat [Mr]

OOMEN-RUIJTEN, Ria [Ms]

O’REILLY, Joseph [Mr]

OVERBEEK, Henk [Mr] (MAEIJER, Vicky [Ms])

PACKALÉN, Tom [Mr]

PALLARÉS, Judith [Ms]

PASHAYEVA, Ganira [Ms]

PECKOVÁ, Gabriela [Ms] (KOSTŘICA, Rom [Mr])

POLIAČIK, Martin [Mr] (KAŠČÁKOVÁ, Renáta [Ms])

POMASKA, Agnieszka [Ms]

POSTOICO, Maria [Mme] (VORONIN, Vladimir [M.])

PREDA, Cezar Florin [M.]

PSYCHOGIOS, Georgios [Mr] (ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, Athanasia [Ms])

PUTICA, Sanja [Ms]

RIBERAYGUA, Patrícia [Mme] (JORDANA, Carles [M.])

ROCA, Jordi [Mr] (BARREIRO, José Manuel [Mr])

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Soraya [Mme]

ROUQUET, René [M.]

RUSTAMYAN, Armen [M.]

ŞAHİN USTA, Leyla [Ms]

SANDBÆK, Ulla [Ms] (BORK, Tilde [Ms])

SANTA ANA, María Concepción de [Ms]

SANTERINI, Milena [Mme]

SCHENNACH, Stefan [Mr]

SCHOU, Ingjerd [Ms]

SCHRIJVER, Nico [Mr] (STIENEN, Petra [Ms])

SCHWABE, Frank [Mr]

ŠEPIĆ, Senad [Mr]

ŠIRCELJ, Andrej [Mr]

SOBOLEV, Serhiy [Mr]

STRIK, Tineke [Ms]

STROE, Ionuț-Marian [Mr]

THIÉRY, Damien [M.]

TILKI, Attila [Mr] (GULYÁS, Gergely [Mr])

TOPCU, Zühal [Ms]

TZAVARAS, Konstantinos [M.]

UNHURIAN, Pavlo [Mr] (YEMETS, Leonid [Mr])

VÁHALOVÁ, Dana [Ms]

VAREIKIS, Egidijus [Mr]

VARVITSIOTIS, Miltiadis [Mr] (BAKOYANNIS, Theodora [Ms])

VEN, Mart van de [Mr]

VERCAMER, Stefaan [M.]

VIROLAINEN, Anne-Mari [Ms]

VITANOV, Petar [Mr] (JABLIANOV, Valeri [Mr])

VOVK, Viktor [Mr] (LIASHKO, Oleh [Mr])

WENAWESER, Christoph [Mr]

WILK, Jacek [Mr]

WOLD, Morten [Mr]

XUCLÀ, Jordi [Mr] (BILDARRATZ, Jokin [Mr])

YAŞAR, Serap [Mme]

ZAMPA, Sandra [Ms] (QUARTAPELLE PROCOPIO, Lia [Ms])

ZINGERIS, Emanuelis [Mr]

ZOTEA, Alina [Ms] (GHIMPU, Mihai [Mr])

Also signed the register / Ont également signé le registre

Representatives or Substitutes not authorised to vote / Représentants ou suppléants non autorisés à voter

BILOVOL, Oleksandr [Mr]

BONET, Sílvia Eloïsa [Ms]

EROTOKRITOU, Christiana [Ms]

GHIMPU, Mihai [Mr]

GRIN, Jean-Pierre [M.]

HAMOUSOVÁ, Zdeňka [Ms]

JORDANA, Carles [M.]

LOPUSHANSKYI, Andrii [Mr]

LUNDGREN, Kerstin [Ms]

SUTTER, Petra De [Ms]

WILSON, David [Lord]

ZOHRABYAN, Naira [Mme]

Observers / Observateurs

ALLISON, Dean [Mr]

LARIOS CÓRDOVA, Héctor [Mr]

MALTAIS, Ghislain [M.]

OLIVER, John [Mr]

SANTANA GARCÍA, José de Jesús [Mr]

SIMMS, Scott [Mr]

Partners for democracy / Partenaires pour la démocratie

ABU DALBOUH, Reem [Ms]

ALBAKKAR, Khaled [Mr]

AMRAOUI, Allal [M.]

BOUANOU, Abdellah [M.]

EL MOKRIE EL IDRISSI, Abouzaid [M.]

HAMIDINE, Abdelali [M.]

LABLAK, Aicha [Mme]

MOUBDI, Mohamed [M.]

SABELLA, Bernard [Mr]

Representatives of the Turkish Cypriot Community (In accordance to Resolution 1376 (2004) of

the Parliamentary Assembly)/ Représentants de la communauté chypriote turque

(Conformément à la Résolution 1376 (2004) de l’Assemblée parlementaire)

Mehmet ÇAĞLAR

Erdal ÖZCENK