Mr Saakashvili, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at
10 a.m.
THE PRESIDENT.- The sitting is open.
1. Minutes of proceedings
THE PRESIDENT.- The minutes of proceedings of the previous two
sittings have been distributed.
If there are no objections, I will take the minutes as agreed to.
The minutes are adopted.
2. References to committees
THE PRESIDENT.- At its meeting this morning, the Bureau made
proposals, subject to ratification by the Assembly under Rule 24 (2), on references to
committees on the following topics:
- the cultural situation in Kosovo, Montenegro and Serbia, Document 8602, to the Committee
on Culture and Education for report:
- marine pollution by hydrocarbons, Document 8609, to the Committee on the Environment,
Regional Planning and Local Authorities for report and to the Committee on Agriculture and
Rural Development for opinion;
- promotion of information and democratic debate in states failing to honour commitments
and obligations as Council of Europe members, Document 8612, to the Monitoring Committee
for report;
- honouring of obligations and commitments by Ukraine, Document 8637, to the Monitoring
Committee for report and to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights for opinion;
- on domestic slavery, Document 8618, to the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women
and Men for report and to the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee for opinion; and
- a request from the Monitoring Committee for the reference of 4 November 1999,
No. 2459, relating to a political solution to the Kurdish question in Turkey to be
passed on to the Political Affairs Committee, Document 8574.
Does the Assembly agree to these proposals?…
The references and the modification are agreed to.
3. Written declaration
THE PRESIDENT.- In accordance with Rule 53 of the Rules of
Procedure, a written declaration, No. 300, on elections in the United Kingdom, Document
8640, which has been signed by twenty-five members, has been printed.
Any Representative or Substitute may add his signature to this written
declaration in the Table Office, Room 1083. If any names are added, the declaration will
be distributed again two weeks after the end of the part-session, with all the accumulated
signatures.
4. Changes to membership
of committees.
THE PRESIDENT.- An additional item this morning is changes to
members of committees. These are set out in Document Committees (2000) 3 with these two
additional changes: (1) to the Monitoring Committee, Mr Saakashvili in the place of Mr
Moeller for the Group of the EPP/CD; (2) to the Political Affairs Committee, Mr Tallo in
the vacant alternate’s place for Estonia.
These candidatures are submitted to the Assembly under Rule 43 (6). Are
the proposals approved?…
The proposed candidatures are approved and the committees are appointed
accordingly.
5.
Consequences of recent earthquakes in Turkey and Greece
THE PRESIDENT.- The first item of business is a joint debate on the
two reports on the consequences of the recent earthquakes in Turkey and Greece, Document
8594, Document 8601 and Document 8638.
We also have the honour of hearing from Mrs Fusun Koroglu, Deputy
Under-Secretary of the Prime Minister’s Office of Turkey in charge of the
Crisis Unit, and Mr Christos Pahtas, Deputy Minister of the Ministry of the National
Economy of Greece and a former member of this Assembly.
The list of speakers closed at 6 p.m. yesterday. Nine names are on the
list, and six amendments have been tabled relating to the report on economic consequences,
Document 8594.
Mr VERIVAKIS (Greece).- The recent massive earthquakes in Turkey and
Greece caused major tragic loss of life, injuries, trauma and physical damage, but
considerable international support, both material and moral, was rapidly mobilised for the
two countries affected.
The report contains useful ideas to deal with the general problem of
earthquakes and other natural disasters. Everybody knows that Greece is situated in a very
seismic zone because of the complex movements between several tectonic plates in the area.
According to seismologists, the probability of a repetition of earthquakes in the future
will always be very high.
Last September, a few days after the earthquakes in Turkey, another
earthquake hit Athens and the region of Attica, causing the death of many people and
injuring thousands more. Many people suffered housing problems and damage was done to
schools and other educational facilities, hospitals and government premises. Many
businesses were damaged. Greece suffered damage mainly to small or medium-sized
enterprises north of Athens, causing unemployment to rise considerably.
When earthquakes happen, the government automatically puts into
operation its so-called Prometheus plan and applies its seismic protection policy, aiming
to improve the seismic profile of buildings and ensure rapid state assistance to victims
and the dissemination of information to the public about ways, however limited, of
protecting themselves against earthquakes. However, what we can do is limited.
In our experience, international aid is always valuable and precious
because of the material and moral help which is given and the international solidarity
which is expressed. As part of our efforts, priority has been given to restoring the basic
infrastructure, rebuilding social and economic fabric and helping victims to return to a
normal life, including employment.
Following the recent disaster, the international community reacted
swiftly. Immediately after the first earthquake on 17 August, Mrs Helle Degn, Chairperson
of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, presented a motion for resolution,
Document 8494, which was signed by the entire committee when it met in Paris in September.
The signatories expressed "profound sympathy for the victims" and "profound
regret over the vast loss of life". They went on to express their warm welcome for
the "massive international support mobilised to rescue victims and provide material
relief, demonstrating that solidarity today transcends national borders and unites all
nations". Finally, they resolved to do their "utmost to ensure that assistance
will continue to flow to the affected region, in order to provide the means for long-term
alleviation of human suffering and economic reconstruction".
The Committee on Economic Affairs and Development at its meeting in
Paris on 2 September had an exchange of views with the European director of the World
Bank, Mr Jean-François Rischard, resulting in aid being given from various quarters,
including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. A little later, the European
Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the Council of Europe’s development bank
also reacted swiftly.
I think that we all agree that earthquakes are terrible events which
end lives, spread terror and wreak unspeakable havoc on often fragile economies. That is
why the rapporteurs and the committee believe that the aid for dealing with the disasters
in Turkey and Greece should continue until the damage has been repaired and reconstruction
is complete.
In that spirit, the committee feels that moral and material aid should
be provided by the international community in any similar case. We need to be sensitive
about such matters. There must be co-operation between countries and international aid
organisations. That was the thrust of the report. We should start, from this room, to
produce fresh ideas to deal with problems that involve the international community, and we
must express our solidarity and help one another throughout Europe.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. I call Mrs Akgönenç. She is not here, so I
call Mr Briane to present the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Regional
Planning and Local Authorities.
Mr BRIANE (France) said that the effects of earthquakes in Turkey and
Greece highlighted the need for international co-operation and the need to consider how to
minimise problems that were likely to recur in the area of seismic activity. Attention
needed to be given to solving the serious problems of air, soil and marine pollution, as
well as to restoring waste and drinking water systems. The recent oil pollution on the
French coast had shown the necessity of all countries conforming to international
conventions on the environment.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Briane. I see that Mrs Akgönenç has
arrived, so I shall call her. Mr Verivakis spoke for more than five minutes. I do not have
the right to interrupt you before the end of your four minutes Mrs Akgönenç, but I would
appreciate it if you would allow time for others to speak.
Mrs AKGÖNENÇ (Turkey).- I apologise for the delay. An unexpected
event took place this morning.
Turkey has had a more devastating experience than I could possibly
explain. The country is situated in an area of considerable seismic activity. We have had
terrible earthquakes before in the east and the south of the country, but the scale of the
destruction caused by the recent earthquake is unbelievable. When I stood in the middle of
that destruction, I thought about the disappearance of past civilisations and realised
that this is how it must have been, because past civilisations did not have the
technological know-how and help from other countries that we have had. We are very
appreciative of the help that immediately began to pour in from the rest of the country
and the rest of the world.
As well as the physical and economic destruction, there has been
enormous emotional and social destruction. After three or four months, there has been a
serious increase in the number of suicides, particularly among young people who see no
future for themselves. Some of them have left behind notes saying that they have no hope
and are so full of anxiety and fear that they want to finish the trauma now because they
do not know what else to expect. It is terrible that people are being driven to that. We
have had to concentrate on the physical needs of food, shelter and heating, but we are now
realising the dramatic scale of the emotional and psychological impact of the disaster. We
need to help on that score, too.
There are many sad human stories. I heard about a couple who were
expecting a baby when the unbelievable earthquake began. The husband decided that they had
two choices: either they stayed where they were and went under or they jumped from the
second storey. His wife was in her final week of pregnancy, but miraculously, she gave
birth to healthy twins. You hear one story after another like that. The emotional trauma
affected not just the people of that area, but the whole nation. We are still talking
about it and we still feel that we have not begun to rebuild.
