AA17CR24

AS (2017) CR 24

2017 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-fourth sitting

Wednesday 28 June 2017 at 3.30 p.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 Jordana, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.40 p.m.)

      The PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

      I remind members that the votes on the two draft resolutions and the draft recommendation from this morning’s joint debate will take place later this afternoon.

1. Migration as an opportunity for European development

Integration of refugees in times of critical pressure: learning from the recent experience and examples of best practice

(joint debate)

      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 Nils Muižnieks, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, and Mr Morgan Johansson, the Swedish Minister of Justice and Migration.

      The first report is entitled “Migration as an opportunity for European development”, Document 14335, presented by Mr Andrea Rigoni, with an opinion presented by Ms Petra De Sutter on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, Doc. 14347.

      I remind the Assembly that, at Monday morning’s sitting, it was agreed that speaking time in all debates today will be limited to three minutes. I will interrupt the list of speakers at around 6 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.

      This morning, we had an interesting and fruitful discussion on the overall humanitarian and political response to the migration and refugee crisis in Europe, and on the human rights implications of the European response to transit migration across the Mediterranean. During our debate, many parliamentarians recognised that this crisis is a political issue of migration management policy, as well as an issue of a lack of resources and capacity. The need to address the root causes of the phenomenon was also raised. Here we are, inter alia, talking about promoting peaceful solutions in countries in situations of armed conflict.

      This afternoon we will address two different aspects of the broader picture: that of migration as an opportunity for European development, and the issue of integration. In order to enrich our debate, we are privileged to welcome two guest speakers, the first of whom is Mr Nils Muižnieks, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights who, since his election in 2012, has been an outspoken advocate of a human rights-based approach to migration, and who has on numerous occasions called on Council of Europe member States to get migrant integration right. In that context, he has underlined that migrants are not a threat and that European countries should face up to the challenge of successful integration and see it as a long-term investment in a stable and secure future. We look forward to hearing his opinions and views on how we can concretely achieve that.

      We also have the honour of welcoming Mr Morgan Johansson, the Swedish Minister of Justice and Migration. Sweden is internationally recognised for its generous and humane migration and refugee policies. While many in Europe were turning their backs on those seeking asylum, and while frontline countries struggled in the face of flows of irregular migrants and asylum seekers, Sweden took a leading role, stretched out a hand to its fellow European countries and opened its doors to people in need of protection.

Prior to this post, Mr Johansson occupied other highly important positions in the Swedish political landscape, including those of Chairperson of the Parliamentary Committee on Justice from 2010 to 2014 and Minister for Public Health and Social Services from 2002 to 2006.

Dear Commissioner, I am sure that with your extensive experience, you will make a most valuable contribution to our debate. The floor is yours.

Mr MUIŽNIEKS (Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights) – Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, I thank the Assembly for the invitation to speak to you. I very much welcome the Assembly’s decision to dedicate a day of debates to migration, a topic that has occupied much of my time and energy in recent years. Despite measures intended to stop the influx of new arrivals to Europe, such as push-backs, fence building, large-scale detention and moves towards risky co-operation with third countries, refugees have arrived and will continue to arrive in Europe, and we need to deal with their situation in a manner that is consistent with human rights.

      In that context, I want to speak about a forgotten but hugely important issue: the fact that many people who have arrived in Europe remain separated from their husbands, wives and children. That is the outcome not just of their fleeing war or persecution, but of the policies of Council of Europe member States. In an issue paper I published last week, called “Realising the right to family reunification of refugees in Europe”, I showed that by preventing family reunification for persons granted protection, States are not only impeding the exercise of the right to family life but producing bad long-term integration policy outcomes. In another issue paper, on migrant integration, which I published last year, I noted important links between integration and family reunification. Many studies have shown that refugees often experience stress, anxiety or depression as a result of separation from their families, and you can no doubt imagine the state of mind of someone who has left their family members behind, with great uncertainty over when, or whether, they will finally be able to see them again. That is particularly the case when family members of refugees are left behind in war zones, situations of famine or dictatorial countries.

      Family reunification is often the No. 1 priority for refugees in Europe. The anxiety that comes out of that unfulfilled need can become a major obstacle to a refugee’s effective integration. Often, refugees cannot really focus on becoming full members of our societies until they have their families with them. For children, the situation is even more pressing. We know that a lost generation of Syrian children is growing up in refugee camps and settlements, deprived of educational opportunities. Helping them swiftly to join their families who are already in Europe will give them the chance to pick up their lives again. For them, every year, every month, counts.

      I would also like to connect the issue of family reunification to discussions the Assembly had this morning on managing arrivals. I am glad that the Assembly has called for more safe and legal routes for people in need of protection. Besides resettlement, ensuring effective and swift family reunification with refugees already in Europe is perhaps the most important safe and legal route. Too often, we see people making irregular life-threatening crossings to Europe because they have no other prospect of being reunited with their husbands, wives or children. Despite those reasons for promoting family reunification, many member States have introduced measures to prevent people granted asylum from being reunited with their families. Specific examples are numerous, and they are listed in my issue paper. They include long waiting times before people can apply for family reunification. Germany and Sweden, for example, have temporarily suspended the right of persons with subsidiary protection to apply for family reunification. Other countries have introduced mandatory waiting periods for that group of people. In Denmark and Austria, for example, subsidiary protection beneficiaries have to wait for three years before they can even start the attempt to bring their family members over.

      Arbitrary decisions are often drawn between the rights of refugees under the 1951 Convention and the rights of persons with other statuses, creating a situation that is quite difficult to square with the prohibition of discrimination. Refugees may face extremely short time limits for the submission of their applications after their status is confirmed. In various member States, if refugees fail to submit an application within three months, they are subjected to additional requirements, which are often impossible to meet. Other States impose age limits – for example, refugees may not be able to apply for family reunification until they are 21 years old. Refugees’ attempts to reunite with their families are often frustrated by the requirement to provide documentary evidence that people fleeing war or persecution find almost impossible to supply, because their governments do not want to co-operate with them. Many member States carry out intrusive age assessments, and they often forget about the special needs of children, for whom the Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that applications for family reunification need to be dealt with in a positive, humane and expeditious manner.

      The obstacles are many, and it is time to address them. Although problems persist in various member States, there is no longer a general migration crisis. Continuing to restrict the right to family reunification for large groups of people is short-sighted and contradicts member States’ stated aims. Member States aim for better social cohesion and integration, but they keep family members apart and prevent them from rebuilding their lives in their adopted countries. Member States call for orderly arrivals and better organisation of asylum and migration flows, but they deprive themselves of one of the main instruments for achieving that.

      I am encouraged by the Parliamentary Assembly’s insistence on the importance of family reunification, including in the reports discussed today. I particularly look forward to the upcoming work on family reunification in this Chamber. Beyond that, I appeal to national parliamentarians to consider that the legal and political case for more effective family reunification processes is clear, although there is enormous political resistance. We need to challenge and overcome the negative discourse that stigmatises the basic common-sense principle that families should be together, as well as the often hugely inflated predictions of how many extra people would come, which serve to turn people against the idea of family reunification. With your help, we can make the simple aspiration that families should be together a reality.

      Thank you for your attention, and I apologise for the fact that I will have to leave you soon; I have a plane to catch for my next mission.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Muižnieks, for your most interesting address. You will have the opportunity to respond at the end of the general debate. I would now like to welcome Mr Morgan Johansson, Minister for Justice and Migration of Sweden. Mr Johansson will make a statement now, and he will have the opportunity to respond at the end of the general debate.

      Mr Johansson, you have the floor.

      Mr JOHANSSON (Minister for Justice and Migration of Sweden) – Thank you, Mr President, for your warm welcome, and for giving me the opportunity to speak here. I am truly honoured to be here in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe is one of the most important institutions on our continent when it comes to upholding democracy, the rule of law and human rights, and it has carried out that task for almost seven decades. This Organisation’s importance in improving living conditions and human decency in our part of the world cannot be overstated. I realised that even more when I was a part of this Assembly; I served as a Swedish delegate for almost five years. This Organisation is the heart and soul of Europe, and we must take care of it and defend it.

      During my time here, I worked on the then Committee on Culture, Science and Education, mostly on issues concerning freedom of speech. That was very appropriate, because my background is in journalism. I am now here in another capacity, as the Swedish Minister for Justice and Migration, to talk about one of the biggest issues of our time: migration. In many ways, migration defines our world, and that is not a new thing. Migration has always been a part of human nature. We have always migrated, sometimes out of necessity and sometimes out of curiosity. We have done so out of necessity when poverty, war and unrest have forced people to new parts of the world. We have also done so out of free will and curiosity, just to explore, to search for new lands and to meet the very human need to find out what is behind the mountain range or across the ocean.

      The human race has always migrated, and we are now doing so more than ever. The UNHCR now estimates that there are more than 65 million refugees and internally displaced persons – the highest number since the Second World War. More people are fleeing war, conflict and oppression than have done so in almost 80 years. That is just the refugees. Another 250 million people – a quarter of a billion people – are migrating for economic reasons, to find better life opportunities in other parts of the world.

      Migration defines our history, our present and our future. If you think that there are a lot of refugees and migrants today, just you wait until the effects of climate change kick in for real. That has already started; it is no longer some kind of fantasy. It is happening faster than many expected. Not that long ago, scientists estimated that the Arctic would be ice-free in 30 years. Now they are saying that that will happen in 20 years. Since 1975, the thickness of the ice in the Arctic region has been reduced by 65%. Imagine this: in a couple of decades we may be able to go by boat, through open sea, right across the North Pole. To me, that is truly terrifying. If that is happening in the coldest parts of the world, what is happening in the warmest? Climate migration is not something that we risk in the future; it is already happening. The UNHCR estimates that since 2008, more than 20 million people each year have been forcibly displaced by weather-related sudden-onset hazards, such as floods, storms, wildfires and extreme temperatures.

      That is just the sudden disasters; the slow, ongoing changes also drive people away. In some areas, the annual floods that used to fertilise the land are now destroying it, because there is too much salt water. Acre after acre is being slowly swallowed by the sea. We see long periods of drought, such as the five-year pre-civil war drought in Syria that drove 1.5 million people from their homes before a single bullet had been fired. The deserts are spreading, and in an increasing number of areas the temperature often reaches 50° C – who can live there? Perhaps I am a bit sensitive about this because I am a northerner, so I am not used to high temperatures, but I am quite sure that there are limits even for people who come from the south. Millions and millions of people live in the most affected areas. My point is that these two main global challenges – migration and climate change – are deeply interconnected. Climate change causes migration, just as war, oppression and poverty do.

      The question is how we, as human beings and Europeans, face those challenges. As with all complex issues, there is not just one solution, but a long row of part-solutions that we have to implement. Some will work in the short term and others over the long term, but the challenges that we face are so big that we cannot afford to ignore any of them. We have to do our utmost to reduce the effects of climate change. We have to commit to the Paris Agreement; it is a matter of survival. Any political leader who puts themselves above the Paris Agreement is stealing part of our children’s future. But, as I said before, that is already happening, and it will keep on happening for decades to come, even if we now do everything right to reduce the effects of climate change.

      The same thing goes for the refugees fleeing war and oppression. Of course we must go to the root causes. The fact that the war in Syria has been going on for six years, turning millions of men, women and children into refugees, is an enormous failure by the international community. All parties must do their utmost to put an end to the war, but even if we succeed in that, and find a peaceful solution in Syria, there are still a number of other conflicts going on in the world, driving people from their homes, and we will still have a number of countries where people are oppressed in different ways, and where basic human rights are not respected.

      That also goes for Europe. Even here in the Council of Europe we have countries that people feel they have to leave, and then apply for asylum in other member States. They might be persecuted because of their political views, religious beliefs or sexual orientation. That is, of course, not acceptable. Europe must be a place where respect for human rights goes so deep that there will never be a need for anyone in any member State to apply for asylum in another State. That must be our goal. If you as parliamentarians are living in a State from which people are migrating to apply for asylum in other member States, I think you should ask yourselves what is wrong.

      Those points are about refugees, but in terms of economic migrants, we must, of course, do more to improve economic development in the countries where the migrants come from, for instance through international development aid. Almost every developed country could do much more to increase the funding for that. We can improve economic development through trade, too, of course, and we must realise that protectionism is not the way forward: less trade means less economic development in poor areas, means more migrants.

      We must do all these things to prevent refugee flows and uncontrolled migration, but, again, even if we do that, we must still realise that there will nevertheless be large-scale migration flows in the decades to come, and we have to have systems and organisations to handle that. The United Nations and its organisations are keeping millions of refugees alive every day. We must be ready to increase our support to UNHCR, UNICEF, the International Organisation for Migration and the World Food Programme, so that they can keep on doing that, and also expand. Europe can do much more on resettlement, where we fly out the most vulnerable refugees to safety in our member States.

      I spoke to the European Parliament last week, and suggested that the European Union should start a joint European resettlement programme for our member States. My country, Sweden, is already increasing resettlement up to 5 000 next year, more than doubling our programme in two years. Do you think 5 000 is a small number? Well, if every European Union member State had the same number of resettlements per capita as we have, that would mean 250 000 resettlements of the most vulnerable refugees each year. I am not asking for all to do as much as we do, but even if they just do half, it would still be a very large programme of 100 000, and it could have a real effect in reducing the number of people trying to reach Europe on the dangerous seaways.

      I am speaking about solidarity, but I am not speaking about uncontrolled or unregulated migration. On the contrary: I am a Swede, so I like rules and regulations, organisation, everything in the right place and in the right box. Therefore, we must also have control over our outer borders, and we must fight the ruthless smugglers who are exploiting refugees in any way we can think of before they put them in dangerously wrecked ships and push them out into the Mediterranean Sea. We must work with Libya, too, to stabilise the country. We must also be able to make returns, however, when an asylum seeker has had their application tried and turned down in a member State.

      Many of you will know that Sweden has taken a large degree of responsibility for the refugee crisis; that has been mentioned. Let me give you just one number: since the war in Syria broke out in 2011, Sweden has given protection to 146 000 Syrian men, women and children. I am proud of that; it is the largest humanitarian effort in the history of our nation. And they will do well in Sweden. We have a strong economy. We have not needed to borrow one single krona during the refugee crisis 2015-16; on the contrary, we have had a budget surplus. And the labour market is strong: the unemployment rate has fallen, we have 200 000 more jobs in two years, and over 100 000 available jobs, which is the highest number ever. So even if the number of refugees was, and is – I can say that – a challenge for us, we manage it.

      That does not mean that everybody can stay in Sweden. If someone’s asylum application is turned down, they must leave the country. Last year 20 000 former asylum seekers left Sweden, and when they go back, their home countries must accept their own citizens. That is the basic general rule, and it is extremely important. We have to have functioning systems of returns; that is a crucial part of regulated migration.

      Let me summarise. This is a huge task, and it will not go away. Migration will be a top global challenge for decades to come. We must face it with more solidarity, more co-operation and more commitment than we have had before. The two United Nations processes that started last year – the global compacts on migrants and refugees – provide us with good platforms to develop such policies, and we must give them our full support.

      Finally, we must never allow ourselves to fall back into the hate rhetoric of our evil past. Now and again, I hear European politicians, even some in high places, saying “We don’t want any refugees because we don’t like Muslims.” When we hear such talk, we must take a deep breath. If there is anything that we as Europeans should know, given our history, it is where you can end up if you are playing ethnic and religious groups against each other. We do not even have to go back to the horrors of the Second World War and the Holocaust to understand that; we need only look back to the wars in the Balkans in the 1990s to understand what can happen if you play groups against each other.

      Prejudice and racist beliefs can never be allowed to sink their claws into the human mind again. Europe should know better. We must build on what unites us, not what separates us.