The report gives figures for the extent of the devastation. The
earthquake affected the most heavily industrialised part of Turkey. We have had to
undertake a large relocation programme, but we do not want to leave the area
under-populated. We have to find new construction methods and materials and help life to
start again. We need to fight against the inevitability of natural forces and recreate a
balance in the country. I appreciate all the help that everyone has provided for us.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you for your eloquent presentation, Mrs
Akgönenç. I call Mr Surján to present a report on the social consequences of the
earthquakes in Turkey. You have eight minutes.
Mr SURJÁN (Hungary).- I must thank many people. It has been a
fantastic experience for me to be a rapporteur on this subject. I thank the members of my
committee and all our Turkish colleagues, including the government and local authorities,
which supplied us with information to help us prepare the report.
The damage is enormous. I shall not repeat the statistics contained in
the report. My impression is that everyone did their best - families, local authorities,
the army, the government and the international community. We can make some minor
criticisms, but it is not necessary.
A few months on from the earthquakes, there are almost no more ruins.
When I was in Turkey two weeks ago, I saw only one or two ruined houses and a lot of empty
spaces. The rubble has been removed, but the scale of the damage is fantastic. Everybody
now has food and drinking water and the temporary housing problems have been solved
through the use of tents and pre-fabricated houses, but there are still many problems.
Imagine what it means to live in a tent, not just for a pleasant
camping holiday when you can go swimming and have a rest or for short-term military
service, but because there is no alternative. It might sound nice that there is heating in
the tents but you have to go out in the rain to find a toilet. Imagine what that means,
day after day, week after week, month after month. The children living in those tents have
to go to school in another tent. Despite the heating in the tents, when it is raining
outside everything gets wet.
There is angst in the soul of the Turkish people today and it is our
duty to help them. I was shocked to learn that people are not ready to move out. The
government has done a lot of work on identifying safe places to live. Entire cities need
to be rebuilt. That requires sophisticated preparation and international support to find
the best solutions.
It is clear that we have to help Turkey, but it may not be so clear
that we have to learn from Turkey as well. I have seen a healthy society there during my
visits. The most outstanding aspect is that, after 18 000 deaths, there are only
twenty-five children waiting for adoption. Children who lost their parents have been taken
in by other family members. Turkey is a healthy society in which the family has maintained
its original function. In Europe, we are trying to work out how to apply the principle of
subsidiarity to social policy. The example of Turkey shows us how. I am very grateful that
I have had the opportunity to see how it has worked.
I shall give another example. Some 2.6 million children lived in the
damaged area, and now only 2 million are there - some 600 000 are living with families in
other regions. That means that responsibility has been shared by the wider society.
However, the neighbourhood network has been almost destroyed by the earthquake. People are
living in tents in one camp and their neighbours are living in another camp, and they have
lost their connections. That can lead to suicide and other problems.
It is a good consequence of the earthquake that the Turkish Government
and Turkish society have moved towards decentralisation. They have recognised that local
authorities can do a lot, and a bill has been tabled in parliament to achieve more
decentralisation. That is welcome.
I have one criticism to make and it is about the role of the media
during the immediate aftermath of the earthquake. All the individual opinions were
published, but not the reality, and anxiety increased as a result. Governments and
politicians are held responsible, but we must not forget the responsibility of the media.
6.
Contributions from Mrs Füsun Koroglu, Deputy Under-Secretary
of the Prime Minister’s Office of Turkey in charge of the Crisis Unit, and Mr
Christos Pahtas, Deputy Minister of the Ministry of the National Economy of Greece.
THE PRESIDENT.- I welcome Mrs Füsun
Koroglu and Mr Christos Pahtas to the Assembly. Before giving them the floor, I
wish to say a few words.
The awesome earthquakes that struck Turkey and Greece in August and
September, and again in November last year, may be a few months behind us already.
However, the images of destruction and horror that we saw on our television screens - and
about which we have just heard - will remain with us forever. I personally saw the images
again on French television a few days ago of a young couple crying in despair over the
rubble of their house, looking for their child. It was a demonstration of helplessness
before nature and the everyday perils of life.
Entire cities were razed to the ground and buildings reduced to rubble
in seconds. Thousands of lives were lost under the masses of concrete - sometimes
instantly, sometimes after days of dwindling hope. There were the first, frantic rescue
efforts and bare hands digging for signs of life.
Already the first international aid efforts were under way, with the
whole of Europe, indeed the world, rushing to assist, to try to have life and hope outlast
death and destruction. Volunteers from all corners of the globe arrived, as did food,
tents, medical staff, and psychologists trying to ease the distress and trauma of
survivors. Funds were dispatched for reconstruction. And - in a sign that heartened us all
- the two countries themselves - Turkey and Greece - immediately came to each other’s
side, hands stretched out in friendship and solidarity. That was an amazing example of
how, despite differences and current political problems, countries can reverse
longstanding traditions and join forces to solve common problems in moments of crisis. We
believe that there is a wide potential for all the countries in the region with common
ecological and political problems to join forces.
You, Mrs Koroglu, and you, Mr Pahtas, whom we are pleased to welcome as
a former member of the Assembly, bear witness to your countries’ determination to
overcome these tragic events. As you know, our Committee on Economic Affairs and
Development appointed two of your fellow countrymen - Mrs Akgönenç of Turkey and
Mr Verivakis of Greece - to serve as rapporteurs - not only out of symbolism, but in
recognition of the fact that they would be in the very best position to report. Together
with our other rapporteurs - Mr Briane of France and Mr Surján of Hungary - they have
produced admirable work in a very short time, testifying to this Assembly’s resolve
to make sure that Europe helps not just temporarily, but all the way until reconstruction
is complete. We hope that it will last and we will focus our attention on that issue.
Our reports notwithstanding, nothing can replace your accounts, as
ministers directly responsible, first for the rescue and relief, and now for the
reconstruction effort. That is why we shall be listening to you with particular attention.
Before giving you the floor, may I quote the very last lines of the report prepared by Mrs
Akgönenç and Mr Verivakis. They say: "We must try to ensure that out of such
catastrophes may also come something good - however insufficient in relation to such
unspeakable tragedy. A new determination to help. Friendship where before it may not have
been there in full measure." Our rapporteurs conclude by repeating the words of Greek
Foreign Minister George Papandreou, pronounced in the wake of the earthquakes:
"‘The peoples in their wisdom’, he said, ‘are sending a message to the
political élites of our two countries. They are telling us that we should not only help
each other, but be friends’".
Your presence here today, ministers, and
our Assembly’s debate, bear witness to this firm will of yours and of ours. Mrs
Koroglu, you have the floor.
Mrs KOROGLU (Deputy Under-Secretary of the Prime Minister’s
Office of Turkey in charge of the Crisis Unit).- Thank you, Mr. President. I wish to
express my gratitude to you for giving me the opportunity to make this presentation and to
the committee that took the initiative of organising this debate. As you all know, on 17
August, the Marmara region of Turkey was hit by a massive earthquake, due to the movement
of the north Anatolia fault.
A large area was affected and damage was caused by the surface fault
opening and shaking, areas that subsided, and liquefaction of the soil under buildings.
More than 15 million people inhabited the disaster area, more than 17 000 lives were
lost and 44 000 people were injured. Extensive damage occurred to Turkey’s
industrial heartland. Many houses and workplaces collapsed or were heavily damaged.
Another major earthquake occurred on 12 November, with a magnitude of 7.2 on the Richter
scale. It killed 800 people and injured more than 5 000.
Immediately after the earthquake, three critical elements of national
infrastructure failed. The main fibre-optic cable between Istanbul and Ankara was cut just
east of Izmit where the cable crossed the fault. That link formed the backbone of
telephone connections into the earthquake region. At the same time, two main substations
on the electricity power grid were damaged and dropped offline, causing a widespread power
blackout across Turkey. An overpass on the motorway between Izmit and Ankara also
collapsed.
Following the earthquake, the government immediately established the
Crisis Management Centre of the Prime Minister’s Office, and began to organise
affairs so that the difficulties caused by road destruction and damaged telecommunications
were relieved within a few days. Ministries and municipalities mobilised their resources,
such as cars, tents, trucks and pharmaceuticals. Clothes and food were collected from the
citizens and sent to the disaster area.
After the earthquake, our citizens, non-governmental organisations and
other institutions showed a good example of assistance and solidarity. Support and relief
rushed in from many countries, and international organisations showed us that we were not
alone in those hard days. Citizens, military and civil officials, and volunteers all
worked together with great self-sacrifice in the collection of relief and its
distribution. Internal and external aid collected for the earthquake has been accumulated
in the "Central Account" of the central branch of the Turkish Republic
Agricultural Bank. The total sum of cash donations is $ 151.7 million. Some
$ 125.7 million has been spent on relief so far, at the behest of the Crisis
Co-ordination Council.
The government has also planned a three-phase programme to provide
earthquake victims with housing. The first phase established a tent city. The second saw
the construction of temporary pre-fabricated residencies, and victims were settled in
guest houses and social facilities owned by public institutions. Financial aid towards
rent was also provided for one year. The third phase will involve the repair and
restoration of damaged houses, where reasonable, and the total rebuilding of residencies
where repair is not possible. Houses will be returned to their owners.
Three aspects have been taken into account in the assessment of the
impact of the Marmara earthquake on the Turkish economy - direct and indirect costs and
the secondary effects of the quake. The direct costs arise from physical damage to capital
assets and inventories attributable to the disaster. Indirect costs relate to subsequent
effects, and include losses of output and foregone earnings as well as the cost of the
emergency relief effort. The secondary effects relate to our overall economic performance
and the impact of the earthquake on our balance of payments.
To evaluate the impact of the Marmara earthquake on the Turkish
economy, a study has been conducted on the macro-economic implications - including the
implications for growth, inflation, the balance of payments and fiscal accounts, and the
effects on enterprise and the financial sector. The study also refers to the social
dimension. The overall fiscal impact of the earthquake has been estimated at between $ 3.6
billion and $ 4.6 billion. The largest direct cost to the budget will arise from
reconstruction costs following damage to the housing stock. The full cost of home
reconstruction has been estimated at $ 620 million. The cost of repair and replacement for
damaged electric-powered distribution facilities is estimated at $ 48 million. Damage to
telecommunications is estimated at $ 38.4 million, including the cost of repairs to
transmission lines, damage to stations and buildings and damage to the network. The total
estimated cost of repairing damage to the transport infrastructure is $ 118 million,
two-thirds of which is due to damage to the railway system, a rail carriage factory and
rolling stock.
The total estimated cost of rehabilitation and support for school
facilities is $ 107 million. About 25 000 children will have to be transported
to different schools, and classroom facilities that remain operational will be used for
double shifts. Rehabilitation of an estimated twenty-two primary schools and twenty-one
secondary schools damaged by the earthquake has been assessed at $ 46 million. In
addition, funds for textbooks, food and supplemental payments to teachers will cost an
estimated $ 55 million in the school year 1999-2000.
Twenty-eight health centres and ten hospitals were damaged by the
earthquake. The costs of reconstruction to severely damaged sites, the deployment of
temporary prefabricated units and the replacement of medical equipment will cost an
estimated $ 19 million. The damage to municipal infrastructure includes damage to office
buildings, water supplies, waste treatment, streets and other structures. Careful survey
work to estimate the cost of the damage is under way, but the preliminary estimates from
local offices suggest a cost of around $ 70 million.
In the immediate wake of the earthquake, there has been a tremendous
demand for immediate urgency assistance. The cost of assistance for tents, food,
sanitation services, health care and other immediate needs will be $107 million. The main
industries in the region struck by the earthquake, as defined by the criterion of value
added, are oil refineries, manufacturing, the assembly and repair of motor vehicles, iron,
steel and metal, the production of synthetic fibres and yarn, and weaving. Those
industries have also been significantly damaged.
The government issued a decision on 28 August which stipulates the
implementation procedures that will be applied to existing loans and new loans for
economic agents in the affected region. The environmental impact of the Marmara earthquake
includes damage to sewerage systems, an oil spillage from the Tüpras refinery and
pollution of surface waters including the Marmara Sea. In many locations, there may be a
serious risk of pollution of ground and surface water including drinking water. Tüpras
refinery is the largest in Turkey and is a modern, efficient plant. The earthquake caused
significant structural damage to the refinery and an associated tank farm which has crude
oil and production jetties. A subsequent fire in the refinery caused extensive additional
damage. It is difficult to estimate the total cost of the damage, but it seems likely that
the cost of complete reconstruction will exceed $ 350 million.
As the region clears the rubble, it is clear that a major
reconstruction effort and recovery plan are needed. International support for the
immediate relief effort in Turkey has been rapid and generous. As Turkey looks forward to
rehabilitation and reconstruction, substantial international finance will be required. The
government must strengthen the enforcement of building codes throughout the country.
Stiffer penalties and an effective building supervision and licensing system are needed
urgently. The government also plans to revise, where necessary, regulations pertaining to
public works. There is a widespread view that a system should be set up by which
residencies and workplaces should be required to insure themselves.
Three areas require urgent attention as Turkey looks to the future. The
emergency response system must be upgraded. Effective mechanisms to enforce building codes
must be implemented. A national compulsory disaster insurance system must be introduced.
The government seeks long-term solutions. Reconstruction in the area
must take account of the fact that the zone is prone to earthquakes and permanent housing
will be overseen by the Collective Housing Administration Directorate. Before Turkey
embarks on its major reconstruction programme, comprehensive geological surveys must be
carried out to determine the feasibility of reconstruction on existing sites and the
extent to which relocation will be necessary.
The Ministry of Public Works and Reconstruction and Turkey’s
scientific and technical research institutes have selected the area for permanent housing.
The northern parts of Sakarya, including Karaman village and Ferizli-Çalbayir hill,
Alandüzü, Korucuk, Camili, Karapinar and Resüldivan villages, the north-eastern part of
Izmit, and the southern part of Gölcük have been selected as a regional development
area. Thirty thousand five-storey and three-storey apartments will be constructed on six
square kilometres. The total cost of those apartments, including the price of the land,
has been calculated at $ 700 million.
To help finance the fiscal burden, approximately $ 3 billion in
external assistance has been tentatively identified. Donors include the World Bank, the
International Monetary Fund and other institutional and bilateral organisations. The
European Union may also contribute 4 million euro for special purposes.
We wholeheartedly thank all the people, the internal and external
organisations and the countries that have made contributions in cash and in other ways to
help the victims. We also thank those who have participated in the collection and
distribution of aid.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mrs Koroglu. It is always a pleasure to
welcome a former member of our Assembly who has an international perspective. I call Mr
Pahtas.
Mr PAHTAS (Deputy Minister of the Ministry of the National Economy of
Greece) said that said the recent earthquakes in Turkey and Greece had had severe social
and economic consequences. In Athens there had been major loss of life, damaged buildings
and subsequent loss of employment. The huge financial cost of reconstruction would be
added to by the social and economic consequences of the earthquake. The poorest groups had
been the worst affected. Emergency help had been provided, but longer-term assistance was
required.
Events in 1999 had highlighted the requirement for immediate action in
the aftermath of an earthquake. In Greece, arrangements were well established for that
eventuality. Priority had been given to assessing the scale of damage, to providing
information and shelter to those affected and to assisting in the restoration of
buildings. Similar events in the Turkey and Greece had brought their peoples together.
They had been touched by the help given from abroad and the mutual support that Greece and
Turkey had given to each other. Non-governmental organisations had worked alongside
national authorities and provided an example of what was needed in those situations. The
initiative by the Greek and Turkish governments to establish arrangements for a rapid
reaction to such natural disasters was welcome.