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

      I call Mr Andrea Rigoni, 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 RIGONI (Italy)* – Before embarking on my statement, I want to thank the President of this Assembly, Mr Agramunt, as well as the Secretary General, Mr Sawicki, for having been willing to organise what I consider an important and decisive day on migration.

      As we have heard, migration takes a number of different forms, and there are various different facets that we need to look into. My report’s scope is to follow up on a previous report on participation of diasporas and migrants, looking at migration from a particular angle. We say in this report – we have heard it in previous statements as well – that migration is of course a challenge for European societies, but it can also present a golden opportunity for European societies to develop. Migration, therefore, is an opportunity for our societies.

      The number of migrants has risen considerably in recent years and provided a series of challenges and opportunities. Most European countries have shown solidarity and inclusiveness towards migrants – my country, for example, has shown a great deal of support for the European ideal. We have saved many lives and taken in a good number of refugees coming in from the Mediterranean. However, a distorted image of migrants has been circulated among the peoples of Europe. Some seek to portray migrants solely as a threat to local populations, exploiting and milking social security systems. Recent surveys show that a lot of people take a very negative view of these recent increases in the numbers of migrants coming into Europe. Instead of putting up walls, we should start to think about migrants in different terms – as an opportunity for Europe’s economic growth.

If migratory flows are well managed, they will constitute a huge advantage for European societies, which are particularly affected by an impending demographic winter. We have the lowest birth rates anywhere in the world. In some European countries, the birth rate has gone down to as low as 1.1 per woman. That is the case in Italy. Council of Europe countries have some of the most elderly populations in the world and we are seeing a great increase in the number of people over 65. That will constitute a problem for our labour forces, which is why we need to make room for migrants, particularly in the fields of science, engineering and mathematics.

      For all those reasons, we need to gauge the positive impact of migration on Europe’s cultural development. Different migrant cultures and traditions can contribute to cultural exchanges and serve as vectors of culture. We believe that the democratic participation of migrants in the social and political life of host countries is an important component of the process of integration. In the report’s conclusion, I say that we have properly managed migrant flows, which is a benefit not only for migrants and their families but for European societies as a whole.

It is also possible to have a hugely beneficial impact on the countries of origin of migrants by means of remittances. The political, economic and cultural development of countries of origin will be positively impacted; at the same time they also promote the building of inclusive societies in host countries. We need to devise policies to integrate migrants into host countries. With the support of the Portuguese rapporteur, whom I would like to thank, we have been able to set up a parliamentary network on diaspora policies. We believe that that is soon to become a reality. The launching of this network will take place in Lisbon later in the autumn. I thank the Deputy Secretary General, Ms Battaini-Dragoni, who has issued an invitation to this launch.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Rigoni. You have almost eight minutes remaining.

      I call Ms Petra De Sutter, rapporteur, for the opinion. You have three minutes.

      Ms De SUTTER (Belgium) – On behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, I welcome Mr Rigoni’s constructive report. Migration is an opportunity for European development at many levels – socially, culturally and economically. The negative voice about migrants tends to be very loud but in this report the positive voice is louder, which is a powerful incentive for action. As we suggest in our opinion, a strategic approach is required, and integration into the labour market can help to build that positive image.

      As a member of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, I believe we should stress that all migrants must get a fair chance to access the labour market. We should bring not only the most educated and highly skilled migrants to Europe, because unskilled and low-skilled people are at least as important for our society, culture and economy. If not, there is a risk that migrants take jobs in the informal economy and that countries of origin suffer from brain drain effects. This is not beneficial for the host countries or the countries of origin. Secondly, people often cannot get access to work during the asylum procedure, which excludes them and hampers their integration. In addition, people holding degrees often encounter problems.

      Moreover, giving all migrants opportunities to find work also means that we have to ensure their social rights to avoid social dumping. It is worrying that in Denmark, for instance, some groups of migrants are given reduced social benefits. ECRI, the Council of Europe’s anti-racism body, has criticised this because it is discriminatory. In its latest report, ECRI stresses that the actual amounts for social welfare benefits provided by the Danish Government are too low to facilitate integration. This is not the way to go.

      We are well aware that only some irregular migrants will be allowed to stay. Those who do not stay need to be treated humanely, with full respect for their fundamental rights. Families and children in particular are vulnerable in this respect, and they need protection. Children are often victims of trafficking and sexual exploitation, as are women refugees, so they are twice victims.

Full respect of human rights is key in any strategic migration policy. We need to ask State authorities across Europe to adapt their policies if they do not respect human rights, and to implement them better if they do.

Finally, I stress four issues in the report which will be reflected in our committee’s four amendments. First, this is a constructive report with a positive tone, and I again congratulate the rapporteur. Secondly, we need not only legal pathways to Europe but safe legal pathways. Thirdly, we should pay particular attention to the access and integration of unskilled and low-skilled migrants to the labour market. Fourthly, access to affordable and adequate health services should be granted to all migrants, regardless of their legal status. From a social angle, these four additions are crucial. I ask for support for the amendments, which were already voted on in the committee.

The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms De Sutter. I call Ms Huovinen, 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.

Ms HUOVINEN (Finland) – I feel privileged to act as rapporteur for this report on best practice for integration. Our entire continent has been and will be facing big challenges. The war in Syria and the unstable situation in Iraq and Afghanistan are driving people to seek security in Europe. In many African countries, high youth unemployment, fear of terrorism and lack of future prospects are driving people to move. We will also see more and more climate refugees, as Minister Johansson said.

The refugee crisis will continue as long as our neighbouring areas face poverty, oppression and instability. That is the reality, even if the populist and nationalist movements of Europe would argue to the contrary. We have a responsibility to help people in need and to act in a humane and fair way.

This report looks at the situation of many of our countries. Asylum applications have been processed rapidly. In the end, a large number of people will stay, some of them permanently. It is in the interests of all refugees and European societies that the people who stay are effectively integrated. Unfortunately, as the Commissioner for Human Rights states in his latest issue paper, “European governments have not even started to work on a co-ordinated European response to meet these new integration needs.” Yet evidence shows that poorly managed integration can lead to marginalisation from education and work. At worst, it can also lead to feelings of disconnection or radicalisation.

      Before going into the details of my report, I will clarify one thing that inspired discussion in our committee meeting. This report is about the integration of refugees, but in the draft resolution, I have often used the term ‘migrants’ to include all different kinds of migrants and refugees when talking about specific measures to address the current situation. I have done so to avoid the need to list refugees, asylum seekers, stateless persons and so on every time. In my opinion, there is no need to add the term ‘refugee’ when the term ‘migrant’ is used, as refugees are included in the definition of ‘migrant’.

      I will highlight four main findings of my report. First, integration is a long and complex process requiring commitment from decision makers, authorities, civil society and refugees alike. The success of integration is hampered if our societies tolerate hostility, suspicion and hate speech toward refugees. In this matter, our responsibility as decision makers is paramount. In the words of the Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘The adoption and success of integration policies is highly dependent on mainstream public support and continued political will.’

      Secondly, member States should ensure that there is an effective legal basis for integration and that co-ordination works. At the hearing in my country, as well as during my fact-finding visits, I noticed that a lack of co-ordination causes unnecessary problems for public authorities, non-governmental organisations and refugees. It is important to know who does what. When broad-based co-operation is carried out proactively, overlapping work and time-consuming handling of issues can be avoided. Failure to do so creates the risk of ignoring important steps to integration.

      As a positive example of co-ordination, I will mention the Portuguese model, in which the need to pass people from pillar to post ended with the establishment of one-stop shops. The model is also available to all Portuguese citizens. In one-stop shops, the offices of different authorities are under the same roof and many things can be initiated during one visit. Assistance, support and counselling are offered to address all the challenges that refugees face. Children are cared for while adults attend to matters. Interpretation is available in more than 60 languages. This mode of action saves authorities’ resources and speeds up the process.

      Thirdly, integration should start as early as possible. For example, mapping people’s skills, their basis for language training and their need for social and health services can be taken care of at the reception stage. With so many new arrivals, processing times for asylum applications have been delayed. Long, inactive waiting times are not in anyone’s interest. I understand that the systems of many countries were not designed to integrate such large numbers of refugees. That is why co-ordination and close co-operation with NGOs is emphasised. There are good examples from Berlin of how local authorities, along with other actors, organise events for young refugees in which they learn about educational opportunities. Companies are involved, presenting their work and offering internship opportunities as an introduction to working life. Every chance to work, train and experiment is important. At the same time, we must ensure that refugee skills and input are not exploited. In the worst case, a polarised labour market can lead to more division within our societies.

      My fourth and last point concerns children and young people. Over the past few years, an unforeseen number of unaccompanied minors have arrived in Europe. It is our responsibility to take care of them. Tightening the criteria for family reunification does not promote good integration. The family is every person’s safe haven; why would it not be the same for children coming to a foreign country and a foreign culture? In any case, those children and young people need our special attention. We must build structured, long-term measures and support networks for them all the way to adulthood. No child or young person should be left alone in Europe.

      Naturally, the report cannot include everything. When learning more about the subject, I felt that some issues merited their own report. However, I believe that the issues and concrete examples raised in my report will help different countries to plan measures. The questionnaire appended as an information note to the report received answers from 36 countries, and the many examples have generated great interest. If we want to succeed in this demanding task of ours, we must learn from each other. I thank the German and Portuguese delegations for organising excellent fact-finding visits and for the opportunity to explore the subject on a broad basis. I also thank the committee secretariat for its good co-operation, assistance and support, as well as all those who gave their time and expertise to benefit my report. Lastly, I thank my colleagues, Ms Centemero and Mr Le Borgn’, in their roles as rapporteurs for opinion, for their invaluable contribution to strengthening the draft resolution. I look forward to an interesting and fruitful discussion.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Huovinen. You have four minutes remaining.

      I call Mr Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’, rapporteur for opinion. You have three minutes.

      Mr LE BORGN’ (France)* – On behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, I welcome your report, Ms Huovinen. It is a remarkable, fair and balanced piece of work that reminds us of both our legal and our moral obligations. Integrating refugees is a challenge and a duty for the whole of Europe. Your report stresses the impressive efforts deployed by several countries in our Organisation – I am thinking particularly of Germany and Sweden – to integrate and welcome refugees despite a climate of anxiety, hostility and xenophobia kept on the boil by certain political circles and even, unfortunately, by some States.

      Success in integrating refugees rests on political will, shared responsibilities and clearly identified lines of action. This integration is economic, of course, but it must also be cultural and social, and it is here that I offer the clarity and perspective that our committee can supply. Homage must be paid to the major part played by several big cities. They are often refugees’ final destination, and their responsibility is enormous. Cologne, a city that I represent in parliament, has welcomed more than 14 000 refugees over the past two years, implementing integration policies that cover housing, education, training, health, learning German, the arts and sport.

Much rests on access to education. Some 5 300 child refugees have arrived in Cologne since 2015, and the decision was taken to put them into the local school system but start them off in a preparatory class to help them learn German. Cologne’s experience shows that most child refugees master German in just nine months and then continue with a normal school career. Learning the language is therefore the essential first link in the chain of integration, for both the young and adults. The Council of Europe and the Greek Ministry of Education are currently testing the European qualifications passport for refugees. That pilot project aims to create a multinational framework to draft and establish procedures to enable us to assess refugees’ level of education and training. Such a framework would be extremely valuable.

      Diasporas play a central part as vectors for integration. We must further mobilise organisations in diasporas, because they provide mutual support while maintaining a link with people’s country of origin. They offer services in refugees’ mother tongues and help them through the various bureaucratic hurdles.

      Finally, I want to say a word about the recent establishment of a so-called platform for the integration of migrants through sport, which is part of the Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport. That initiative has been very positive. On the basis of these considerations, our committee has adopted several amendments aimed at strengthening and completing our proposals. Those are developed in the draft resolution, and we will return to them when we consider the amendments after the general debate.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Le Borgn’. I call Ms Centemero, rapporteur for the opinion. You have three minutes.

      Ms CENTEMERO (Italy) – In the past five years, our Assembly has discussed many issues related to migration and refugees. We promote values such as tolerance, diversity and openness. We have a refugee crisis in Europe. In some countries, such as Italy and Greece, there is an emergency situation. Some 181 436 refugees and migrants arrived in Italy in 2016, and 8 380 have arrived since the start of 2017. We really are in an emergency situation, but we have the chance this afternoon to adopt a positive approach to migration. We can be an example of successful integration.

      On behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, I congratulate the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons and its rapporteur, Ms Huovinen. Its report provides a number of examples of how Council of Europe member States address the complex issues of integration and refugees. The draft resolution contains several important recommendations. The Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination proposed adding to those recommendations a reference to taking a gender-sensitive approach and providing female asylum officers and interpreters. Women are very important. They are at the heart of the integration process since, in most migrant families, they play a major role in the education of children. It is important to take effective measures to integrate migrant women. Promoting their access to education, training, employment, social and cultural rights, and health services would lead to greater social cohesion in host countries. The Assembly has repeatedly condemned practices such as female genital mutilation, which are acts of violence against women and children.

      Those are all elements that the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination has promoted in the past as important for the integration of women and of all refugees. Our amendments are drafted from the perspective of non-discrimination and women’s rights. I invite all members support this report.

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

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Centemero. I call Mr Schennach to speak first in the debate.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria, Spokesperson for the Socialist Group)* – I commend all the rapporteurs and thank them warmly for their reports and for introducing the debate. I also thank Mr Johansson for being so open and clear. It was a real comfort to hear your words, sir.

      We often talk about refugees coming to Europe. We are told that they are a burden, but the situation can be seen the other way around. In Germany and Austria, those refugees created a specific moment in our journey. We had to look at a lot of the Maastricht criteria and at measures for our cities and regions. We needed to make arrangements to find schools and accommodation for refugees, and to look at infrastructure, undertake renovation, and so on. Let us not forget that refugees provided a boost.

      Perhaps unlike the rapporteurs, I draw a clear distinction between migrants and refugees. By way of an example, most of the migrants in Austria are Germans, and the largest group of refugees is men and women from Syria. There is a huge difference between those two categories. We must also remember that we have always had migration in Europe. More than 80 million people have moved around. For example, 25 million had to leave Italy at one point, and the same is true of the former Yugoslavia. So many people have had to leave their home countries.

      We heard about the demographic winter in Europe. Germany alone needs an influx of 500 000 people per annum. We need to provide education and training – and yes, Ms Centemero, we must also provide training in respect of gender rights – and look at people’s skills and qualities. Let us look at those aspects, not just at the burden. We need to understand that Europe is all about sharing values, one of which is solidarity. We must ensure that those values are shared by all those who live in our European community. As I see it, an enormous opportunity lies ahead.

      We have talked about the culture of welcoming refugees, which has been portrayed in a negative light. That is a shame. What about all the positive aspects? Never before have so many people actively tried to help their fellow human beings – by finding accommodation for them, providing education and training, helping them with legal matters and helping them on their journey. This has been an absolutely fantastic spontaneous moment in our societies, and we should take pride in that.

      I reiterate that we must look at education and training here in Europe. We should also set ourselves the task of ensuring that an enlightened Islam is present in Europe. Finally, it was quite rightly said that we need to speak the truth. Tens of thousands of refugees are still waiting in Libya, many of whom will come here, and climate change will no doubt bring about another great influx of refugees to our shores.

      Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – I join others in congratulating Mr Rigoni on his excellent report, which correctly identifies migration as a huge potential benefit for European development. I would like briefly to connect three themes in that regard: the scope for economic progress; the context of human rights; and, to assist balanced deployment, the role of the Council of Europe.

      As Mr Rigoni has emphasised, migrants complement rather than replace the local labour force. Since 2007, they have accounted for a 70% increase in the work force of Europe, and they will continue to help to supply the growing demand in Europe. This demand is for highly skilled workers who, by 2020, are expected to constitute up to a further 13.5 million people. As is well known, we already face shortages in a number of sectors. Through a combination of low birth rates and increased life expectancy, that problem will clearly worsen as time goes on. That is why our national economies are very fortunate to be able to welcome those, both skilled and unskilled, who join us from elsewhere.

      As a result, and as Mr Rigoni also urges, we should adapt our own national legislation accordingly. We should simplify current migration arrangements for skilled workers whose qualifications correspond to national economic needs. We ought to provide much clearer regulations on the employment of unskilled migrants and seasonal and domestic workers. If we did so, we would adopt a much-improved approach for assimilating those who come to our countries as migrants. The more pragmatic such an approach becomes, the more likely it is that those currently prejudiced against migration will see the sense of it. For those who stand to support our economies by coming to them in the first place as students, there is a strong case – as I will argue in a Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe report for later this year – for such international academic movement to be decoupled from official national migration statistics altogether.

      That leads me to the human rights context of migration to European states. The focus is very simple – Mr Rigoni describes it as a ‘win-win’ position – for if it is obviously right anyway that we respect and welcome other human beings to our countries, yet, as I have already said, as things happen to be, our own economies will be considerably advantaged as a result.

      Following from that, there is a role for the Council of Europe. Mr Rigoni is calling for the Committee of Ministers to set up an agency to help Council of Europe member States in the development of strategies, legal frameworks, action plans and specific projects in the field of migration. This is a very good idea. Linked to the Council of Europe, such an agency would provide a much-needed service. As a result of its procedural guidance on migration and on the joint terms of economic progress and people’s rights, all our countries would be far better able to proceed on the basis of proper balance, efficiency and humanity.

      Mr POLIAČIK (Slovak Republic, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – We all know that there are at least two ways to use a finger when pointing it: you can blame someone, or you can indicate a direction to take. We have seen too much blaming and finger-pointing when it comes to migration during the past two years. Some have been blamed for doing things to cause the trouble in different countries, Muslims have been blamed for all the terrorism, and many people are blamed for doing too much or for not doing enough. I believe that today’s four reports show the next steps: they are using a finger to indicate the direction in which we should go.

      In comparison with the urgent debate on migration in April, we have moved from general phrases to concrete steps. ALDE thanks the rapporteurs and those who have worked on these reports for doing a tremendously good job. The reports cover things from fighting traffickers to deepening co-operation with non-governmental organisations and from introducing special measures for children and women in need to taking concrete steps in the labour market, such as shortening the asylum application process and providing refugees with small loans to promote businesses. All these concrete steps are building an environment in which things can get better.

      In his last speech in the Slovakian Parliament, the President of the Slovak Republic said that if the Roma population in our country are happy and successful, the Slovak Republic will be happy and successful. I would extend that to refugees in Europe: if they are happy and successful, Europe will be happy and successful. There would then be less conflict and terrorism, more jobs and educational opportunities, and a greater exchange of cultures and ideas. I thank all those involved in writing the four reports for creating such a vision. We should not be blind to the negative side, but I believe that if we take all the concrete recommendations from all the reports, we can come up with good measures and concrete steps in every country to improve the situation for children and their families – as part of the future of this continent, they are in fact our children – as well as improve the situation of Europe as a whole.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you for your interesting speech, Mr Poliačik. I call Ms Johnsson Fornarve.

      Ms JOHNSSON FORNARVE (Sweden, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – We thank both the rapporteurs. According to the UNHCR, 65 million people, of whom half are children, are on the move having been forced to leave their homes by conflicts. A fraction of that number have sought refuge in Europe, and this wealthy continent could have taken greater responsibility for the refugee situation, but instead it has on the whole restricted the flow of asylum seekers and allowed Turkey, a country that has taken several steps away from democracy, to act as our border police. Let me remind you that, under our conventions, we have a duty to allow asylum seekers to enter our countries and to process their cases. I was proud when Sweden stood up for its principles and allowed a large number of refugees into our country. Yet this number has declined as the government has introduced much harsher policies, which I deeply regret. For example, it is not acceptable to send young refugees back to Afghanistan where there is war and conflict.

      We must see immigration as a positive force in society and as a resource, but for that to be possible we must build safe communities and eliminate all forms of discrimination. We need to create a society with a strong general welfare system. We have to create more jobs, build more homes that people can afford to live in and provide schooling that is the same for all. We need to speed up the process of integrating newly arrived immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees into our societies by ensuring that the asylum process becomes more effective. We have to organise language courses and vocational training, and to welcome immigrants to our sports halls and social activities. Too great a burden is placed on immigrants to integrate, and too little is put on us to be inclusive. Many families are split as they are fleeing, and family reunification should therefore be the highest priority. There will be no successful inclusiveness without family reunification. Many immigrants – they are often children – come alone, and they need our help. We need to support them along the way by enabling them to rebuild their life.

      Another important issue is that we need to find out as soon as possible what skills immigrants already have. Otherwise there is a great risk that important experience and knowledge will be lost. Society must therefore facilitate the recognition of the educational diplomas and vocational skills of migrants as quickly as possible. It is also important to ensure that all workers have the same rights, wages and conditions in the labour market, regardless of where they come from. This will prevent wage dumping and the creation of a grey market where immigrants are working under worse conditions than the domestic labour force.

      Ms JOHNSEN (Norway, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – I thank the rapporteurs, Ms Huovinen and Mr Rigoni. We are discussing their reports on the integration of refugees and on migration as an opportunity for European development. The reports present a positive view of refugees and migrants more generally, and they show how immigrants can be integrated into and contribute to cultural life and society. Refugees are a useful resource and a positive force in our society. As Minister Johansson said, while refugees are now arriving because of war, in future they will come because of climate change. How will Europe cope? Europe faces both demographic and economic challenges. We face a demographic winter, due to the decline in birth rates. At the same time, we have the oldest population in the world, with the highest percentage of people aged 65 and over, and this trend will accelerate due to increasing life expectancy, which is good for all of us.

      Reduction of the European population of working age means that there is huge potential for refugees and regular migrants to work in and contribute to Europe, but there are no quick fixes. Integration of refugees is a long and complicated process. It requires commitment on both sides, from the society and the refugee. Language is often the largest barrier to participation in society. You have to want to learn the language, you have to want to work and you have to want to participate in the society. On the other hand, the host country has to provide introduction programmes, language training, and educational and cultural understanding, to teach migrants not only what their rights are but also what their obligations are in society.

      It is important to secure proper housing and settlement in the community. One challenge is to recognise migrants’ former education and work experience. Introduction programmes should immediately start to focus on what is needed and fill the gaps. We must eliminate all obstacles to national registration, in order to facilitate the rapid entry of refugees into the labour market. We should also facilitate the recognition of migrants’ educational diplomas and vocational skills. Migrant women are often the migrants who are outside working life. It is important to provide courses and childcare so that they, too, can participate. We also need to talk about what is difficult. There are problems, such as high unemployment among refugees and young men dropping out of schools and burning cars. If we do not talk about such difficulties, we will only create xenophobia and give the right-wing parties a voice that we will not want to hear.

      The PRESIDENT – Do Mr Rigoni or Ms Huovinen wish to respond at this stage? That is not the case. The first speaker in the debate is Ms Hoffmann.

      Ms HOFFMANN (Hungary)* – More than two years ago, the people of Europe realised that they were living in very complicated historical times. The situation was increasingly difficult and dangerous because of the migration of peoples from different countries and different continents. Among the thousands of migrants who have come into Europe or who intend to, it is important that we draw a clear distinction between genuine refugees – in other words, people who have had to leave their homes to save their lives, as a result of war or serious threats of a political or religious nature – and those who have decided to leave their home in search of a better life. We must do this because these two different categories of people require different responses. Up to now, Europe has not been able to come up with an adequate response, so it is high time that the responsible bodies find an adequate solution. That is the first point I wish to emphasise.

      Secondly, it is important that we look clearly at the phenomenon of migration and possible solutions from a variety of different angles. I will pick out eight different aspects: historical; philosophical; humanitarian; health; education; economic; political; and legal. If we are genuinely to come up with the right responses, we must be clear about what we seek to achieve and ensure that we have the means to achieve what we set out to do.

      That is why Hungary has decided that what it wishes to do is to preserve for its future and that of its children its identity, in other words our values, our culture, our language, our traditions, our lifestyle, our religion and our land. At the same time, we want to protect Europe itself – the Europe that we have known since our childhood. According to what I have heard, that is one of the prime concerns of the Council of Europe.

      We take the view that this massive and forced mixing of different peoples jeopardises the preservation of our origins and our identity. There have been many different tragic examples that I could list, but this is why Hungary is defending its borders and doing everything it can – financially and otherwise – to support families and young people, because we want to solve our demographic problems with an increase in the number of new-borns and not through migration. That is also why we have helped countries that are at war or that are in a post-war phase, as well as Christians who are being threatened in their country of origin but wish to stay there, to the tune of €30 million.

      Ms CROZON (France)* – Some 52% of Europeans have a negative perception of migrants, as we know. Rapporteurs, your work is about addressing that figure, which you are absolutely right to say our Assembly must do something about. In fact, there is no reason to reduce an individual to this condition of being a migrant. There are men and women with their own history, experience and skills, who are as different from each other as we all are from each other.

      We understand very well that some Europeans become expatriates, either because they choose to or because they take advantage of an opportunity to do so, and try their luck to make a career somewhere new and contribute to the development of their host country. It is the same as a Syrian or Sudanese who chooses to do the same thing, except that they are prompted to it by war or poverty. Very often it is the most prosperous and the best qualified people, who have the necessary cultural and financial capital, who take the road of exile. In many cases, families and communities count on their success in Europe and on their returning home later to contribute to the development of their country of origin. Many African countries depend much more on remittances from workers abroad than on official development assistance.

      However, we are living through a time of crisis in Europe. These migrations create fear, including fear of extra competition in a sluggish labour market and fear of the financial costs involved in developing the facilities to receive migrants. Such fears are obviously well founded when there is migratory pressure that is 10 or 20 times greater than the natural demographic growth rate, or when migratory pressure inflicts shocks on society, as in Lebanon, for example, where one in four inhabitants is a displaced person. In our countries, however, a smaller percentage – only about 20% to 50% – of demographic growth depends on migration.

      Of course, any surplus demographic growth is economic growth as well, which is as much a benefit to the locals as to the migrants. For instance, facilities to receive migrants are a thriving market for small building companies, and in rural areas more schools and other facilities. are required. Of course, the main growth area over time will be social and professional integration for migrants in roles appropriate to their qualifications. As has been said, migrants are much more likely to accept jobs abandoned by the locals, which is true. However, there is a danger that we might see some professions being pushed further and further down the scale, because they are “reserved” for migrants, just as there are already some jobs classified as “women’s work”. The real fear of our fellow citizens is of being pushed down the social scale, and seeing migration depressing salaries or having a bad effect on working conditions. It is that very real danger that we will have to think about tomorrow.

      Mr AEG (Estonia) – The pressure of illegal migration has slightly decreased in 2017, but the crisis in the Mediterranean continues. Estonia has committed to receiving 550 refugees over a two-year period. In percentage terms, we rank in the middle among the countries that have met their commitment, and we are in eighth place for relocated persons.

      To prevent possible risks of terrorism or other serious crimes, and to ensure the integration of refugees into Estonian society in the best possible way, we conduct asylum proceedings in the country from which the refugees are received. We have prepared people from the police, migration and internal security services to conduct the interview and selection process. We locate the people who arrive in Estonia in different counties in as dispersed a way as possible, so that they have to communicate with the local community and learn the language. All families are assigned a support person who helps them to communicate with State and local government agencies, and helps with necessary everyday activities.

      In spite of all that, and the relatively small number of refugees we have relocated, we have experienced serious problems, caused by cultural differences, stress, and the limited opportunities for refugees to communicate with their national communities. The relocated persons can move freely within the European Union, and several families have already exceeded the 90-day limit on the amount of time they are allowed to be away from Estonia, thereby losing the right to social benefits and to their allocated housing.

      The activities and preventive measures agreed by the European Union have not been implemented fast enough. We need to reach an agreement with the governments of the refugees’ countries of origin on co-operation to house the refugees in decent conditions. That would significantly reduce the pressure on Europe. The only positive example that can be taken seriously is the so-called 1:1 agreement between the European Union and Turkey.

      So far, nothing has been achieved on the proposal to move Frontex missions to the opposite shore of the Mediterranean to guard the external border of the Schengen area. Internal security analysts have pointed out that human trafficking has become more profitable for organised criminals than the drugs trade. Europol’s co-ordinating role in the fight against human trafficking needs to be considerably more effective.

      The PRESIDENT – I do not see Mr Wilk, so I call Ms Anttila.

      Ms ANTTILA (Finland) – I thank Ms Huovinen for her excellent report and for her presentation on this highly important and topical matter. I shall raise a few important points from the report.

      In 2015, more than 1 million people crossed the Mediterranean to Europe. Most of them were fleeing their homes and the dire situations in Syria and Libya, in search of international protection. To ensure that these people integrate in the countries that receive them, we need to do more than plead for the solidarity and compassion of the host countries. We need to see immigrants as workers, taxpayers and consumers and do our best to enable them to contribute to their new host countries.

      As described in the report, integration does not mean full assimilation to the host country’s culture. Successful integration must happen in line with the host country’s basic values, such as equality and freedom of speech – these values are not debatable – but we also need to focus on the structural segregation of local inhabitants and migrants, because it increases the risk of marginalisation and radicalisation.

      It is very important for the host country to provide integration services as soon as possible for those asylum seekers who are most likely to stay. There should be equal access to integration services for humanitarian migrants throughout the country. We should ensure that foreign qualifications and work experience count for local employees. We must acknowledge the fact that integration can take a long time, particularly for the least educated. Basic skills, such as language training, could be considered a human right.

      Migration will be a defining issue for Europe in the coming decades, so we need to concentrate on successful integration policy. Our level of success in integration will define not only the future of the people who have left their homes in search of better lives, but the lives of the inhabitants of the host countries.

      Ms VIROLAINEN (Finland) – This has been a very useful day, during which we have heard diverse interventions and different points of view. Ms Huovinen’s report is a great end to this lively migration debate, and its good recommendations are easy to support.

      Unfortunately, a lot of the general debate on migration and refugees focuses on quotas, costs and likely problems. We argue about whether we have taken enough migrants or too many. What is the right number, and how big a burden are we able to share? Costs are counted and grim pictures are painted about possible problems. Come on – we are talking about people in very vulnerable situations!

      There are few comments on how migration could help our ageing Europe. There should be more discussion of the efficiency of migration policies and whether we manage to adapt the method of joint action that Mayor Kaminis described this morning. As Ms Huovinen states in her report, the many examples of best practice in our countries cannot always be adopted as such. However, I am sure we can find practices that work.

      Research on migration is growing, but unfortunately is not used enough in practice. According to research – Mr Muižnieks also referred to this in his introductory speech – family reunification is integration policy at its best. Since 2004, MIPEX – the migrant integration policy index – has been used every four years to assess the effectiveness of migrant integration in 38 European countries. The European Union has unified its practices, and migrants’ basic rights are mostly respected, but there are still challenges with integration. More migrants should get education services, and access to language training at all levels should also be improved.

      Many of today’s migration and integration decisions are political decisions, made with the national interest in mind, but they are not often based on scientific evidence or solidarity. I urge all Council of Europe members to continue with integration, in order to ensure the human rights of all and the stability of our societies.

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey)* – The UNHCR has reported that the number of people who have had to flee their homes has reached the highest point ever. The number of refugees all over the world is much more than the population of many European countries. According to the United Nations, Turkey hosts the highest number of refugees. To add to the numbers given by rapporteurs, there are almost 4 million refugees in Turkey, which is almost 4% of the population. That community has grown up in Turkey in only a few years.