Greece had provided evidence of its willingness to contribute to
international co-operation. The subsequent improvement in relations between Greece and
Turkey had shown that those actions had been effective. The two countries had realised the
extent of humanity’s powerlessness in the face of an earthquake. Individuals were at
the heart of the values that would overcome the current problems. Human beings had lost
their identity, but there was a need to discover the values of today’s man.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Minister.
7.
Consequences of recent earthquakes in Turkey and Greece
(resumed debate)
THE PRESIDENT.- We now come to the general debate on the
consequences of the recent earthquakes in Turkey and Greece. Nine speakers are on the list
and they have five minutes each. I call Mrs Squarcialupi on behalf of the Socialist Group.
Mrs SQUARCIALUPI (Italy) said that the earthquake had rendered people
powerless and expressed her condolences about its consequences for Greece and Turkey. The
solidarity expressed by the Council of Europe was important. Some suggestions could be
followed: it was perhaps more appropriate to talk of construction rather than
reconstruction and, in addition, building standards needed to be monitored.
Following the earthquake, it was important to reconstruct the cultural
identity in the areas affected. International solidarity was important; unfortunately,
assistance was not always immediate. Countries needed to provide their own skeleton
response in the first instance. Greece and Turkey had had discussions about forming a
rapid response team, which was good news. She hoped that it would be possible to reach
agreement on a relief effort.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. I call Mrs Näslund, who has replaced Mr
Rise and speaks on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.
Mrs NÄSLUND (Sweden).- The terrible tragedies that hit Turkey and
Greece in August, September and November, just a few weeks before we celebrated the new
millennium, affected us all deeply, and it is impossible properly to express our sorrow.
As we followed the television reports on 17 August and the following day, it was hard to
understand the dimensions of the catastrophe: 17 000 people dead and more than
100 000 families homeless. Those are enormous numbers.
In Sweden, there was a fire in which about fifty-three people died, and
that affected the whole of Göteborg, where it happened, and the whole nation. When we
compare that with the death of 17 000 people, we can understand the difference, although
the sorrow and suffering for each individual are the same.
The proportions of the consequences in Turkey and Greece are hard to
grasp. It is impossible to understand the impact on whole cities and villages: 30 000 sq.
km, which is the area that has been severely damaged, is more than 7% of the total area of
Sweden. For every family who lost loved ones in just a few seconds, the tragedy is of
enormous proportions, in both Turkey and Greece. I want to send a message that the whole
Assembly grieves with the people in their sorrow for those who died or were injured.
As well as offering compassion and material and moral assistance, it is
important to stress that a stricter system of classification of buildings is imperative.
Construction standards may be good enough, but that does not help if construction
entrepreneurs neglect those standards and there is a lack of follow-up and control from
the authorities. The demand for efficiency and productivity should never take precedence
over the need for safety. Of course we are powerless when confronted with an earthquake,
but it is important to take all possible steps to avoid the terrible consequences that we
have seen. The catastrophe should lead to a new way of thinking, with greater emphasis on
safety measures. I hope that all that can be done will be done. The temptation to make a
profit through poor construction should be removed completely.
I am happy that the Council of Europe was able to help so quickly and
substantially through Mrs Degn’s initiative, through the pressure that we put on the
World Bank and through money from the Council of Europe’s development bank. I hope
that both Turkey and Greece will have no hesitation in making their needs for
reconstruction and development known to the international community in the months and
years to come.
On behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party, I would
like to state that we are in favour of the proposals in the draft recommendation and hope
that they will lead to constructive developments in both Turkey and Greece.
However tragic, the events have led to welcome and constructive
co-operation between the two countries concerned. I was happy to learn that the recent
meeting between the Greek and Turkish Foreign Affairs Ministers was successful. That gives
us hope for future relations between the two countries. Building friendship is the
strongest transforming power that the world has known, and I believe that friendship,
compassion and willingness to help one another may prove stronger than any earthquake.
We all know that Greeks and Turks are friendly people and my hope is
that they will continue to be friendly - but also with each other. I fully agree with the
wise words of the Greek Foreign Minister, George Papandreou, as quoted by the rapporteur:
"The peoples in their wisdom are sending a message to the political élites of our
two countries. They are telling us that we should not only help each other, but be
friends".
I want to draw your attention, and that of Mrs Koroglu in particular,
to a very important and controversial question about the construction of a nuclear plant.
Considering all the seismic risks in the area, we should be very careful, because there
could be a severe threat not only to Turkey but to all countries in the area.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mrs Näslund. I call Mr Goulet.
Mr GOULET (France) welcomed the presence of the representatives from
Turkey and Greece, and appreciated the analysis contained in the report. It was important
that aid continued to be provided, and that the words of the international community were
backed up with action.
In the aftermath of the earthquake he, along with the Secretary General
of the Council of Europe, had responded to the horrific events by setting up an initiative
called "Wheat for Turkey", which had involved the young farmers. The initiative
had been expanded to include the whole of France, and had been welcomed by President
Chirac. Such small-scale operations, which were always well received, could be carried out
without much need for local administration or logistics. In addition to their immediate
benefits, they were also useful in raising awareness about responding to emergencies and
the particular role of the Council of Europe.
The Council of Europe had provided support for a poster series to raise
awareness about the emergency. The Turkish ambassador had visited the village in France
where the initiative had started to receive a symbolic sack of wheat.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Goulet. I call Ms Gülek.
Ms GÜLEK (Turkey).- I thank the rapporteurs for their two
well-prepared and quickly written reports. I followed the second one closely and saw that
it was prepared in a very brief time. That was much appreciated, given the urgency of the
matter and the speed with which we have had to act. I also thank all those who have
attended this debate, because Friday is not always the most popular day for debates here.
I wish that there were more of us here today. I urge you all to encourage your colleagues
to read the reports carefully and to pay particular attention to their helpful
recommendations.
There are so many points to make and I can choose only a few. I should
like to extend our sincere thanks to the Council of Europe and the international
community, which gave so much help so soon after the tragic earthquakes. I should like to
try to describe vividly some of the less seen aspects of the earthquake. I was there on 17
August. I went to the affected area a few hours after the first tragic earthquake. I do
not know whether my Greek colleagues had the same experience, but there was some unfair
criticism from the media. You can always be ready for an earthquake or a natural disaster,
but not for such an incredibly widespread one. The earthquake hit eight city centres. This
might be a lesson to all of us. We think that we are always prepared, but one is never
prepared for something times eight. Maybe we should always be prepared even for natural
disasters on an unimaginable scale.
I was in Adapazari and Sakarya, which were some of the worst hit areas.
I was moved to tears by the extent of the destruction and the number of houses that had
been torn down. I wondered how we would ever deal with it. I went back with Mr Surján a
couple of weeks ago and saw that at least the physical reminders of the earthquake had
been removed. It was a relief to see that the destroyed houses and the rubble were gone.
Slowly, life was coming back to normal and windows had been repaired. Of course, the tent
cities and the pre-fabricated houses are a constant reminder of the earthquake, but I was
touched by the attempts to remove the physical reminders.
Part of our duty lies in reminding our people of the need to continue
providing support, because the media stop covering such events after the first few days.
It is understandable that events are newsworthy to start with when they are a big shock,
but the less visible suffering continues in both countries. I ask you all to urge your
constituents, your municipalities and your governments to remember that a lot still needs
to be done.
We had a second earthquake a few days before the OSCE Summit. I was
thrilled that we were still able to go ahead with the summit with no problems. The second
earthquake was smaller and there were no problems with reacting to it, but you can imagine
the psychological effects on the people, particularly the children. I felt it only
slightly in Ankara, but for months I thought that I was shaking everywhere I went. Imagine
the effects of the second earthquake on people who had already experienced the first one.
We should keep things like that constantly in our minds.
The solidarity of the international community and the aid that we
received were touching. Everyone in the areas affected who received that aid is aware of
it. Little children who received gifts and toys or were educated in schools that were
built very quickly appreciated that help. I hope that you will all relay that news back to
your countries. The solidarity between the Greek and Turkish people was also touching. We
should keep the Greek and Turkish newspaper headlines from those days, because they were
inspirational and remind us that we are neighbours and should learn to live in peace and
dialogue. We should try to continue the positive dialogue of recent months. That is our
duty in the Council of Europe. We should also bear in mind Mr Surján’s
recommendations about tourism and encouraging municipalities to work together to continue
the reconstruction effort.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you Ms Gülek. I call Mr Hadjidemetriou on behalf
of the Sub-Committee on the Cultural Heritage.
Mr HADJIDEMETRIOU (Cyprus).- The Committee on Culture and Education and
the Sub-Committee on the Cultural Heritage have had many meetings about the serious
consequences of the earthquakes in Turkey and Greece. Apart from the human tragedy,
culture and education were the main focus of our considerations. The Sub-Committee on the
Cultural Heritage, on which I have the honour to preside, participated actively at a
special meeting in Strasbourg when experts from Greece and Turkey spoke about the
consequences of the earthquakes on their cultural heritage, archaeological sites, museums
and public institutions and buildings connected with culture and education, including
schools.
Unfortunately, neither committee has had a chance to visit the places
that suffered the earthquakes or to meet the people affected and the relevant authorities.
The expert reports that we have had express concern about the consequences of the
earthquakes even for buildings that do not at first glance appear to have suffered any
damage. The problem is that less obvious damage can weaken the structure of monuments that
have survived for centuries and leave them susceptible to major damage even from less
serious future earthquakes.
The information that we have on Hagia Sofia from a Turkish
archaeologist is impressive. The fifteen-century-old building has been carefully monitored
by experts using high technology. Likewise, Greek professors have made detailed studies of
the Dafni church and the ancient fortification near Elefsina. There has been no damage to
the Istanbul museum, but some of the ancient exhibits in the Athens archaeological museum
were damaged. Officials must learn from that and take the necessary measures to avoid
similar incidents in the future.
I support the view that the Council of Europe has to demonstrate a
closer interest in the protection of cultural heritage in areas that are at risk from
natural calamities in advance of such disasters. The Assembly has made such
recommendations on that. The Committee of Ministers has drawn up a partial agreement and
adopted those recommendations.
The Mediterranean, particularly the eastern end of it, has a long
history of catastrophes caused by earthquakes. Cities and kingdoms have disappeared and
civilisations have been destroyed and covered by sea, sand or soil. Unique artefacts have
been recovered from those ruins and archaeologists are working hard to uncover the ancient
world for all of us. It is our duty to future generations to preserve what has survived
for centuries and to protect what has been reclaimed from previous catastrophes. I
congratulate the two rapporteurs and welcome the two Ministers, who have contributed
greatly to our deliberations.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Hadjidemeteriou. The next speaker is Mr
Telek.
Mr TELEK (Turkey).- The people, government and NGOs of Turkey have
realised the importance of preparedness for natural disasters and the need to improve a
wide range of standards in legislation and institutions and the implementation of natural
disaster management and, specifically, earthquake preparedness.
The momentum of such increased awareness has prompted the government,
local administrations and NGOs in Turkey to work together, first in an effort to
strengthen the country’s emergency preparedness in the face of future natural
disasters - especially future earthquakes - and, secondly, to rebuild the earthquake zones
and to prepare and implement the necessary project for the long-term economic and social
rehabilitation of the affected regions, to try to ensure that future earthquakes will not
cause similar destruction.
All the efforts are being made in close co-operation with international
organisations, such as the World Bank. The International Monetary Fund and the Council of
Europe development bank have provided large sums of long-term financial assistance,
together with expertise on a wide range of issues - from the necessary legislative and
administrative measures to modern urban planning. Other organisations, such as the United
Nations specialist bodies and many other NGOs, have provided emergency rescue and relief
assistance in the aftermath of the earthquake, as well as the scientific know-how needed
for the planning of short and long-term measures related to housing and earthquake
preparedness.
Financial assistance provided to Turkey by the international community,
including major international organisations, has been and will be used on projects
prepared jointly by international experts and the Turkish Government, as well as local
administrations and several NGOs. I assure the Assembly that the highest standards are
being followed in the implementation of such projects. The reverse would not be possible
because the Turkish Government is well aware of the importance of the issues involved, and
the public and the media are sensitive to the subjects of relief and the reconstruction
efforts. Any suggestion of a need for further supervision of such projects would only
undermine the extraordinary efforts and the efficiency of the government and local
authorities - not to mention the NGOs - in Turkey.
Experience of the recent earthquakes has caused Turkey to reach several
conclusions. First, emergency relief, especially rescue and temporary housing, and
national and local co-ordination of crisis management are of paramount importance and
should be strengthened and revised.
Secondly, international assistance in the face of natural disasters and
in the rehabilitation of affected regions is vital. The impact of natural disasters on
urban and industrial areas is so huge that no country should assume that it can rely on
its own resources for relief and rehabilitation. International assistance is necessary and
should be co-ordinated within a global institutional framework.
Thirdly, NGOs have become instrumental in dealing with natural
disasters and rehabilitation efforts. For that reason, such organisations should be
integrated into national and international efforts towards short and long-term
preparedness to cope with natural disasters.
Turkey has suffered much from natural disasters and has found the
international community on its side whenever the calamity of nature has struck its soil.
We, the Turkish people, are grateful for that and ready to support any efforts to
establish an institutional basis for international co-operation on natural disaster relief
and longer-term assistance.
I wish to add one last word of appreciation for the rapporteur. A
person does not have to be a medical doctor to understand the suffering of victims and
prepare an excellent report: it is obvious that an intellectual personality and a heart
full of human love are enough.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Telek. The next speaker is Ms Ninoshvili.
I am told that she is the youngest member of the Assembly.
Ms NINOSHVILI (Georgia) said events in Turkey and Greece had
highlighted the need for international co-operation and assistance. They provided an
example of the value of moving to a more open Europe, without rigid national boundaries.
Many of the most severely damaged buildings had not been constructed in line with
statutory requirements and that pointed to a possible role for an international
inspectorate to set standards and inspect earthquake resistant buildings. The
establishment of improved arrangements for dealing with earthquakes had the potential to
be extended to the effects of other natural disasters.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Ms Ninoshvili. I call Mrs Guirado on behalf
of the Sub-Committee on Science Policy and Ethics.
Mrs GUIRADO (Spain) thanked the committees for their reports on natural
disasters. It was important to go further than having just a rapid reaction force. When
action was required, there needed to be an agency to save as many lives as possible. In
the age of technology, it was not reasonable to have rudimentary tools for dealing with
disaster prevention.
Too many lives were lost because of natural disasters and politicians
had to realise that. There was a need to be alert to disasters and to organise a rapid
reaction. An information network to co-ordinate preventive action, and extending beyond
the Council of Europe to Africa and Latin America was also needed.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mrs Guirado. I call Mrs Err.
Mrs ERR (Luxembourg) wished to express her regret about the recent
earthquakes. She was happy to see Greek and Turkish colleagues sitting together. The
recent tragic events warranted the Assembly’s attention. Beyond discussion about
material damage and immediate relief efforts, expression needed to be given to enhanced
relations between Greece and Turkey arising from the natural disasters. The tragic events
had led to a reshaping of relations between the two countries. She hoped that Greece and
Turkey could move beyond their problems and look forward.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. That concludes the general debate.
Do Ministers Pahtas and Koroglu wish to
respond to any of the comments and suggestions that we have heard? I see that Mr Pahtas
does not wish to do so. I call Mrs Koroglu.
Mrs KOROGLU (Deputy Under-Secretary of the Prime Minister’s
Office of Turkey in charge of the Crisis Unit).- I listened with close attention to the
speakers who contributed this morning, and I appreciate the interest and concern that they
expressed. I shall leave Strasbourg conscious of the support and understanding of the
European family, and I thank you all.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. I remind members that rapporteurs and
committee chairmen have four minutes each in which to reply. I call Mrs Akgönenç.
Mrs AKGÖNENÇ (Turkey).- I thank all those who contributed to the
report and spoke in the debate this morning. I also thank the Greek and Turkish officials
for their valuable remarks.