      People are supporting refugees in Turkey. Although Turkey has many serious problems, it has not witnessed major unrest as a result of having so many refugees. A small number of them are hosted in camps, but most are living in cities thanks to the support of NGOs and municipalities. The Gaziantep and Sanliurfa municipalities have collaborated with the international organisations mentioned in the report, and their practices are among the best.

      Gaziantep – the mayor of the municipality is a woman – has conducted a project with the United Nations Development Programme to provide refugees with Turkish courses, computer courses, cooking classes, pastry classes, glass beading courses and other vocational courses. Women are at the heart of the shelters. The general director of lifelong learning at the ministry of education has created a project to ensure that Syrian students adapt to Turkish culture. Some 5 000 teachers have been employed, 75 000 Syrian students are attending schools with Turkish students, and 260 000 children are attending temporary educational facilities and getting an education in their own language. The economic and social integration of Syrian women has been the subject of a protocol signed with IFAD.

      It is not possible to say that everything is perfect – Syrian refugees have many problems and are at risk of ending up on the hands of terrorists or smugglers – but we can solve all those problems with international co-operation.

      Mr KÖCK (Austria)* – I thank the rapporteurs for their reports, which are comprehensive and the result of a lot of work.

      We should have a two-pronged discussion. We should think about the effects within each of the European Union countries concerned and the effect outside the European Union. It is true that the European Union needs migrants now and in the future. Integration of migrants is very important. Of course, we need to ensure that we curb any form of violence against them. We realise that migrants need protection, but we need to think about the effects further afield. We need to ensure that reports do not have an effect in, for example, in Africa – people might think that they should just come here. We should not inadvertently attract more people to Europe. We have to be honest and recognise that many countries in our community do not want them. Very often we hear contradictory answers and there is a need for honesty.

      The report explains that the people of the host countries are often anxious and insecure. They sometimes camouflage the concerns as if they will not exist in the future. However, it is not a question of the fears in our home countries, but of the rule of law. Migrants who come to our countries sometimes try to conceal their true identity and age – they throw away their passports and identity documents so that their genuine age cannot be established, and lodge applications for asylum when they are not entitled. The people of our countries do not understand that. They say: “We have to abide by our laws but migrants don’t.” That is the nub of the problem we face. Austria has helped and taken in many migrants, but we do not want additional measures that attract more people to our borders. Others should understand that.

      As I have said already, we want to close all illegal channels because they are misused by criminals and there have been too many deaths. We want to work with legal channels so that the right kinds of migrants find their way here. The migrants must adhere by those channels. In that way, we will have the understanding of our own peoples.

      Ms OHLSSON (Sweden) – This morning we discussed two migration reports, and we are now discussing integration and inclusion. If migration is step one, step two is integration and inclusion. They are two sides of the same coin.

      It is important for people to have somewhere to live and a standard of living. It is therefore also important to reduce the length of time taken in asylum applications. The responsibility for that must be shared in a spirit of solidarity between European countries – it needs to be better than it is now. As I have already said, to be integrated, people must have somewhere to live and to be in the labour market. That is about inclusion in social and economic rights. To get a job, people must have or get a relevant education and language training. It is therefore helpful to have examples of good practice. We can find some in the reports, for which I thank the rapporteurs.

      People also need social rights – the right to health care and to welfare – and to be involved in civil society. Local government deals with those aspects in the daily lives of migrants, but national governments have to deal with legislation on the asylum process, the education system, the right to health care, labour market rules, following the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, gender equality, and supporting civil society. It is possible to combine economic growth and welfare for all – Sweden has among the highest employment of European Union countries, and many asylum seekers come to my country. We work a lot on inclusion and integration, which we heard about earlier from the Minister of Justice and Migration, Morgan Johansson. It must and will be possible to include migrants and society – women, men, boys and girls. This is about equality, including gender equality, and human rights.

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – This is the other side of the coin of this morning’s discussions, as Ms Ohlsson just said: how can migration be turned into opportunities? Unfortunately, we have not succeeded in doing that. As Mr Rigoni states in his report, there is a common misconception that migrants are a threat to local populations, in that they take our jobs and exploit social security systems. The fact is that migrants will contribute to economic growth if we allow them to do so. Our obligation as politicians is to facilitate such opportunities in our societies.

A couple of years ago, The Economist published an article under the title, “The magic of diasporas”. Its main point, based on empirical findings, was that the winners of the global economic competition will be those nations that acknowledge and take advantage of the international economic networks based within their different immigrant diasporas. So far, that is a neglected possibility. Shortages in the labour force, combined with an ageing population, demand a much more active approach. A basic condition is to recognise and develop the qualifications our immigrants bring with them on arrival. I, personally, have raised the issue of promoting a system of registration and recognition of informal and formal competences among immigrants across Europe with the current minister of education in Norway. He was not interested, which was extremely short-sighted, in my opinion. Today people are left in limbo, spending months waiting for their applications to be handled, then waiting for a municipality to accept them and, finally, after undergoing introductory programmes, finding themselves unable to get a job, due to discrimination, whatever qualifications they might possess.

Fortunately, not everything is bad. Ms Huovinen’s report gives the necessary reasons for an alternative approach, based on integration and trust and thus avoiding the dangers of mistrust and hostility, isolation, increasing alienation and, in the end, the risk of radicalisation. Like Ms Huovinen, the Secretary General and the Commissioner for Human Rights have, in our own interest, advised us to focus more on integration. That is good advice. Let me also take the opportunity to thank the Commissioner for his good answer to my question in April on how to react to a Norwegian Government proposal to introduce benefit reductions as a means of reducing asylum applications. I am very pleased to tell you that his answer was influential in our Parliament’s decision to reject the proposal and demand integration measures as a better alternative.

Mr MİROĞLU (Turkey)* – These reports are very important. I draw your attention to Ms Huovinen’s report, whose title relates to the integration of refugees. These words have been used many times. However, throughout this process, she has rejected the idea of amendments that would include the word “refugee” alongside “migrant”. First, the first section of the explanatory memorandum is the opinion of the rapporteur, but the rest is the position of the committee. Secondly, the differentiation between refugees and migrants is sometimes very big and, therefore, has to be clarified. Turkey is a founding member of the Council of Europe and its efforts were not touched on. Turkey has often been visited by the United Nations Assistant Secretary-General in charge of humanitarian assistance. Ursula Mueller visited just recently the camp where many Iraqis are hosted and she explained how satisfied she was with the facilities provided by the host country. That was not mentioned. European countries must do what they are supposed to do and they must live up to the responsibilities that are on their shoulders. If the necessary measures are not taken, there will be a black mark on the history of Europe.

In conclusion, I        draw your attention to the post-Daesh period. New migration flows might follow in a very short time. We should prepare for that and at least discuss the issues.

      Mr Rafael HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – Unfortunately, this is an old and incurable bad human habit: unless you undergo it yourself, you cannot completely understand tragedy, sorrow and pain. You do not take into consideration its potential new threads and one day you discover that someone else’s trouble that you once ignored is now knocking at your door. A vivid example is obvious. Today, the problem of refugees and migrants that means that Europe is faced with serious problems and a series of constraints generated by their never-ending chaotic flow, now compels us all to carry out continuous discussions in this regard and seek a way out of the crisis.

We are now in 2017, but as long ago as 2001, the Azerbaijani delegation started to raise questions about the danger of the refugee and migration trends, and their implications in the absence of immediate efficient measures. When the deportation and occupation policy implemented by Armenia and the reactionary forces supporting it turned nearly 1 million people in Azerbaijan into refugees and IDPs, and we started to raise the issue here in its all severity, there was only one military conflict between two Council of Europe member States. We raised our voice asking you to help us to unite our efforts and conduct a joint fight to prevent the emergence of such undesirable situations in the family of the Council of Europe. In our speeches and documents in each part-session, we repeatedly warned you that, if we did not take preventive measures, the unpleasant precedent would jump into the other member States. Five years passed, 10 years passed, and the inactivity of the Council of Europe towards our appeals, expressed in its avoidance of effective measures, showed us its sad results. Military conflicts also broke out among other member States, occupation and separatism gradually became common and the number of refuges and IDPs increased rapidly.

When you remain inactive but have the capability of doing something, punishment for that indifference will find you. Today, Europe is facing the problems engendered by the uninterrupted flow of refugees and IDPs. Disasters once observed in other places are now slowly hitting Europe. One in 10 of my country’s population has been a refugee or an IDP for more than 25 years. We measure this tragedy in all shades. For more than 25 years, Europe has been throwing the solution of our principal problem on to the OSCE Minsk Group, and the Minsk Group cannot be proud of the lack of any visible or efficient outcome from its longstanding activities.

      Mr OVERBEEK (Netherlands) – I did not expect to speak, but now that I have the opportunity to do so, I will say a few words about the report on the integration of refugees, which provides an important perspective on the problems that Europe faces. The report offers a lot of insights; in particular, it tells us that we must learn from each other and collect experience and best practice, so that we can put into practice what we preach in Europe and ensure that refugees, asylum seekers and forced migrants are treated humanely and protected. That principle cannot be reiterated often enough.

      I would also like to clarify the comments that I made this morning about the report       on migration as an opportunity for European development. We need to distinguish between the position and protection of refugees, migrants and others, and our approach to migration as a complex, multifaceted social process. The two should not be seen as synonymous. When we discuss migration as an opportunity for European development, we have to be realistic. Migration is not the solution to all the problems that we face in Europe, nor is it the solution to the problems that people in Africa face. Migration cannot be the solution to the development problem in Africa, nor can it be the solution to the demographic problem in Europe. We have to be honest about that. It serves no purpose to act and speak as though the truth were otherwise.

      We have to be careful not to make unfounded claims about the enormous benefits of migration. Yes, there are benefits, provided – this is where the first report is so important – that we can create the right conditions to make a success of the integration of refugees and migrants. Migration cannot solve our problems, however, and to talk of it as a solution is ludicrous in the face of the enormous problems that we are experiencing. If we can develop an approach that effectively deals with the challenges, we will be much further along than we are today.

      Ms HOPKINS (Ireland) – This debate and the work that has been done are extremely important in helping us to learn from best practice in supporting refugees. For many countries faced with the challenge of supporting men, women and children who are in search of a better future, the learning curve is steep. This is a major global challenge, which demands solidarity, humanity, co-operation and co-ordination.

      Ireland has agreed to accept 4 000 refugees under the Irish refugee protection programme. Progress was initially slow, but the number of people coming to our shores in search of safety and opportunity is increasing, and Ireland’s practice on resettling refugees meets the obligations laid down in the refugee response framework. The people arriving in Ireland under the Irish refugee protection programme have been through the most horrendous times. They have suffered a huge amount, and many of them have unaddressed or undiagnosed medical needs. Many of the children have never been to school, or they have missed years of their schooling.

      We allow refugees to access services such as health, education and social protection within mainstream provision as far as possible, and resettlement workers are in place to support the integration of refugees into their new communities. There is no doubt that more is needed. I agree strongly with the sentiment expressed here today that integration should happen as early as possible. The process requires time and commitment.

      I spoke this morning about the emergency reception and orientation centre that has recently been set up to support refugees in my home town of Ballaghaderreen, in the west of Ireland. There are about 200 people in the centre, half of them children. The process of integration has been a challenging one. People – both refugees and the local people in the communities to which they come – must be at the heart of our approach. We must make sure that adequate support and resources, particularly in health and education, are made available to local communities such as Ballaghaderreen to support refugees. Above all, we must help refugees to become self-sufficient. They are very ambitious for their future. They want to work and contribute, and we need to support them in their ambition to do so. The people of Ireland will not be found wanting in their support for international efforts to assist with integration.

      Mr HAJDUKOVIĆ (Croatia) – As we discussed earlier today, migration to Europe will continue. Such migration is motivated by many things, including security concerns and climate change – I am glad that the minister from Sweden confirmed that. To claim otherwise would be to delude ourselves, and it would be irresponsible to do so.

      The question before us is what migration means for Europe socially, politically and economically, and how receiving countries and migrants can make the best of it. The so-called “white plague” is sweeping across Europe. Many countries are being depopulated by low birth rates, the emigration of their own populations, or both. Workforce shortages are becoming a real problem in certain countries, particularly in sectors such as hospitality, catering and construction. Immigration is essential to meeting the demand for workers in such sectors.

      Skilled workers whose qualifications meet national economic needs should be given easier access to prospective countries. That would be in the best interests of those countries’ economies, and it would be in the best interests of the migrants in their quest for a better life. Attracting the best and most accomplished students from non-European countries by giving them inviting career opportunities is highly beneficial for Europe, and we should consider taking a systematic approach to that. Similar examples indicate that the outcomes are beneficial for both migrants and receiving countries.

      I stress again, as I did this morning, that walls and fences are not an appropriate answer to migration. Europe cannot be isolated from the phenomenon of migration. Europe is not an island. I choose to view migration not as a problem but as an opportunity to build, improve and enrich our society.

      Ms NAGHDALYAN (Armenia) – Today’s extensive discussion of the problem of refugees is further proof that the issue continues to be challenging and worrisome. I express my gratitude to the rapporteur, Ms Huovinen, for her accomplished work on a topic that is not easy to deal with. The tone of the report is responsive and concerned. It contains a large amount of information, a substantial number of proposals and numerous examples of different countries’ best practice that can justifiably be described as lessons for policy makers. First, however, I want to offer a lesson to my Azerbaijani colleague: nobody believes or listens to those who overdose on lies.

      Let me share with you our concerns regarding the catastrophic consequences of the military conflict and confrontation in Syria. We may hold different views on its underlying causes, dynamics, or the ways to resolve it, but we should stand on the same footing on the humanitarian issues. This five-year-old tragedy has left more than 22 million people internally displaced or as refugees, fleeing their own country trying to save their families. The violence in the Middle East has not bypassed Armenians in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere, many of whom lost their lives in terrorist attacks. The massive destruction around Syria include Armenian settlements, churches, schools and cultural institutions.

      According to official data, Armenia has received more than 22 000 Syrian refugees – 6 000 families. Armenia is the third largest recipient of Syrian refugees in Europe on a per capita basis, after Germany and Sweden. The Government of Armenia has therefore identified the integration of the refugees into Armenia’s social and economic life as one of its priorities.

      Taking into account the global socio-economic issues that Armenia has been facing for almost two decades – the blockade of transport communications from the neighbouring countries of Turkey and Azerbaijan and the negative impact of the global economic crisis – the allocation of sufficient resources to meet refugees’ needs has become quite a heavy burden for our country. We welcome the recent decision by the European Union Syria trust fund to provide Armenia with additional financial aid to support Syrian refugees. In this respect, German Chancellor Merkel’s famous statement, “We can manage this”, became words of inspiration for many of us. As rightly stated in the report, when large numbers of refugees arrive in a country in a short period, a number of primary issues arise, including providing refugees with suitable accommodation, health care and education.

      As a solution to the existing housing problems, Armenian authorities are considering the construction of the “New Halep” residential complex for refugees, in case there is support from European donors. This all shows one thing: that we must be united in our efforts to overcome all these issues.

      Mr WIECHEL (Sweden) – I am heartened that this Assembly has devoted no fewer than four reports in this part-session to the subject of migration into Europe. My only concern is that, by slicing up the topic from so many angles, we run the risk that the conclusions we draw will appear to the public as overly fragmented.

      Coming from Sweden, which has had by far the largest immigration per capita from outside Europe in recent years, I have seen how the massive numbers of migrants have affected our society. The Swedish Migration Agency, which has grown relentlessly in recent years – and which in 2016, at over €7 billion, has a much larger budget than even our national defence – is now experiencing massive internal problems, and this, I might add, regardless of the increased spending on migration as a whole in Sweden. In addition, the budgets of many municipalities in Sweden are near collapse due to the high and never-ending costs of immigrant inflow. At the same time, tensions in our society are getting worse and the number of no-go zones in Swedish suburbs has increased. The need for more integration-related investment is clear, and still we hardly see any positive effects related to the massive inflow of asylum seekers.

      Our priority must now be to re-establish the principle of the Dublin Regulation, and the idea that refugees should seek asylum in the first safe country in which they arrive. Therefore, we must all agree that asylum seekers should not engage in “asylum shopping” and seek out countries where they may receive higher financial support than where they are. We need to work better together in order to oppose this phenomenon and make sure that the only long-range migration of refugees is through the United Nations sanctioned quota refugee programme. Europe must send clear signals to the world that, although we are, and will remain, of good will and have done a lot to receive millions of immigrants and asylum-seekers over the years, we are now at a point where our internal social peace is at stake if we do not change our way of handling migration policies.

      There are many reasons why immigrants, including economic immigrants, seek to travel far away from home. In order to bring their numbers down to manageable levels, we may have to review the level of assistance we afford them in our own countries, and instead enhance our assistance in, or closer to, their countries of origin. By working together, we can make sure that the migrants in need of help get help, and that we are able to help as many as possible for the lowest possible cost.

      Mr KRONBICHLER (Italy)* – Two things have come together this week: our discussions here today and the Alexander Langer award in Rome being granted to two organisations that have done so much in taking in refugees.

      Good inter-ethnic co-existence is very important, as Alexander Langer pointed out some 25 years ago, and that is more valid today than ever. People of various cultures, religions and ethnic groups come together on the same territory; that is becoming even more frequent, but nor is it novel. It happened in medieval times. There were Greek, Armenian, Jewish and African parts of many of the cities of Europe, and they were multi-religious and multi-linguistic. So all of this existed before, and it will become ever more the norm, rather than the exception.

      While this may be considered easy or taken for granted, we must realise that it can also arouse suspicion, even hate. Increasing levels of migration are likely to prove a challenge in many different areas and in all parts of the world. For the first time in history, we can, perhaps, try consciously and peacefully to bring together all of these diverse people – people who are exhausted and are fleeing many different areas because of repression.

      It is not enough just to spout pious hopes; if we want to build this peaceful future of many different peoples from widely varying origins, we need to develop a body of laws and an art of co-existence. On the other hand, it is ever clearer that approaches based on the simple affirmation of rights are likely to lead to friction, and in fact to conflict. The alternative to having exclusive ethnic groups is to have multi-ethnic groups, but we therefore need to address the problems in co-existence. Aside from the fact that we might be talking about minority or majority groups, we need to think about how we incorporate and take in the different groups while avoiding conflicts based on ethnicity, religion or culture. We must perceive this as a source of enrichment and an opportunity, rather than as something we should condemn. We do not need to preach against xenophobia; rather, we need to have helpful, constructive and positive examples and lessons of how we can go about this well in practice.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I congratulate you, Mr President, on doing a good job of chairing this debate. I thank all the rapporteurs for bringing this important report before us today and giving us an opportunity to reflect on the migration crisis and examine how we can improve our response to such challenges in the future.

      I am glad that there have been so many positive contributions to the draft resolutions and so many positive contributions from our colleagues in debate. The protection of vulnerable groups also needs to be raised and addressed in this debate. One critical dimension of the most recent crisis was the fact that many members of religious minorities had been forced from their home purely because of their beliefs, escaping genocidal acts and war crimes perpetrated by Islamic State. Last January, our Assembly recognised in its resolution on foreign fighters that genocide was ongoing in the region on the ground of religious belief, and this continued to be a significant factor in the subsequent management of the refugee crisis.

      While the right to freedom of religion is guaranteed to all who find themselves on European soil by virtue of the European Convention on Human Rights, the sad reality is that many members of religious minorities, including Yazidis and Christians, continue to suffer persecution for their faith while being housed in refugee centres throughout Europe.

      There are many documented cases of malicious attacks on religious minorities, from Christians being thrown off the boats crossing the Mediterranean to religiously motivated violence in refugee camps across Europe. The Open Doors organisation, which monitors persecution of Christians around the world, documented an astounding 743 attacks on Christians in refugee camps in Germany alone. Sadly, there are similar accounts from France, Sweden, Greece and other European countries. This is not acceptable, and we cannot turn a blind eye to this unashamed intolerance. We must listen to those who are on the ground identifying these issues and ensure that we respond quickly and effectively. The German Home Secretary himself admitted that Germany had underestimated the role of religion in its management of the crisis, so we must ensure that this mistake is not made again.

      I have supported Amendment 11 to the draft resolution, Document 14329, on the “Integration of refugees in times of critical pressure”, which addresses this issue and calls on our governments to ensure that members of vulnerable groups receive effective protection from abuse, violence and discrimination. I know that Ms Huovinen was against it but I would like to review it because it is line with the spirit of the report and will help us to address this issue of unaccompanied minors and women.

      Ms ALQAWASMI (Palestine, Partner for Democracy) –  Are we destined to live in a world of migrants and refugees? The answer, unfortunately, is yes if conflicts continue to ravage the south of the Mediterranean, with the absence of a just political solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the predicament of 6 million Palestinian refugees – half of our population – who continue to suffer the status of refugees because of the absence of real prospects for a peace process.

What is the role of Europe in addressing the root causes of the present conflicts in the south Mediterranean? Once again, does Europe have an input in advancing the peace process between us and the Israelis? I have heard that the Council of Europe cannot do anything, but it supports the application of international law for solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Europe needs to stand by its values of promoting human rights and not turn its back on a conflict that remains a source of agitation and that is without a just and lasting resolution. The Palestinian refugee issue will remain a wound that needs to be seriously addressed by the international community, including the Council of Europe.

The PRESIDENT – Ms Mergen is absent so I call Mr Černoch.

Mr ČERNOCH (Czech Republic) – Some points in the resolutions on which we are voting today contradict my opinion on the solution of the migration crisis. Mass immigration from the Arab and African countries is not beneficial to European development. Efforts to increase mandatory quotas for admissions of immigrants, with which the Czech Republic disagrees, and some of the other points that we will vote on will not bring stability to Europe. Climate change is not a reason for granting asylum. Asylum is for people who are victims of terror, war or persecution.

No one has a problem with people from countries which have the same culture and traditions as we do and come to Europe They want to work and are ready to respect our laws. But the mass immigration which has been facing Europe for the past four years does not bring anything good. We just need to look at western European cities to see how terrorism has grown in Europe. We cannot accept that. We will not reconcile and become accustomed to terrorism, as some European leaders advise. We are responsible for the lives and security of our citizens, and we have to protect them.

Let us help people who run away from war or terror. Let us help those who need it, but in their home countries. Waves of illegal immigrants are still flowing into Europe. If we look at Stockholm, Brussels, Paris and other beautiful European cities, we see no-go zones, fear and social problems. Try to imagine what Europe will be like in a few years if we do nothing against this. It is not a nice picture. Everything can be solved while there is still time. Our European values are not for free; we have to fight for our future and the future of our children.

Ms TOPCU (Turkey) – I thank the rapporteurs for their insightful reports. The one that focused on the close relationship between migration and development presented a serious alternative against those who insist on the pessimistic aspects of migration. Moreover, it focused on sharing success stories on integration experiences leading to close co-operation between countries. It is obvious that these reports will foster the efforts on integration policies in member countries.

It is obvious that the humanitarian crisis will not be solved without further and sincere international co-operation. Turkey, as a host country for a great number of refugees, opens its doors unconditionally. Turkey’s attitude is an example to other host countries. In that respect, it is important to strengthen best-practice sharing rapidly among member countries of the Council of Europe.

Each refugee is important for Turkey, as is their adaptation to Turkish public life. The number of Syrian guests in Turkey is almost 3.3 million, and half of them are children. In such crisis situations, children are vulnerable and pay the biggest price. Their educational situation, emotional conditions and even their lives are under threat. We must erase the negative effects of this crisis on children so that they do not become the next lost generation. We must protect them from the influence of terrorist groups. Children are the future.

      To give some statistics from Turkey, the number of Syrian children in Turkish schools and temporary education centres rose to almost 500 000 in 2016, and 15 000 Syrian refugee youths are enrolled in Turkish universities. All refugees may enrol in free Turkish language and skills training courses offered by public education centres. These are some examples. The Turkish Government, with the help of non-governmental organisations, has taken many concrete steps for our Syrian guests since the crisis started. However, it is obvious that long-term and more co-operative policies are needed to respond to even the basic needs of our guests.

      Mr HEER (Switzerland) – I thank the rapporteurs for their reports. I will concentrate on the report by Andrea Rigoni, entitled ‘Migration as an opportunity for European development’. It is important to distinguish between migrants and refugees. We have a responsibility to integrate the refugees coming to Europe from war zones, but many migrants come illegally from Africa or from States where there is no war. We must deal with illegal immigration.

      Paragraph 4 of the draft resolution says that ‘migrants accounted for a 70% increase in the workforce of Europe.’ Look at youth unemployment in Spain or Italy. Look at the situation in Greece, or the economic situation in the southern European States, and ask yourself how, if you do not have enough jobs for the young people in your countries, you will integrate the massive numbers of migrants coming from Africa with no knowledge of your language or culture and with no information at all. It is an obligation; people are coming. No one will deny that we have a responsibility to look after migrants and put them into the workforce, because if we do not, they will depend on social welfare, which is a big problem.

In Switzerland, for example, we have a lot of people from Eritrea, and after 10 years, 65% to 70% still depend completely on welfare. The situation is not tolerable, and I cannot accuse my own country, because we invest a lot of money in forming migrants to our country and helping them find a job and integrate. However, if the numbers are massive every year – we normally have between 30 000 and 40 000 migrants a year from Africa, with a population of 8 million – it is a task you cannot really fulfil, even if you try very hard, and of course not every country in Europe is doing the same amount to integrate refugees, so they go to countries such as Switzerland that have programmes.

      Mr KIRAL (Ukraine) – Thank you, Mr President, for the nice job you are doing of chairing this important debate. I would like to showcase Ukraine, my native country, because as a source country for migration, particularly labour migration, it is similar to many other cases. Millions of Ukrainians have fled Ukraine, not in recent years but over the centuries. In fact, Anne of Kiev, the 11th-century queen of France, could be called the first Ukrainian royal migrant, giving birth to many later French kings and contributing a lot to French history, as the Presidents of Ukraine and of France acknowledged in a joint statement a few days ago during an official meeting in Paris.

Millions of Ukrainians have left the country for one reason: we never had a State strong enough to protect people, guarantee their property and human rights and give them the confidence to stay in the country. That is the fundamental reason why many migrants leave their home countries for other countries. It is important for us to take into account what is happening in source countries and provide timely support to respond to the challenges there, helping those countries to build strong States so potential migrants can stay there rather than leaving and be confident to do business and raise families.

There are many instances in Ukraine when Europe and the international community have been a little too late. Visa liberalisation was granted only a month ago; we asked for it 10 years ago. The association agreement has been in negotiations for years, and was signed only recently. What would have happened to the world if we had been granted NATO membership in 2006 at the Bucharest Summit? Would the Russian Federation have invaded? Would it be so aggressive now in Syria and other countries? These are some of the root causes and fundamental flaws in our governance system and other international organisations that we often do not take into account but which indirectly cause migration, which is ultimately good for our societies, but we need to do a lot to deal with the consequences, protect the human rights of migrants and provide them with the necessary standards of living.

The PRESIDENT – Thank you for an interesting and professional speech. I call Ms Kavvadia.

Ms KAVVADIA (Greece) – One of the favourite myths of far-right populism in this Europe in deep crisis is that foreigners, refugees and immigrants are to blame for the economic hardship in European societies. This myth serves the interests of the neo-liberal European establishment as well, as it removes the burden of responsibility from its own policies, which have led to the degradation of the European social model and of European cohesion. Therefore, these extreme, xenophobic and populist perceptions are used by specific forces, including the European right wing, to gain the xenophobic vote, when all that they ultimately do is reinforce re-emerging far-right fascism. The report that we are debating has a positive result that must be highlighted: it overthrows this myth by giving concrete examples of how immigrants contribute to increasing economic growth.

However, migrants’ positive contribution to Europe is not limited to the economic field. For example, no one can deny that Europe, in its multi-faceted and multi-level existential crisis, also faces the serious demographic crisis of an ageing and declining population, which has a serious impact on the workforce and consequently on productivity and social insurance and pension systems. No other way beyond migration exists to address this problem, as no dramatic upward shift in European demographic indicators is forecast – rather, the opposite.

In contrast with the far-right rhetoric that has led to Fortress Europe, costing thousands of innocent lives lost in European seas every year, all the real facts show the positive impact of immigration on economic, social, demographic and cultural levels. However, for migration to have that positive impact, there must be full respect for migrant workers’ rights. We need to promote targeted national programmes of legal, economic and social integration so that immigrants are not subjected to labour exploitation, discriminated against or vulnerable to racist attitudes and attacks.

      Ms CHRISTODOULOPOULOU (Greece)* – We need to answer the question, “Can Europe have a common policy for the social inclusion of refugees and migrants?” Can we have that in today’s Europe? Within Europe – even within the European Union – States are pursuing different policies. Each country has its own policy in this area. We need a common policy to deal with the economic and social issues that arise. We need to think about social inclusion and how it works for both newcomers to Europe and refugees and migrants who have been here for some time.

      We have refugees who have been with us since the 1990s. We have first, second and even third generation refugees. The wave of refugee inflow that we are currently living through is something else, but we already have refugees. We are of course trying to integrate them into our labour market, but our situation is different from that of France or Germany. How can we become attractive to refugees and make them want to come to our country and stay there rather than go to another? Other countries offer them a lot more.

      We have to talk about inclusion, not integration, which means something quite different. The approach of integrating refugees and migrants into our societies seems to try to paper over our differences and wipe out their identities. That is not what we want. We want inclusion. We want to include them in our systems and ensure that their rights are respected. We want all countries to do that and to have systems that allow them to offer refugees something worthwhile while respecting their identity, culture and religion.

      Ms GUNNARSDÓTTIR (Iceland) – Around 17% of the 65 million displaced persons in the world are hosted in Europe. In the face of that reality, it is Iceland’s duty, as a developed and economically stable country, to do more. European countries need to react quickly and offer refugees a stable home. Refugees should not be seen as a burden on the economy; they should be welcomed for their contribution to society.

      The Icelandic Government wishes to generously accept people who are in need of assistance, but it is important at the same time to safeguard the Icelandic language and culture. That presents challenges, as was shown in a 2017 report about the integration of refugees in Iceland in the past decade. We can and should resettle more refugees, but we need to address the lessons that we have learned in the past few years.

      First, we need to correct the imbalance in services that refugees in Iceland receive depending on whether they belong to the group of resettled persons or arrive on their own as asylum seekers. It is also important to pay special attention to vulnerable groups, such as single mothers, unaccompanied minors, gay, lesbian and trans people, and people whose lives are in danger. The recent report indicates that language is the key to employment, to education and to people having a connection with their children’s school and environment. Children of refugees, and of all immigrants, need support so that they can flourish in society. When we fail to provide that support, those children do worse in school, which impacts their chances later in life. To provide refugees with assistance, we need more widespread and comprehensive interpretation services and more teachers trained to teach Icelandic as a second language. We also need to re-examine certain laws and regulations, so that refugees can get their education certified more easily and we can make full use of newcomers’ skills.

      The recent report indicates that the majority of the refugees granted asylum in the past decade are in the bottom 10% of household incomes in Iceland. The best way to improve that situation is to provide refugees with more assistance during integration. We need to learn how to do so from those who have already settled and ask them to help assist the next group.