It is amazing how devastating events can have unexpected results. Such
events make us realise how insignificant we human beings are when confronted by the power
of nature, whether in the form of earthquakes, tornadoes or volcanic eruptions. In such
situations, perhaps, we realise how precious are life, friendship and love. Natural
destruction takes care of bottled-up anger and frustration and washes away feelings of
animosity, making way for the joy of life and friendship.
The Turkish quake struck at 3 o’clock. Bakeries in Ankara and
Istanbul began to produce bread at 4 o’clock. By 6 o’clock there was a line of
trucks loaded with bread and water on the way to the devastated areas. The quake struck in
the depths of darkness, but the light of help, kindness and selflessness shone through
like bright rays of hope, generosity and friendship.
hat positive energy gave the people the strength to build new lives
and, more important, a new approach in their political relations. I strongly believe that
that will bear fruit in the coming years. It gives me great joy to announce that, already,
efforts are being made by the Turkish and Greek governments, peoples and groups to work
together in the fields of emergency services, environment, culture, commerce and regional
issues.
We have a saying that there is always some good in everything that
seems to be a total disaster - all we have to do is look for it. Thank you again.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. I call Mr Verivakis.
Mr VERIVAKIS (Greece).- I want to draw some conclusions from the
reports and the speeches.
The first is that the god of earthquakes can strike at any time, in any
place, at any people, without warning. The second is that, to be prepared, we must be
united. In this context, that means stricter construction standards and quality control,
in order to reduce the loss of life and damage in future earthquakes within or outside the
region.
The third conclusion is that we need a European fund for urgent
financial assistance in the event of natural disaster to enable us to respond. The fourth
is that planning and co-ordinating bodies at national and regional level should be
involved in the response to any natural disaster. Finally, we must alert all the member
states of the Council of Europe to act as the conscience of humanity. This debate provides
an opportunity to initiate a new sensibility.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. I now call the chairperson of the Committee
on Economic Affairs and Development, Mrs Degn.
(Lord Russell-Johnston, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in
place of Mr Saakashvili.)
Mrs DEGN (Denmark).- Mr President, ministers and colleagues, tragic
events can create a new momentum. That is what happened when the people of Greece and the
people of Turkey expressed their desire to assist each other immediately and
unconditionally. As Deputy Minister Pahtas explained, expressions of peace and friendship
among the two peoples have continued and strengthened. We warmly welcome them.
The international community is relieved, and hopes that the momentum
will be maintained and co-operation reinforced. We are all glad when the wishes of your
two countries are realised and when you send your respective ministers to meet each other.
The meeting between Mr Papandreou and the Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs showed the
international community that there is great hope for the future of Europe.
Immediately after the earthquake in August, I suggested to the
Committee that we should focus on that sad event to prepare and to organise the
infrastructure of modern, efficient European countries so that we can share our
experiences. I followed the public debate both in Greece and in Turkey, where I happened
to stay during the Istanbul summit, and in both countries I have followed the comments and
criticisms expressed in the press, which has done us a service by exposing inadequacies in
the infrastructure.
I hope that the lessons learned in both countries concerned and in the
international community will lead to the establishment of a rapid reaction capability. The
dual aims of establishing peace and a rapid reaction capability underlay the debate both
in committee and in the Hemicycle.
I thank the representatives of the governments of Greece and Turkey for
being present today and for their contributions. I thank the rapporteurs and colleagues
who shared their opinions with us. Many lessons were learned. I am grateful for the
comments expressed by members of other committees, and particularly for the report from
the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. I now call the rapporteur for the report on
the social consequences of the earthquakes, Mr Surján. You have four minutes.
Mr SURJÁN (Hungary).- I was touched by the fact that Mrs Squarcialupi
mentioned the earthquake that happened in Italy early last century, which is described in
the famous novel The Story of San Michele by Axel Munthe. Last century began with an
enormous earthquake and ended with another.
Mrs Squarcialupi said that earthquakes cannot be foreseen, which is
true, but we can be better prepared. Fellow parliamentarians, you can go home and find out
whether your country is prepared for a national disaster. This distinguished body, the
Council of Europe, has suggested several times that member states and international bodies
should prepare for such disasters, and I am afraid that not everything possible has been
done. Our Georgian colleagues commented on preparations, and Mrs Näslund commented
that disasters had caused a relatively small number of deaths in her country.
The situation in Turkey is complicated because the earthquake struck
the most industrialised area, which means that many of the inhabitants originated from
other parts of Turkey. Each victim therefore had relatives elsewhere, so the shock has
affected all of Turkish society.
Mr Goulet mentioned the prompt action that was taken after the
earthquake, and we should all learn from his remarks. I thank Ms Gülek for emphasising my
point about the irresponsibility of the media. She and other people from Turkey informed
me about that matter.
Mr Telek mentioned non-governmental organisations. Many people assume
that such organisations do not exist in Turkey, but they do and it is surprising how
active they are. The co-ordination of international and national bodies is of great
importance in helping Turkey. Isolated actions mean that some needs are not met.
I thank the other rapporteurs and I am grateful for the intervention of
the plenary session. I hope that our reports will be supported by the Assembly. It is
important that our recommendations are implemented, because sometimes good messages are
sent by the Assembly but there is no action. Please act as much as possible.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. Mr Cox, the chairman of the committee, is
not here. Does anyone else from the committee want to speak on its behalf? That is not the
case.
The debate is closed.
The Political Affairs Committee has presented a draft recommendation in
Document 8594 to which six amendments have been tabled.
They will be taken in the order Nos. 6, 4 revised, 1, 2, 3 and 5
revised.
Amendment No. 4 has been reissued due to errors in the text. Also, the
English version of Amendment No. 5 has been reissued because of an error in the text.
I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to one minute.
We now come to Amendment No. 6, which is, in the draft recommendation,
paragraph 1, replace the words "60 000 people homeless and destroyed or severely
damaged thousands of buildings" by:
"72 000 people homeless, while 95 000 houses were damaged and
destroyed or severely damaged thousands of businesses".
I call Mr Micheloyiannis to support Amendment No. 6. He is not here. I
call Mr Verivakis.
Mr VERIVAKIS (Greece).- The amendment serves only to make the numbers
accurate. It is technical rather than political.
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?
Mrs DEGN (Denmark).- The committee is in favour of the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands...
Amendment No. 6 is adopted.
We now come to Amendment No. 4, which is, in the draft recommendation,
paragraph 2, at the beginning, insert the words:
"Financial and technical".
I call Mrs Squarcialupi to support Amendment No. 4.
Mrs SQUARCIALUPI (Italy) thought that the amendment had been withdrawn.
She merely wished to amend paragraph 2 to make the nature of the proposed assistance
clearer. In reply to Mr Surján, she noted that the first aid to the Messina earthquake in
1900 had come from a Russian battleship, which had happened to be in the Mediterranean.
THE PRESIDENT.- Do not apologise. That was very interesting.
Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?...
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mrs DEGN (Denmark).- I must inform you of the amendment's history. It
has been revised, and the committee has not seen it, but it is only technical and it is in
line with the committee's opinion, so we support it.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands...
Amendment No. 4 is adopted.
We now come to Amendment No. 1, which is, in the draft recommendation,
paragraph 2, after the words "railways and roads" add:
"and environmental clean up of water, marine and soil pollution
caused by the recent earthquakes".
I call Mr Briane on behalf of the Committee on the Environment,
Regional Planning and Local Authorities, to support Amendment No. 1.
Mr BRIANE (France) said that the committee wanted environmental damage
to be specifically considered: for that reason, it had moved Amendments Nos. 1 and 2.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. That is very time saving.
Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?…
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mrs DEGN (Denmark).- In favour.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands…
Amendment No. 1 is adopted unanimously.
We now come to Amendment No. 2, which is, in the draft recommendation,
paragraph 5, after the words "as well as physical", insert:
"and environmental".
I call Mr Briane to support the amendment.
Mr BRIANE (France) (Translation).- I moved Amendment No. 2 with the
previous amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?…
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mrs DEGN (Denmark).- In favour.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands…
Amendment No. 2 is adopted unanimously.