      When we discuss the acceptance of refugees, many people refer to “the refugee problem”. We must acknowledge people’s fear and insecurity about refugees. Those feelings sometimes derive from ignorance, but they are understandable – people fear for their livelihoods, job security and culture. To combat those narratives, we need an open discussion about how we can all live together in society. To have that discussion, we need courage and hope that we can all stand together, show compassion for other human beings and replace prejudice with understanding. It is the job of governments and societies to make sure that we do. Let’s learn from one another.

      Mr PSYCHOGIOS (Greece) – I congratulate the rapporteurs on their excellent reports. I would like to refer to all the countries of the Council of Europe and the European Union whose people, like Greece’s, have been refugees or migrants themselves. We must respect this issue. The people who were forced to leave those countries – a United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees report suggests that 66 million people were displaced last year – contributed significantly to the development of their host countries, but they also enjoyed the civil and socio-economic rights that they deserved as human beings. We must do the same.

      In that context, we must not only swiftly and fully implement the relocation, resettlement and reunification programmes but extend and expand them, and create legal and humane corridors for refugees and migrants. We must also apply the rule of law and the provisions of international and European law regarding refugees’ and migrants’ rights. We have to focus our work on reducing detention and developing effective alternatives. The primary condition for examining migration as an opportunity for European development is that the issue must be considered from the perspective of respecting refugees’ and migrants’ rights, not that of finding cheap and easy labour.

      We must take the concrete steps referred to in the reports concerning access to accommodation, health care, education and labour rights, which are basic standards. We all remember the case of Manolada, which was discussed before the European Court of Human Rights. To protect migrants’ labour rights, the Greek Government legislated last year for the terms of migrant work in the agricultural sector, so that workers can be insured and we can tackle human trafficking and uninsured work. The European Court of Human Rights issued a landmark judgment in the Chowdury and others v. Greece case, vindicating a group of migrant strawberry pickers who, in 2013, were shot at by employers for asking for their wages following months of unpaid labour. This ruling in favour of 42 Bangladeshis ordered the Greek State to pay damages of up €16 000 for failing in its obligation to prevent human trafficking. If we are to avoid such cases and to operate on a basis of European and international law standards, we must at least implement the reports’ proposals and do much more.

      The PRESIDENT – That concludes the list of speakers. I call Ms Huovinen to reply to the debate. You have four minutes left.

      Ms HUOVINEN (Finland) – I thank all colleagues for their speeches. It was especially good that so many of you highlighted positive aspects of the situation, and I am glad that we have had this opportunity to try to resolve the challenges of integration together. As I have already said, we must learn from each other, and I hope that you will take the concrete examples in my report back to your member States.

      I am pleased that many colleagues pointed to the need for immediate measures of integration, skills assessment and employment. Several also highlighted the importance of education. It is important that adult migrants are provided with the necessary language and vocational training courses, as well as with civic instruction to orientate them for everyday life in their new country. The Council of Europe’s programme of integration for adult migrants has developed a website to allow the pooling of and access to useful resources.

      Some colleagues emphasised the need to assess social and health care services for refugees, and we must ensure that they are properly provided with those services. We must also use existing youth, cultural and sporting initiatives to foster inclusiveness. Many refugees arriving in Europe have had a challenging journey and may be heavily traumatised by their experiences of conflict, of leaving their homes and of leaving their families behind. It is therefore important to put in place proper social and health care facilities, with personnel who can provide early identification of psychological problems.

      I again emphasise that it is important to distinguish between migrants and refugees. Many integration measures, however, are designed for all newcomers, regardless of their status. In my report, I have used the general term “migrants” when talking about integration measures for all, but I have used the term “refugees” in relation to integration measures that are specifically for those with refugee status or who are asylum seekers. Unfortunately, that has caused some confusion. Of course I am not against the term “refugees”, but when talking about all migrants, rather than only refugees, I have used the term “migrants”. That is also explained in footnote 3 on page 5 of my report.

      The PRESIDENT – Mr Rigoni, you have seven minutes.

      Mr RIGONI (Italy)* – I am particularly pleased with today’s debate, not only because of all the comments that colleagues have made about my report, but because of the spirit prevailing in this fine Chamber of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. At last, we have shown a positive spirit, and we need to build on that given the significance of today’s debate. I want to underline, as several colleagues have done, that such a debate helps us to explore further the various facets of this migratory phenomenon.

      This debate also enables us to highlight the positive dimension of the challenge of migration in our European societies. This is an opportunity to talk about migration as something that is attractive if it is handled in the right way. For example, it certainly can provide further impetus for economic growth and development in Europe. That is our job or function in Europe – to pool our resources and to pull together in the same direction so that we can all benefit, as we saw after the First and Second World Wars. If we pool our resources, we can contribute to the growth and development of our respective societies.

      The challenge for us is to see migration as an impetus that will help us to move forward, because Europe is standing still or treading water at the moment. The Italian Government jumps for joy if the employment figures increase by 0.01% and growth of 1% or 1.2% would be considered extraordinary, but of course that is not enough. We need to push ahead with development, and migration can certainly be a force for growth. It will provide an important and much-needed impetus and get things moving. As one speaker said, it will also enable young people to take up employment. If we can crank the economy into action and get it back on its feet, that will create jobs for young people. We must therefore exploit everything about the migratory phenomenon positively in the years to come.

      We are not anyway going to be able to hold back migration. That will be the real challenge for our countries and societies in the next 20 to 30 years. No walls or barbed wire fences will stop such migratory flows. According to news agency reports a few hours ago, in the past 36 hours – a day and a half – more than 12 000 migrants have arrived on Italy’s shores. We are not going to be able to stop those migratory flows, so we must channel them in an intelligent way. That is certainly what we are advocating in our two reports, and certainly in my own.

      I thank members who have remained in the Chamber, although I think a lot of the speakers have now left. In particular, I thank Ms De Sutter for her contribution on my report and for her amendments, which I am certainly keen to incorporate into the text.

      Given that we will have to operate on such a basis, there is a certain amount of fear – the phenomenon of migration unleashes certain fears – but we cannot overcome this fear just by trying to do away with it. We must not look at things in a negative way. We have to attack things from a different angle and adopt a different cultural approach, as my Italian colleague, Mr Kronbichler, was keen to point out. He is an Italian from the north – the southern Tyrol – but still an Italian. As he quite rightly said, migration as a phenomenon has always been around.

      Perhaps I can finish by saying that we need to be careful when it comes to distinguishing between categories of migrants. Migrants arrive because of hunger, fear and, as we have heard, because of climate change. Those are the causes, if you like, but the migrants – the people – are all the same. We cannot divide them up into categories and say there is the A series of migrants, or the B series, or the C series or third-class category. They are all people – people like ourselves.

      I have experienced that personally in Italy, where we see thousands of people in rubber dinghies who make these journeys. Fathers and mothers risk the lives of their own children in order to arrive in Italy or elsewhere in Europe. They know they are putting the lives of their own children at risk; they risk losing their own children. That means there is no alternative. You cannot put an end to the phenomenon. These people have their backs to the wall and they will continue to arrive. We cannot stop them from arriving. The sea, walls or barbed-wire fences cannot stop them.

      If that is the situation, we must respond in a favourable, positive way. That is our responsibility here as parliamentarians within the Parliamentary Assembly. That is why we have launched the diaspora networks. Please come to Lisbon on 7 and 8 September and join us there.

      The PRESIDENT – Does the chairperson of the committee, Ms Gafarova, wish to reply to both this afternoon’s debates and this morning’s debates? You have four minutes.

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – First, I express my satisfaction at the Assembly’s decision to devote the whole day to migration and refugee issues. The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons has given much consideration to the choice of reports to be submitted for the debates today. The idea was to reflect upon the main challenges that Council of Europe member States are confronted with in the field of migration. I am delighted to observe that this objective has been accomplished.

      The key question that requires reflection is the management of migration flows with full respect for human rights and in compliance with international law, in particular with regard to international protection. The report of Mr Marques gave a more global overview of possible responses, while the report of Mr Varvitsiotis assessed the progress in the human rights protection of refugees and migrants, particularly in light of the European Union-Turkey Agreement.

      The afternoon discussions concerned challenges linked to the integration of those refugees and migrants who have already arrived. The report of Ms Huovinen identified best practice in our countries but also focused on the benefits that result from migration. Mr Rigoni drew our attention to many of those benefits. The opinions prepared by almost all Assembly committees allowed them to underscore specific issues relating to their respective fields of competence and contributed greatly to the quality of discussions.

      We should not forget that behind the expression “refugee and migration crisis”, which we often use in Europe, there are hundreds of thousands of people, who often have dramatic or even tragic stories. As was rightly observed today, people do not leave their homes or their countries without having a serious reason to do so. All these people have been displaced by armed conflicts, political instability, food shortages or extreme misery. Many of them have had dramatic experiences on their way to Europe. In order to bring the lives and experience of refugees closer to the members of the Parliamentary Assembly, the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons organised the three-dimensional virtual visit to a refugee camp in Jordan. It is a very valuable experience, particularly for those who have never been in a refugee camp. There is also the Living Library, which has the participation of 22 refugees and social workers who agreed to share their stories with us.

      I also draw your attention to the activities of the committee and the framework of our campaign to end immigration detention of children. I use this opportunity to congratulate my colleague, Ms Fiala, our general rapporteur on this subject, for her efforts in promoting this idea. I am glad to say that, as we heard at the round table organised by the committee on Monday, there is progress in this respect, and more and more politicians understand that migrant children, even if they enter a country in an irregular way, are first of all children and should never be detained.

      Finally, as you heard from Mr Rigoni, the sub-committee of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons is organising, in combination with the Parliament of Portugal, a large conference of the parliamentary network on diaspora issues. We attach great importance to this initiative, which will hopefully contribute to the integration of migrants.

      The quality of discussions throughout the whole day was very high and I congratulate all rapporteurs from the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons and the rapporteurs for opinion from other committees, as well as our invited guests and all the speakers for their valuable contributions. I also express my gratitude to our invited guests.

2. Votes on the draft resolutions and draft recommendations in the reports considered

in the two joint debates

      The PRESIDENT – The debate is closed. We now come to the votes on amendments to the reports that were debated in this morning’s session. When we have finished the votes on the reports that we debated this morning, Documents 14342 and 14341, we will vote on the amendments to the reports that we have debated in this afternoon’s session.

      The first report we will consider is titled, “A comprehensive humanitarian and political response to the migration and refugee crisis in Europe”, Document 14342. It was presented by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons.

      The committee has presented a draft resolution, to which 11 amendments have been tabled.

      The committee has also presented a draft recommendation, to which no amendments have been tabled.

      We will first consider the draft resolution, Document 14342.

      I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 1 to 4 to the draft resolution, Document 14342, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

      Is that so, Ms Gafarova?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – Yes, it is so.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone object? That is not the case.

      Amendments 1 to 4 are adopted.

      The remaining amendments will be taken in the order in which they appear in the Compendium and the Organisation of Debates. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      I call Ms Yaşar to support Amendment 8.

      Ms YAŞAR (Turkey)* – I do not wish to move Amendment 8.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to move Amendment 8? That is not the case Amendment 8 is not moved.

      I call Mr Černoch to support Amendment 11.

      Mr ČERNOCH (Czech Republic) – Climate change does not cause an automatic increase in forced cross-border migration. Under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, environmental considerations are not relevant to the granting of asylum.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Schennach.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – Even the Swedish Minister said today that the refugees of the future will be climate refugees. There is already a state that no longer exists because it has disappeared underwater. Climate refugees are a big challenge and the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees will certainly have to be extended to include them. Please do not vote for this amendment, which would delete paragraph 6.3 – reject it.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The amendment was rejected by an overwhelming majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 11 is rejected.

      I call Ms Kavvadia to support Amendment 5, on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy.

      Ms KAVVADIA (Greece) – The amendment will make it clear that the principle of solidarity is a legal obligation for European Union member States, and asks them to implement the decisions on relocation and resettlement that have already been taken by the European Union and to speed up the adoption of the ongoing reforms in this field.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is in favour by an overwhelming majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Mr Munyama to support Amendment 10.

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – The amendment seeks to add religious minorities to the vulnerable groups mentioned in paragraph 8.1.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is in favour by an overwhelming majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Mr Černoch to support Amendment 12.

      Mr ČERNOCH (Czech Republic) – The amendment would allow member countries to use either financial or social assistance for migrants, or a combination of both. Recent practice has seen member countries use more social assistance to avoid the misuse of financial contributions.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The amendment was rejected by an overwhelming majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 12 is rejected.

      I call Ms Kavvadia to support Amendment 6, on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy.

      Ms KAVVADIA (Greece) – The amendment would simply clarify that we cannot impose an obligation on refugees to reside in the country that offered them assistance, although we must of course encourage them to do so.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is in favour by an overwhelming majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Ms Yaşar to support Amendment 9.

      Ms YAŞAR (Turkey)* – We would like to know where the centres that are supposed to take due account of requests for asylum are, and we would like it to be clear that no European Union country is excluded.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is in favour by an overwhelming majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We now turn to the amendment that has been tabled to the title of the draft resolution, Document 14342. If agreed to, this will also amend the title of the draft recommendation.

      I call Ms Kavvadia to support Amendment 7, on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy.

      Ms KAVVADIA (Greece) – The amendment clarifies what was said so many times today: what started as an emergency situation – a migratory and refugee crisis – is a phenomenon that continues and that regrettably will not end soon.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is in favour by an overwhelming majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 14342, as amended. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      Ms YAŞAR (Turkey)* – On a point of order, Madam President. I have confused Amendment 8 with the report that follows. The one I withdrew had been accepted by the committee, so is there any possibility of having a vote on this Amendment 8, because I have withdrawn it by mistake? I got mixed up.

      The PRESIDENT – Is the situation that you would not have rejected it and misunderstood what we were talking about? It is too late and we have voted according to the rules, so I will continue.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation, as amended, contained in Document 14342. I remind the Assembly that the title of the draft recommendation has been amended.

      We now come to the second report, entitled “Human rights implications of the European response to transit migration across the Mediterranean”, Document 14341, which we considered this morning.

      The committee has presented a draft resolution to which 31 amendments have been tabled.

      I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 13, 21 to 24, 31, 26 and 28 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

      The committee also unanimously agreed Amendments 15 and 20. However, I must call them separately as sub-amendments have been tabled. In addition, the committee unanimously agreed Amendment 11, but I must call this separately too as it has a consequence for another amendment in the Compendium.

      Does Ms Gafarova wish to propose that the eight unanimously approved amendments be declared agreed?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – Yes.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone object? That is not the case.

      Amendments 13, 21 to 24, 31, 26 and 28 are adopted.

      The remaining amendments will be taken in the order in which they appear in the Compendium and the Organisation of Debates. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      We come to Amendment 14. I call Ms Strik on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to support the amendment.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – The committee found the sentence to be too optimistic – there are still a lot of deficiencies. However, we would like to submit an oral sub-amendment. Instead of the deleting the whole third sentence, we want to delete only the word “much”. It would then say, “It has become more efficient” rather than “much more efficient”.

      The PRESIDENT – Can you explain that again? We are talking about Amendment 14. As far as I can see, we do not have any oral sub-amendments.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – I am proposing now to delete only the word “much” rather than the whole sentence.

      The PRESIDENT – As far as I understand it, according to the rules, your proposal is not acceptable because you had to deliver it previously. Even though it is more positive, it has to stand as it stands and we have to go to the vote.

      Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The amendment was rejected.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 14 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 1. I call Ms Yaşar to support the amendment.

      Ms YAŞAR (Turkey)* – Turkey is not a buffer zone or a waiting room. Terms such as “first country of asylum” or “safe third country” should not be included.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The amendment was rejected by an overwhelming majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 1 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 15, which was unanimously agreed by the committee, but which has a sub-amendment. I call Ms Strik to support the amendment.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – The amendment notes that the concerns of last year were unfounded because no one had been returned. However, that is not true. The concerns are confirmed by the Greek judges, and therefore it makes sense to say that no one has been returned until now. Amendment 15 is more accurate in terms of the situation and the Assembly’s concerns of last year.

      The PRESIDENT – We come to the sub-amendment, tabled by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons. I call Mr Varvitsiotis to support the sub-amendment.

      Mr VARVITSIOTIS (Greece) – If we say “unfounded”, it would be overwhelming, but we can say that it has not been proven until now. We agree on that in the committee.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? That is not the case.

      I shall now put the sub-amendment to the vote.

      The sub-amendment is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

I call Ms Strik to support Amendment 16.

Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – I urge members to approve the amendment, which deletes an incorrect statement about all asylum claims having been examined on their merits. The European Commission’s latest report states that more than 4 000 cases have been declared inadmissible, which means that they have not been examined on their merits. I urge members to ensure that the report is correct.

The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee rejected the amendment by 13 to 11, with four abstentions.

The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

I call Ms Strik to support Amendment 17.

Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – The amendment states that previous conclusions of the Assembly about hotspots – detention centres – that were closed have been proven to be unfounded because they are now open. But there has been a policy change since the adoption of our report last year, so it is correct to say that there has been a policy change but not that those conclusions were incorrect.

The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Varvitsiotis.

Mr VARVITSIOTIS (Greece) – I find this misleading. The truth is that now open hotspots are in operation and whoever wants to can come in and go out of them. There are thousands of people who are not staying in hotspots on the islands but outside, in United Nations or NGO facilities, or elsewhere when they have the funds or the ability to leave. So to say that everyone is closed in a hotspot does not represent the reality of what is happening in Lesbos, Chios, Samos and Leros.

The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is in favour by 11 to seven, with four abstentions.

The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

I call Ms Strik to support Amendment 18.

Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights felt that it was important and correct to create more balance in the report by also mentioning a number of concerns that had been expressed by UNHCR, the Greek ombudsman and the Committee of Ministers. Therefore, serious concerns about the processing of asylum claims, protective detention, unaccompanied minors, and so on, are mentioned in the amendment, and there is also recognition of the Greek authorities’ efforts to solve the problems.

The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Varvitsiotis.

Mr VARVITSIOTIS (Greece) – This was the debate we had this morning, whether we say to Greece that it has remained in the same position since 2015 or we say that it has moved forward. The proposed paragraph does not bring anything new to the report. Nothing. All the issues it raises are raised in the recommendations. So, do we say that no matter what has happened in the last two years, the efforts that have been made by the Greek population, the Greek Government – which I do not support even though I am Greek – and the European Union were in vain and the situation remains the same? That would be absolutely unfair and it sends the wrong signal to the Greek Government and the wrong signal about this Organisation. We must praise, and we must formulate our language according to what is happening in reality. That is why I urge members to vote against the amendment.

The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is in favour by nine to seven, with three abstentions.

The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

I call Ms Strik to support Amendment 19.

Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – This amendment is about the situation in Italy, in the hotspots. We derived information from independent bodies that people, especially unaccompanied minors, still spend too long in the hotspots and that there is a shortage of more permanent reception centres. The amendment would make the report more complete and balanced.

The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Centemero.

Mr CENTEMERO (Italy) – I remind members that in Italy we recently approved a law regarding unaccompanied minors. Italy is, therefore, tackling the situation on the ground and I oppose the amendment.

The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is overwhelmingly in favour.

The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

We come to Amendment 20, which was unanimously agreed by the committee but is being called now because it has a sub-amendment. I call Ms Strik to support the amendment.

Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights found it necessary to refer to reports by the Special Representative of Secretary General Jagland and Amnesty International, which point out that there are still serious delays in the registration and processing of asylum claims and that there are also concerns about people accessing appeals if their claim is rejected. There have also been reports of people being compelled to give fingerprints. The amendment adds these facts in order to get a more balanced report.

      The PRESIDENT – We now come to the sub-amendment, tabled by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, which would delete the following words: “especially given the reports of use of excessive force and even torture in this context”. I call Mr Varvitsiotis to support the sub-amendment.

Mr VARVITSIOTIS (Greece) – I presented the results of the fact-finding mission, and the reports about the use of excessive force and even torture in the fingerprinting of migrants in Italy were not proven by any source or by any NGO I met with in Italy. I find the amendment excessive and the committee agreed that this part of it should be deleted.

The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment?

Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – Mr Varvitsiotis says that there is no source. I must contest that because the source of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights is a very detailed Amnesty International report about how these things have been happening in the hotspots. That there is no source is simply not true.

The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – I am against the sub-amendment.

The PRESIDENT – I shall now put the sub-amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

The sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is overwhelmingly in favour.

The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Ms Yaşar to support Amendment 2.

      Ms YAŞAR (Turkey)* – Giving priority to family reunification would prevent the fair distribution of refugees and would not solve any problems.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?       I call Mr Schennach.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – Family reunification is a fundamental human right, and bringing families together helps a great deal.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is against, by an overwhelming majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 2 is rejected.

      I call Mr Schennach to support Amendment 9.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The Dublin Regulation was not built for the refugee crisis that we have experienced in the last few years. The amendment is a question of humanity and solidarity. Italy and Greece have the largest number of incoming refugees, and no European country should send back refugees on the basis of this formal, non-existent Dublin Regulation.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I understand that Ms De Sutter does not wish to move Amendments 6 and 10. Does anyone else wish to move Amendments 6 or 10. That is not the case. Amendments 6 and 10 are not moved.

      I call Ms Strik to support Amendment 30 on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – Amendments 6 and 10 have not been moved, and Amendment 30 has been moved instead because it is the best amendment on the subject. It is designed to ensure that member States immediately fulfil the relocation commitments that they made two years ago, and that we come up with measures to deal with non-compliant member States.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is in favour, by an overwhelming majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Mr Černoch to support Amendment 12.

      Mr ČERNOCH (Czech Republic) – We would like to delete paragraph 11.3.5., because we consistently disagree with the application of the relocation mechanism.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?       I call Mr Schennach.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – If we delete this paragraph, we will be closing our eyes to what is going on. As well as Syrian refugees, we have a lot of Afghan, Pakistani and Iraqi refugees. The Afghan and Iraqi refugees have come from poor areas, and we have to bring them into the relocation programme.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is against, by an overwhelming majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 12 is rejected.

      I understand that Ms De Sutter does not wish to move Amendments 11 and 7. Does anyone wish to Amendment 11 or 7? That is not the case. Amendments 11 and 7 are not moved.

      I call Ms De Sutter to support Amendment 8.

      Ms De SUTTER (Belgium) – The amendment is designed to end the systematic detention of rejected asylum seekers, especially in police stations. Although it is true that the hotspots have been opened up, detention is still a problem outside the hotspots. The Greek ombudsman rejected the principle of systematic detention of asylum seekers, which is not in compliance with European standards, and he highlighted the illegitimate length and inhumane conditions of detention. We think that those problems deserve to be addressed.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is in favour, by nine to four, with one abstention.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Ms Strik to support Amendment 25 on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – This amendment calls for the withdrawal of the policy that once an asylum seeker appeals against a negative decision, he is no longer entitled to access a voluntary return programme. That policy constitutes a form of punishment for making use of the legitimate right to an effective remedy, so the committee would like it to be abolished.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is in favour, by an overwhelming majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Ms Strik to support Amendment 27 on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – The amendment would ensure that asylum seekers are not detained in the hotspots for longer than the period allowed by European law. This is about the Italian situation, where people still stay for too long in the hotspots, and there is still a shortage of more permanent reception centres.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – In favour.

      The PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Ms Yaşar to support Amendment 3.

      Ms YAŞAR (Turkey)* – This is a call to lift the geographical restrictions. There are 3 million refugees in Turkey at present, and 250 000 are in camps. How many more refugees can we take? This paragraph has no meaning for Turkey, given the number of migrants already in Turkey, so we would like it to be deleted.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      Amendment 3 is rejected.

      I call Ms Yaşar to support amendment 4.

      Ms YAŞAR (Turkey)* – On 7 April 2016, Turkey agreed that it would indeed receive a certain number of Syrian refugees, and we already have standards that have been included in our legislation that are fully in line with European standards.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Schennach.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – This is a necessary paragraph. We are reprising the old discussion between us and Turkey. Turkey declares these people to be only guests; the difference is that they are therefore not refugees under the Geneva refugee convention. Please do not accept this amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      Amendment 4 is rejected.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Ms Strik to support Amendment 29 on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – The committee endorses this paragraph saying that Turkey has to ensure it complies with the human rights standards, and not only in respect of detention, but also in terms of being able to access asylum. Non-Syrians in particular have great difficulty in being able to lodge an asylum claim in Turkey, as there is a big shortage of capacity. Also, at the Syrian border, there are still cases of people being sent back to Syria, and we want to raise this issue.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – In favour.

      The PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      I call Ms Yaşar to support Amendment 5.

      Ms YAŞAR (Turkey)* – Under the European Union-Turkey Agreement, efforts have to be made on both sides. Turkey has done what it had to do under the terms of that agreement, but the European Union has not yet provided the financial assistance for Syrians and has not yet done what it said it would do about visas for Turkish citizens. Promises have not been kept, therefore, and as long as that is the case Turkey has the right to withdraw.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      Amendment 5 is rejected.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 14341, as amended. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open

      We now come to the votes on the reports we debated this afternoon. The first report was titled “Migration as an opportunity for European development.” The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons has presented a draft resolution to which nine amendments have been tabled, and a draft recommendation to which no amendments have been tabled, Document 14335.

      The amendments will be taken in the order in which they appear in the Compendium and the Organisation of Debates.

      We will first consider the amendments to the draft resolution, Document 14335. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 1, 2, 3, 7 and 4 to the draft resolution, Document 14335, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

      Is that so, Ms Gafarova?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – Yes.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone object? There is no objection.

      Amendments 1, 2, 3, 7 and 4 adopted.

      We will therefore now proceed to consider the remaining amendments in the order that they appear in the Compendium and Organisation of Debates.

       I call Mr Černoch to support Amendment 8. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr ČERNOCH (Czech Republic) – The recommendation in this paragraph should be considered by nation states and in accordance with national legislation.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      Amendment 8 is rejected.

I call Mr Černoch to support Amendment 9.

Mr ČERNOCH (Czech Republic) – We would like to delete paragraph 9.3.1. because a regularisation project would be a strong pull factor for illegal migration as repetition increases the willingness of foreigners to stay illegally. Foreigners are simply aware that States will transfer them to a legal position after a certain time. This is only an acknowledgement of the failure of States’ management of migration with the negative effect of further increasing illegal migration.

The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Schennach.

Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – Irregular migrants are humans; they live in cities and we have to deal with them. In our country we have programmes for people with no papers. This paragraph asks only for regularisation, and we should do that in a positive way.

The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is against by an overwhelming majority.

The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 9 is rejected.

I call Ms Yaşar to support Amendment 5.

Ms YAŞAR (Turkey) – We will not move Amendment 5 as Mr Rigoni made a statement that satisfies us.

The PRESIDENT – Does anyone else wish to move Amendment 5? That is not the case. Amendment 5 is not moved.

I call Ms Yaşar to support Amendment 6.

Ms YAŞAR (Turkey) – We will not move this amendment for the same reason.

The PRESIDENT – Does anyone else wish to move Amendment 6? That is not the case. Amendment 6 is not moved.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 14335, as amended. A simple majority is required.

The vote is open.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 14335. A simple majority is required.

The vote is open.

      We come now to the second document debated this afternoon. The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons has presented a draft resolution to which 27 amendments have been tabled, Document 14329.

      The amendments will be taken in the order in which they appear in the revised Compendium and the Organisation of Debates. I remind the Assembly that the Compendium has been revised twice today, and so members should refer to Compendium Revision 2 during the votes.

      I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 12, 13, 23, 24, 14, 16, 25, 26 and 21 to the draft resolution, Document 14329, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

      Is that so, Ms Gafarova?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – Yes.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone object? That is not the case.

      Amendments 12, 13, 23, 24, 14, 16, 25, 26 and 21 adopted.

      We will now proceed to vote on the remaining amendments.

      I call Ms Yaşar to support Amendment 1.

      Ms YAŞAR (Turkey) – Turkey hosts the largest refugee population in the world. It is not me who is saying that, but you can see it if you look at the UNHCR figures: 3 million is a number that you cannot ignore; therefore, we wish that Turkey be referred to in this paragraph.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Huovinen.

      Ms HUOVINEN (Finland) – I thank Turkey for its tremendous effort in hosting so many Syrian refugees. However, this report is not about the reception of refugees but about integration. Most studies highlight Germany and Sweden as having come particularly far on integration, as we have mentioned, and that is why they are mentioned here. Therefore, I am against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is against by an overwhelming majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 1 is rejected.

      I call Ms Yaşar to support Amendment 2.

Ms YAŞAR (Turkey) – In the report, the word used is always “migrants” but we would like to see “refugees” in there as well. The title refers to refugees but the body of the report refers only to migrants. We would like “refugees” always to be added.

The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is against by an overwhelming majority.

The PRESIDENT - The vote is open.

Amendment 2 is rejected.

I call Ms Yaşar to support Amendment 3.

Ms YAŞAR (Turkey) – It is repetitive, but for the same reasons there has to be harmonisation between the title of the report and the contents. Once again, we would like the word “refugees” to be included.

The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is against it by an overwhelming majority.

The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 3 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 22. I call Ms Centemero on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination to support the amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms CENTEMERO (Italy)* – There is an oral sub-amendment which deletes ‘refugees and’. We are against that, because refugees are included in the title of the draft resolution.

      The PRESIDENT – I have been informed that the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment as follows: in Amendment 22, to delete the words ‘refugees and’.

      In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case.

I therefore call Ms Huovinen to support the oral sub-amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms HUOVINEN (Finland) – The oral sub-amendment would delete ‘refugees and’, to make the text consistent.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

      Ms CENTEMERO (Italy)* – I was speaking earlier to the oral sub-amendment rather than the amendment. We are against deleting ‘refugees and’ because, as I said, ‘refugees’ is in the title.

      The PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour.

      I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      The sub-amendment is adopted.

      We will now consider the main amendment, as amended.

      Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons on the amendment, as amended?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – I shall now put Amendment 22, as amended, to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      We come now to Amendment 11. I call Mr Munyama to support the amendment.

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – I ask the Assembly to support the amendment, which would ensure that members of vulnerable groups, including children, women, unaccompanied minors and religious minorities, would be protected effectively. I think this is the best place to insert this paragraph.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is against, by an overwhelming majority.

The PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 11 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment 4. I call Ms Yaşar to support the amendment.

Ms YAŞAR (Turkey)* – Once again, with this amendment, we wish to insert the words ‘refugees and’. On 9 January 2017, the Council of Europe issued a form – it is the one I am holding – signed by 36 countries in which the word ‘refugees’ was included. We call for the Assembly to support the amendment.

The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against this amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is against, by an overwhelming majority.

The PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 4 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment 5. I call Ms Yaşar to support the amendment.

Ms YAŞAR (Turkey)* – Once again, we would like the word ‘refugees’ to appear in this paragraph. Refugees and migrants should both be mentioned, and I do not see why we would not mention both. It would make the report much more inclusive.

The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against this amendment? That is not the case.

I call Mr Gunnarsson on a point of order.