We come to Amendment No. 3, which is, in the draft recommendation,
after paragraph 5, insert a new sub-paragraph as follows:
"In particular, it emphasises the need to develop in areas of high
seismic activity, such as Turkey and Greece, regional planning and urban development
policies, as well as construction techniques which would minimise damages from possible
earthquakes in the future".
I call Mr Briane to support the amendment.
Mr BRIANE (France) said the amendment stressed the need for seismic
assessment in the local planning process.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?…
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mrs DEGN (Denmark).- In favour.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands…
Amendment No. 3 is adopted unanimously.
We come to Amendment No. 5, which is, in the draft recommendation,
after paragraph 6, add the following paragraph:
"The Assembly is in any case convinced that immediate assistance
following earthquakes - the most effective for saving lives - must be guaranteed by a
civil engineering organisation networked over the entire national territory.".
I call Mrs Squarcialupi to support the amendment.
Mrs SQUARCIALUPI (Italy) said that the original English text had been
somewhat imaginative. The revised text recognised the need for properly equipped rapid
response units to rescue people in the immediate period after such a disaster.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, which
has been deprived of its imaginative English translation?…
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mrs DEGN (Denmark).- A clear majority did not endorse the amendment as
presented, and I cannot endorse the revised amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands…
Amendment No. 5 is rejected.
We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation in
Document 8594, as amended.
The draft recommendation in Document 8594, as amended, is adopted
unanimously.
We will now proceed to vote on the second report and the draft
recommendation in Document 8638, to which there are no amendments.
The draft recommendation in Document 8638 is adopted unanimously.
I thank you all and I give special thanks to the two ministers who have
attended our debate. I am glad that the Assembly has demonstrated united sympathy in the
face of the tragedy that struck both countries.
8.
Clandestine migration from the south of the Mediterranean into Europe
THE PRESIDENT.- We now come to our last item of business of this
ordinary part-session, the report on clandestine migration from the south of the
Mediterranean into Europe presented by Mrs Guirado on behalf of the Committee on
Migration, Refugees and Demography, Document 8599.
The list of speakers closed at 6 p.m. yesterday. There are five
speakers on the list and two amendments. I call Mrs Guirado to present her report. You
have eight minutes.
Mrs GUIRADO (Spain) questioned why people emigrated. Europeans had been
immigrants in Africa but had not realised it. Because they had been giving development
help, they did not consider themselves immigrants. The emigration highway was not built of
concrete, but it existed. In the Mediterranean basin there were two sorts of people: on
the northern shore, those with a high standard of living; on the southern shore, those
with no social protection, low social and technological development and armed conflict.
People usually emigrated because of a lack of future. Immigrants were
attracted by stories of wealth abroad, which they did not have at home. Emigrants who sent
money back to relatives at home were seen as proof that life was better elsewhere. For
instance, in Morocco the second biggest source of national income was money that had been
sent home.
The Schengen Agreement had reduced borders inside the European Union
but external borders had increased. The real problem was not that people were clandestine
emigrants but the circumstances of their emigration. Emigrants were being exploited.
The committee had been on three visits. Administrative reforms were in
progress, but they were temporary measures designed to satisfy public opinion. Morocco
should be invited to discussions. Emigration should be recognised as a fundamental human
right.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mrs Guirado. This is one occasion on which I
hope that my information is wrong, but I am told that you are leaving us and that this
will be the last report that you present. Is that correct?
Mrs GUIRADO (Spain) said that she was planning to leave, but hoped to
return in April to conclude some reports. She was grateful to the President and to other
members of the Assembly for their goodwill.
THE PRESIDENT.- I think that the French would call your remarks
"flatteuses". For a long time, we have greatly admired your diligence and hard
work on behalf of the Assembly, as well as your good-natured and lively personality. When
you leave us, we will miss you a great deal.
The next speaker is Mr Diana, on behalf of the Group of the European
People’s party.
Mr DIANA (Italy) said that the report was the result of a great deal of
work over a very long time. Meetings held in Italy in October 1998 that had allowed the
committee to see how the Italian Government was dealing with the problem of migration. The
report was well balanced, giving due consideration to the human rights of those people who
had lost everything, including the right to emigrate, and to many other relevant concerns.
There was a lack of co-operation and dialogue between northern European
countries and southern Mediterranean countries. Furthermore, the Council of Europe tended
to neglect the southern Mediterranean countries. In comparison, the Organisation for
Security and Co-operation in Europe had set up a forum to enable five southern
Mediterranean countries to hold discussions.
He felt that the report’s recommendations did not match the main
text of the report - for example, in the discussion on national legislation on the
free movement of people, which in some cases, such as the Marteli law in Italy,
contravened the Schengen Agreement. He hoped that in the long term, immigrants would begin
to be seen as positive resources, as they were in the USA. Efforts would have to be made
to encourage that process.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Diana; I remind speakers that they are
allowed five minutes, not six. There is a slight difference. The next speaker is
Mrs Squarcialupi.
Mrs SQUARCIALUPI (Italy) said that her country was a bridge between
Africa and Europe in terms of immigration flows. Twenty years before, a French
Commissioner had prophesised that Europe would have to do one of three things about the
problems of poverty in poor countries. It could improve conditions for people living in
those countries, send in the navy to kill them all or accept them as immigrants in their
countries. The second of those was not really an option because of adherence to the rule
of law.
The promise of respect for the rights of immigrants was not always put
into practice. The major problem was the tendency for immigrants to have to take very
low-paid jobs, making it easy for criminals to exploit them. The debate on immigration had
to be extended to the parliaments of those countries from which the immigrants came. He
thanked the rapporteurs for their work.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mrs Squarcialupi. I call Mr Mutman.
Mr MUTMAN (Turkey).- I congratulate Mrs Guirado on the effort that she
put into her well-written report, which contains many insights into the lives of illegal
immigrants and the organised criminals who traffic in human beings. The immigration
policies of European countries form a vicious circle. Europe attracts a substantial number
of immigrants from the less-developed areas of the world by offering employment
opportunities and higher living standards. Up to a point, Europe has benefited from that
migratory flow, which provides the continent with low-cost labour. However, that creates
disillusion among immigrants who had believed stories of golden opportunities.
Since the late 1970s, western European countries have introduced
measures to curb immigration. However, the introduction of stricter and tighter
immigration policies intended to curb the influx of immigrants has resulted in would-be
migrants turning to illegal methods. They have become easy prey for organised crime. We
should not forget that terrorist organisations are also involved in illegal immigration
and may be classed among the principal abusers of illegal immigrants. Those organisations
use the aspirations of illegal migrants to finance their activities.
Tighter immigration controls push smuggling prices higher, and that
increases human misery. Every state has the right to control its borders, and the
interests of the state must be protected even as we consider humanitarian problems. I
support the proposals in the draft recommendation. I also support the draft order, which
proposes the organisation of an interparliamentary colloquy on the subject.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Mutman, particularly for your brevity. I
call Mr Provera on behalf of the Liberal, Democratic and Reformers’ Group.
Mr PROVERA (Italy) said that the problem was a serious one, with many
causes and many effects on society in general: it tended to affect attitudes to all
foreigners and led to rising intolerance. It was a particular problem in Italy: in large
urban centres, such as Milan and Brescia, the proportion of crimes committed by illegal
immigrants was very high, and over 50% of those in prison had entered the country
illegally. Immigrant gangs often carved out areas of criminal activity for themselves.
Other illegal immigrants living underground were, because of their status, systematically
exploited on the black market.
The report stated that migration was a fundamental human right, but it
should also have taken into account the rules that nation states had established to govern
immigration. Illegal immigration was certainly not a human right, and he could not support
that part of the committee’s recommendations. Immigrant quotas had to be laid down
country by country. The establishment of the Schengen area had led to a contradictory
situation: as Schengen countries had tightened their border controls, illegal immigration
into many non-Schengen countries had increased.
The report stated that government policies towards illegal immigration
had not been based on humanitarian grounds. That statement was based on ideology rather
than on any observation of reality. No country in the world could simply let in any number
of migrants without establishing programmes to deal with them. The report had not
concentrated enough on co-operation with developing countries aimed at addressing the root
causes of economic migration. The organisation should call on member states to provide
whatever support was necessary to improve the situation in the developing world, thereby
removing many of the causes of illegal migration. He hoped that moves towards greater
democracy in the developing world would have a similar effect.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Provera. That concludes the list of
speakers. I now call upon Mrs Guirado to reply. She has four minutes.