Mr GUNNARSON (Sweden) – It seems like we are having the same vote over and over again. Can we please make this more efficient by having one vote on all these amendments, as they are all the same?

The PRESIDENT – I understand your meaning and your feelings, but due to the protocol, it is not possible to adjust the process, so we have to go through every one, but I will try to do it as efficiently as possible.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is against, by an overwhelming majority.

The PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 5 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment 6. I call Ms Yaşar to support the amendment.

Ms YAŞAR (Turkey)* – I am well aware that this is boring, but there is an inconsistency between the text and title of the report, and I want to highlight it. I think that this is very bad for the report.

The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against this amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is against.

The PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 6 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment 7. I call Ms Yaşar to support the amendment.

Ms YAŞAR (Turkey)* – Once again, I reiterate our request to eliminate the difference between the title and the content.

The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against this amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is against.

The PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 7 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment 8. I call Ms Yaşar to support the amendment.

Ms YAŞAR (Turkey)* – Yet again, I repeat what I have already said, and I repeat my request. We have not resolved the issue of refugees, and we should use the word ‘refugees’. The problem has not been solved.

The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against this amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is against.

The PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 8 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment 9. I call Ms Yaşar to support the amendment.

Ms YAŞAR (Turkey)* – I support the amendment for the same reasons. We would like it to be consistent and more conclusive. I commend the amendment to the Assembly.

The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against this amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is against.

The PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 9 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 15. I call Mr Le Borgn’ to support Amendment 15 on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr LE BORGN’ (France)* – We want to draw attention to conditions and measures for the recognition and validation of the academic and professional experience and qualifications of refugees who do not have evidence of their diplomas.

      The PRESIDENT – I have been informed that the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, as follows:

      In Amendment 15, to replace the words from “as far as possible” to the end of the amendment with the following words: “conditions and measures for the recognition and validation of academic and professional experience and qualifications for those refugees without evidence of their diplomas”.

      In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules.

      However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case. I therefore call Ms Huovinen to support the oral sub-amendment.

      Ms HUOVINEN (Finland) – The Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media makes a very important point. This sub-amendment would make the sentence a little shorter, but the content and message would remain the same.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment?

      What is the opinion of Mr Le Borgn’?

      Mr LE BORGN’ (France)* – In favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour.

      I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      We will now consider the main amendment, as amended.

      Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons on the amendment, as amended?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – I shall now put Amendment 15, as amended, to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 17. I call Mr Le Borgn’ to support Amendment 17 on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr LE BORGN’ (France)* – The amendment, which I tabled on behalf of the committee, seeks to strengthen the capacity of schools and teachers to take in large numbers of refugee children. It is important to stress the training that is given to teachers.

      The PRESIDENT – I have been informed that the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, as follows:

      In Amendment 17, to replace the words from “of schools” to the end of the amendment with the following words: “of teachers to include refugee children fully in the school environment, and including human rights, non-discrimination and migration issues in the teacher-training curriculum”.

      In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case. I therefore call Ms Huovinen to support the oral sub-amendment.

      Ms HUOVINEN (Finland) – This case is similar. This is a very important issue; the sub-amendment just makes the amendment a little shorter.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of Mr Le Borgn’?

      Mr LE BORGN’ (France)* – In favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour.

      I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      We will now consider the main amendment, as amended.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 17, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons on the amendment, as amended?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – I shall now put Amendment 17, as amended, to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 18. I call Mr Le Borgn’ to support Amendment 18 on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr LE BORGN’ (France)* – This amendment, which I tabled on behalf of the committee, seeks to draw attention to the need to support integration through social participation and access to education for unaccompanied migrants until they reach the age of majority.

      The PRESIDENT – I have been informed that the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, as follows:

      In Amendment 18, to delete the words after “adulthood” to the end of the amendment, and replace with the words “beyond the age of 18”.

      In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case.

I call Ms Huovinen to support the oral sub-amendment.

      Ms HUOVINEN (Finland) – This is another very important amendment from the committee that would replace just two words.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of Mr Le Borgn’?

      Mr LE BORGN’ (France)* – In favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour.

      I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      We will now consider the main amendment, as amended.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 18, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons on the amendment, as amended?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – In favour.

      The PRESIDENT – I shall now put Amendment 18, as amended, to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 27. I call Ms Centemero to support Amendment 27 on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination.

      Ms CENTEMERO (Italy)* – With this amendment, we wanted to emphasise the need when talking about vulnerable groups to draw particular attention to women. The committee is in fact drawing up a report on the role of migrant women.

      The PRESIDENT – I have been informed that Ms Eva-Lena Jansson wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, as follows:

      In Amendment 27, after the word “women” insert the following words: “, girls”.

      In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case.

Ms Jansson is not here, so I call Mr Gunnarsson to support the oral sub-amendment.

      Mr GUNNARSSON (Sweden) – I will move the oral sub-amendment for Ms Jansson, who I do not think is in the Chamber.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of Ms Centemero?

      Ms CENTEMERO (Italy)* – In favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour.

      I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      We will now consider the main amendment, as amended.

      Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons on the amendment, as amended?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – In favour.

      The PRESIDENT – I shall now put Amendment 27, as amended, to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      We now come to Amendment 10. I call Ms Yaşar to support it.

      Ms YAŞAR (Turkey)* – There is a significant difference between “migrants” and “refugees” – we parliamentarians have mentioned that several times – and I am moving the amendment because for some people the difference is absolutely crucial.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The committee is against by an overwhelming majority.

      The PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      Amendment 10 is rejected.

      We now come to Amendment 19. I call Mr Le Borgn’ to support it.

      Mr Le BORGN’ (France)* – I do not want to move the amendment, if that is possible.

      The PRESIDENT – It is possible, but I must see whether anyone else wishes to move it. That is not the case, so Amendment 19 is not moved.

      We now come to Amendment 20. I call Mr Le Borgn’ to support it.

      Mr Le BORGN’ (France)* – Again, as this amendment was rejected in the committee, I do not want to move it.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to move the amendment? That is not the case, so Amendment 20 is not moved.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 14329, as amended.

      The vote is open.

3. Next public sitting

      The PRESIDENT – To enable as many members as possible to speak, I propose that the speaking time is limited to three minutes on Thursday morning. Is that agreed? It is agreed.

      The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10 a.m., with the agenda that was approved on Monday.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 8 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Joint debate: Migration as an opportunity for European development / Integration of refugees in times of critical pressure: learning from recent experience and examples of best practice

Statement by Mr Nils Muižnieks, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights

Statement by Mr Morgan Johansson, Minister for Justice and Migration of Sweden

Presentation by Mr Rigoni of report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, Document 14335

Presentation by Ms De Sutter of opinion of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, Document 14348

Presentation by Ms Huovinen of report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, Document 14329

Presentation by Mr Le Borgn’ of opinion of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, Document 14354

Presentation by Ms Centemero of opinion of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, Document 14347

Speakers: Mr Schennach (Austria), the Earl of Dundee (United Kingdom), Mr Poliačik (Slovak Republic), Ms Johnsson Fornarve (Sweden), Ms Johnsen (Norway), Ms Hoffmann (Hungary), Ms Crozon (France), Mr Aeg (Estonia), Ms Anttila (Finland), Ms Virolainen (Finland), Ms Bilgehan (Turkey), Mr Köck (Austria), Ms Ohlsson (Sweden), Ms Christoffersen (Norway), Mr Miroğlu (Turkey), Mr Rafael Huseynov (Azerbaijan), Mr Overbeek (Netherlands), Ms Hopkins (Ireland), Mr Hajduković (Croatia), Ms Naghdalyan (Armenia), Mr Wiechel (Sweden), Mr Kronbichler (Italy), Mr Ghiletchi (Republic of Moldova), Ms Alqawasmi (Palestine), Mr Černoch (Czech Republic), Ms Topcu (Turkey), Mr Heer (Switzerland), Mr Kiral (Ukraine), Ms Kavvadia (Greece), Ms Christodoulopoulou (Greece), Ms Gunnarsdóttir (Iceland) and Mr Psychogios (Greece)

Replies: Ms Huovinen (Finland), Mr Rigoni (Italy), Ms Gafarova (Azerbaijan),

2. Votes on the draft resolutions and draft recommendations in the reports considered in the two joint debates

Amendments 1 to 5, 10, 6, 9 and 7 adopted

Draft resolution in Document 14324, as amended, adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 14324 adopted

Amendments 13, 21 to 24, 31, 26, 28, 15 as amended, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 as amended, 9, 30, 8, 25, 27 and 29 adopted

Draft resolution in Document 14341, as amended, adopted

Amendments 1, 2, 3, 7 and 4 adopted.

Draft resolution in Document 14335, as amended, adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 14335, adopted

Amendments 12, 13, 23, 24, 14, 16, 25, 26, 21, 22 as amended, 15 as amended, 17 as amended, 18 as amended, and 27 as amended, adopted

Draft resolution in Document 14329, as amended, adopted

3. 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]

ADAM, Claude [M.] (BRASSEUR, Anne [Mme])

AEG, Raivo [Mr] (NOVIKOV, Andrei [Mr])

ÆVARSDÓTTIR, Thorhildur Sunna [Ms]

ANDERSON, Donald [Lord]

ANTTILA, Sirkka-Liisa [Ms]

ARENT, Iwona [Ms]

ARIEV, Volodymyr [Mr]

ARNAUT, Damir [Mr]

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

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

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

BALIĆ, Marijana [Ms]

BAYKAL, Deniz [Mr]

BERGAMINI, Deborah [Ms]

BĒRZINŠ, Andris [M.]

BEUS RICHEMBERGH, Goran [Mr]

BİLGEHAN, Gülsün [Mme]

BLAZINA, Tamara [Ms] (ASCANI, Anna [Ms])

BOGDANOV, Krasimir [Mr]

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

BUTKEVIČIUS, Algirdas [Mr]

CENTEMERO, Elena [Ms]

CEPEDA, José [Mr]

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

ČERNOCH, Marek [Mr] (MARKOVÁ, Soňa [Ms])

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]

COWEN, Barry [Mr]

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

CRUCHTEN, Yves [M.]

CSENGER-ZALÁN, Zsolt [Mr]

DAMYANOVA, Milena [Mme]

DOKLE, Namik [M.]

DUNDEE, Alexander [The Earl of] [ ]

DURRIEU, Josette [Mme]

EBERLE-STRUB, Susanne [Ms]

ECCLES, Diana [Lady]

EROTOKRITOU, Christiana [Ms] (LOUCAIDES, George [Mr])

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

FOULKES, George [Lord] (WINTERTON, Rosie [Dame])

GAFAROVA, Sahiba [Ms]

GAMBARO, Adele [Ms]

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

GERMANN, Hannes [Mr] (FIALA, Doris [Mme])

GHILETCHI, Valeriu [Mr]

GIRO, Francesco Maria [Mr]

GODSKESEN, Ingebjørg [Ms] (WOLD, Morten [Mr])

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

GONÇALVES, Carlos Alberto [M.]

GONCHARENKO, Oleksii [Mr]

GOSSELIN-FLEURY, Geneviève [Mme] (ALLAIN, Brigitte [Mme])

GRIN, Jean-Pierre [M.] (MÜLLER, Thomas [Mr])

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

GUNNARSSON, Jonas [Mr]

GUTIÉRREZ, Antonio [Mr]

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

HAJDUKOVIĆ, Domagoj [Mr]

HALICKI, Andrzej [Mr]

HEER, Alfred [Mr]

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

HOPKINS, Maura [Ms]

HRISTOV, Plamen [Mr]

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

HUSEYNOV, Rafael [Mr]

JANIK, Grzegorz [Mr] (BERNACKI, Włodzimierz [Mr])

JENIŠTA, Luděk [Mr]

JENSEN, Mogens [Mr]

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

JOHNSSON FORNARVE, Lotta [Ms] (KARLSSON, Niklas [Mr])

KALMARI, Anne [Ms]

KANDEMİR, Erkan [Mr]

KAVVADIA, Ioanneta [Ms]

KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR, Filiz [Ms]

KESİCİ, İlhan [Mr]

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

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

KLICH, Bogdan [Mr]

KÖCK, Eduard [Mr] (AMON, Werner [Mr])

KOX, Tiny [Mr]

KRIŠTO, Borjana [Ms]

KRONBICHLER, Florian [Mr]

KROSS, Eerik-Niiles [Mr]

KYRIAKIDES, Stella [Ms]

LE BORGN', Pierre-Yves [M.]

LEITE RAMOS, Luís [M.]

LESKAJ, Valentina [Ms]

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

LOGVYNSKYI, Georgii [Mr]

LOMBARDI, Filippo [M.]

LOPUSHANSKYI, Andrii [Mr] (GERASHCHENKO, Iryna [Mme])

MADEJ, Róbert [Mr]

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

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

MAURY PASQUIER, Liliane [Mme]

MEALE, Alan [Sir]

MENDES, Ana Catarina [Mme]

MERGEN, Martine [Mme] (HETTO-GAASCH, Françoise [Mme])

MESTERHÁZY, Attila [Mr]

MIGNON, Jean-Claude [M.]

MIKKO, Marianne [Ms]

MİROĞLU, Orhan [Mr]

MULARCZYK, Arkadiusz [Mr]

MULLEN, Rónán [Mr] (CROWE, Seán [Mr])

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

NAGHDALYAN, Hermine [Ms] (FARMANYAN, Samvel [Mr])

NENUTIL, Miroslav [Mr]

NICOLETTI, Michele [Mr]

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

OHLSSON, Carina [Ms]

ÖNAL, Suat [Mr]

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])

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

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

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

RIGONI, Andrea [Mr]

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Soraya [Mme]

RUSTAMYAN, Armen [M.]

ŞAHİN USTA, Leyla [Ms]

SCHENNACH, Stefan [Mr]

SCHOU, Ingjerd [Ms]

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

SCHWABE, Frank [Mr]

ŠEPIĆ, Senad [Mr]

ŠIRCELJ, Andrej [Mr]

SOBOLEV, Serhiy [Mr]

STROE, Ionuț-Marian [Mr]

SUTTER, Petra De [Ms] (VERCAMER, Stefaan [M.])

THIÉRY, Damien [M.]

TOPCU, Zühal [Ms]

TORNARE, Manuel [M.] (FRIDEZ, Pierre-Alain [M.])

VÁHALOVÁ, Dana [Ms]

VAREIKIS, Egidijus [Mr]

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

VILLUMSEN, Nikolaj [Mr]

VIROLAINEN, Anne-Mari [Ms]

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

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

WENAWESER, Christoph [Mr]

WIECHEL, Markus [Mr] (NISSINEN, Johan [Mr])

WILK, Jacek [Mr]

WOJTYŁA, Andrzej [Mr]

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

YAŞAR, Serap [Mme]

YEMETS, Leonid [Mr]

ZELIENKOVÁ, Kristýna [Ms]

ZINGERIS, Emanuelis [Mr]

ZOHRABYAN, Naira [Mme]

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

BERNACKI, Włodzimierz [Mr]

HAMOUSOVÁ, Zdeňka [Ms]

HETTO-GAASCH, Françoise [Mme]

JORDANA, Carles [M.]

LUNDGREN, Kerstin [Ms]

MASIULIS, Kęstutis [Mr]

WILSON, David [Lord]

Observers / Observateurs

ALLISON, Dean [Mr]

LARIOS CÓRDOVA, Héctor [Mr]

MALTAIS, Ghislain [M.]

OLIVER, John [Mr]

SANTANA GARCÍA, José de Jesús [Mr]

Partners for democracy / Partenaires pour la démocratie

ALQAWASMI, Sahar [Ms]

AMRAOUI, Allal [M.]

EL MOKRIE EL IDRISSI, Abouzaid [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