Mrs GUIRADO (Spain) believed Europe was faced with an extremely
difficult phenomenon. Europe had been used to migration within in its own borders, but the
current trend in migration from south of the Mediterranean posed new challenges. There was
sometimes a contradiction between the expressed wish for freedom of movement and the
introduction of stricter controls on immigration. There was a need for illegal migrants
already in countries to be regularised into the formal economy to pay taxes and play a
proper part in society. The report demonstrated the need for timely action in that
respect.
THE PRESIDENT.- The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography has
presented a draft recommendation in Document 8599, to which two amendments have been
tabled. They will be taken in numerical order. The committee has also presented a draft
order.
I call Mr Provera on a point of order.
Mr PROVERA (Italy) questioned whether such an important issue should be
considered when so few delegates were present. He asked whether the Assembly was quorate.
THE PRESIDENT.- If there are rules about asking for quorums, may I have
the assistance of my clerks?
The custom, if I may put it that way, in the Council of Europe is that,
even if there are few people present, the debate continues. Fridays are always difficult
because, for various reasons, members must return home.
You have asked me to check whether we are quorate. Apparently,
according to the rules - I must confess that, although I am the President, I do not know
all the rules - if a member wishes to call for a count, which is the prelude to
establishing whether there is a quorum, nine people are required to rise in their place. I
do not know whether you must attempt that, and I am not even sure whether there are nine
people present.
Mr PROVERA (Italy) thought that the rule was paradoxical and reasserted
the desirability of such a crucial subject being considered by more people.
THE PRESIDENT.- I cannot argue with you. You are quite right. I concede
that. It is very bad when there are so few members present, but I am required to continue
with the debate, unless a count is called. If a count is not called, we must go on. I am
sorry. I have no leeway - no discretion - in the matter. If I had, I might well follow
your example and say that too few people are present for serious matters to be discussed.
However, I have no such discretion.
Thank you for raising the matter, which I think should be brought to
the attention of the Bureau. It is not the first time that we have considered the problem
of poor attendance on Fridays, but perhaps we should reconsider it. Attendance is always
worse if there is a complicated and intense debate on Thursday. That means that people are
even more likely to go off on Friday. They are exhausted and feel that they have been
through the important part of the week. Life is like that.
Is Mr González Laxe here?
Mrs SQUARCIALUPI (Italy) said she would move the amendment in his
absence.
THE PRESIDENT.- Apparently, you are entitled to do that, but I hope
that you will take account of the germane remarks that have been made. I cannot prevent
you from moving the amendment but, looking at the matter without any interest, it seems to
me that the amendment is important, and the view has been expressed that very few members
are present. The movers, apparently, do not consider the amendment important enough to
require their presence or to make sure that someone is nominated to move it. Nevertheless,
if you wish to move the amendment, you may do so.
We now come to Amendment No. 1, which is in the draft recommendation, add after
paragraph 1 a further paragraph worded as follows:
"The Assembly notes the absence of exact figures and a shortage of
reliable studies concerning clandestine migration from the south of the Mediterranean into
Europe."
I call Mrs Squarcialupi to support Amendment No. 1.
Mrs SQUARCIALUPI (Italy) said there was a need for exact, or at least
approximate, figures on the scale of illegal immigration.
THE PRESIDENT.- Perhaps I am tired because it is the end of the week,
but I am not sure how one gets statistics on an activity that is clandestine.
Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?...
I call Mr Provera to speak against the amendment.
Mr PROVERA (Italy) agreed with the President that, by definition, it
was very difficult to get exact figures. That was demonstrated by estimates in Italy,
which showed wide variations. Resources should be focused on countries of origin rather
than destination. He was therefore against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- The Chairman of the committee is not here. Normally I
would ask for the committee's opinion through the Chairman.
What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment, through the
rapporteur?
Mrs GUIRADO (Spain) said the committee was in favour. It might be
difficult to get exact figures, but it might be possible to get estimates.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands...
Amendment No. 1 is adopted.
We now come to Amendment No. 2, which is, in the draft recommendation,
replace paragraph 13.i with:
"invite the Spanish authorities to set up a permanent migration
monitor in southern Spain (the most sensitive point of entry for Mediterranean-Europe
emigration) in conjunction with the Council of Europe. Its chief objective would be to
analyse the intrinsic dynamics of clandestine migration and the outlook for migration
movements across the Mediterranean, and to conduct research into the number of clandestine
migration victims as well as the causes and effects of clandestine migration in the
Mediterranean and the impact and practices of trafficking in human beings and organised
crime in the region;".
I call Mrs Squarcialupi to support Amendment No. 2.
Mrs SQUARCIALUPI (Italy) said that, although it was impossible to
gather precise figures on immigration, the authorities should attempt to do so. She
proposed to replace "Spanish" with "competent".
THE PRESIDENT.- Essentially, Mrs Squarcialupi has tried to move an oral
sub-amendment to replace the word "Spanish" with the word "competent",
which widens the meaning. It is just as well that there are not many people here, and it
is certainly just as well that the place is not full of experts on the rules raising
points of order.
I am informed that the oral sub-amendment suggested by Mrs Squarcialupi
has to be moved before we can ask whether the amendment is opposed. Mrs Squarcialupi
cannot move the oral sub-amendment; it must be done by someone else, such as
Mrs Guirado, if she is agreeable. You are able to move the oral sub-amendment,
Mrs Guirado - do you want to do so?
Mrs GUIRADO (Spain) said that she was trying to obtain the commitment
of the Spanish authorities. Someone had to start the ball rolling. She asked
Mrs Squarcialupi not to undermine the commitment of the Spanish authorities. One
country needed to take responsibility.
THE PRESIDENT.- The problem is that, even if we accept the oral
sub-amendment suggested by Mrs Squarcialupi, the amendment itself goes on to say: "in
southern Spain (the most sensitive point of entry for Mediterranean-Europe
emigration)". Changing the first part of the amendment would therefore make no
difference. Given what Mrs Guirado has just said, the best way out of the situation would
be for Mrs Squarcialupi to withdraw her oral-sub amendment and leave the amendment as it
stands - we understand from Mrs Guirado that the amendment is supported by the
committee - and we could then deal with it as it stands. You see our problem, Mrs
Squarcialupi, and you are a patient and understanding person.
Mrs SQUARCIALUPI (Italy) asked to have a chance to have a look at the
proposed amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- You are not initiating this, Mrs Squarcialupi; you are
merely moving the motion on behalf of a Spanish friend. Will you do us a further favour
and withdraw the sub-amendment?
Mrs SQUARCIALUPI (Italy) (Translation).- Very well, I will do that
favour.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. Mrs Squarcialupi has withdrawn the oral
sub-amendment.
I now call Mr Provera to speak against the amendment.
Mr PROVERA (Italy) said that Albania was a point of passage for illegal
immigration from countries all over the world. The problem required a co-ordinated
response, with adequate funding. It was difficult to assess the situation accurately,
because the flow of illegal migrants was in a constant state of flux.
THE PRESIDENT.- The report is on clandestine migration from the south
of the Mediterranean, which would not include Albania, but we are not going to have a
geography lesson at this time of the week.
I call Mrs Guirado to speak on behalf of the committee.
Mrs GUIRADO (Spain) said that the committee had voted unanimously in
favour of the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands…
Amendment No. 2 is adopted.
We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation in
Document 8599, as amended.
The draft recommendation in Document 8599, as amended, is adopted.
We will now proceed to vote on the draft order contained in Document
8599.
The draft order contained in Document 8599 is adopted.
9. The
constituting of the Standing Committee
THE PRESIDENT.- Under Rule 15.2, we are required before the end of
this part-session formally to constitute the Standing Committee. The membership is listed
in document Committees (2000) 3.
Note is accordingly taken that the Standing Committee has been
constituted.
