AS (2013) CR 07

2013 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(First part)

REPORT

Seventh sitting

Thursday 24 January 2013 at 10.00 a.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

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

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

4.       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 Mignon, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.)

THE PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.

1. Organisation of debates

THE PRESIDENT* – I wish to propose a slight change to the agenda as a result of a delay to Mr Štefan Füle’s flight. After the urgent debate on migration and asylum, I suggest that we deal with the second urgent debate – on the situation in Mali and Algeria – at midday and resume it at 3.30 p.m.; that Štefan Füle address the Assembly at 4.15 p.m.; and that at 5.15 p.m. we deal with the debate on media freedom. Does anyone object to my proposal?

That is not the case.

2. Changes in the membership of committees

THE PRESIDENT* – Our first business is to consider the changes to the membership of committees set out in Document Commissions (2013) 01 Addendum 8.

Are the proposed changes in the membership of the Assembly’s committees agreed to?

They are agreed to.

3. Personal statement

THE PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Harutyunyan to make a personal statement.

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia) – In yesterday’s debate on Azerbaijan, the co-rapporteur of the Monitoring Committee, Mr Agramunt, fearlessly and with abandon defended part of his report on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and, by extension, the position of Azerbaijan. To make his arguments more robust, he manipulated and unapologetically misrepresented my arguments regarding the factual data on the conflict. It was an extremely deplorable and unacceptable behaviour by a co-rapporteur who, by virtue of his mandate, is obliged to maintain an impartial and fair approach. Mr Agramunt’s action can either be viewed as a premeditated attempt to mislead the Assembly or further proof of his allegiances. His reference to my presumed arguments did not correspond with reality. I never said in committee what Mr Agramunt quoted yesterday. It is appalling that a member – moreover, a co-rapporteur of the Monitoring Committee – resorts to lies. If Mr Agramunt’s memory has failed him, I strongly advise that he revisit the minutes of the relevant committee meeting.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Your statement will be recorded in the minutes of today’s sitting, and we take note of what you have just said. It is not down to us to judge the matter that you have raised, but what you have said will be recorded. Thank you for making such a clear and brief statement, which complied with the rules.

      I call Mr Hancock on a point of order.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – Davit’s comments were fair, but should they not have first been put to Mr Agramunt? The allegation that Mr Agramunt lied in the Assembly is a serious one, and surely it should have been made in his presence. The member making the complaint should have had the courtesy to inform Mr Agramunt so that he could be here to defend himself. I think it is very unfair that such a statement is now on the record unchallenged and unrebutted by Mr Agramunt.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Michael, if I may say so, given our friendship, I was simply applying Rule 34.6 of the Rules of Procedure. A personal request for the floor was made, and I granted it. It is clear that that statement cannot give rise to any debate, but let us not forget that this is a public sitting. The statement relates to the Assembly’s first part-session of 2013, and people are all here to attend the Parliamentary Assembly. I am not responsible if somebody is not sitting in the Chamber when they could be and they are mentioned in a personal statement. The information will be passed to Mr Agramunt, and if he wants to respond to the allegations it goes without saying that I will give him the floor without hesitation, in compliance with Rule 34.6.

4. Urgent debate: Migration and asylum: mounting tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean

THE PRESIDENT* – The first item of business this morning is a debate under urgent procedure on the report entitled “Migration and asylum: mounting tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean”, Document 13106, presented by Ms Tineke Strik on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons. I welcome Mr Santini, the chairman of the committee. The committee is behind the request for an urgent debate, which was unanimously approved by the Bureau of the Parliamentary Assembly.

On Monday it was agreed to limit speaking time to three minutes, but as the list of speakers is not too long the limit can be increased to four minutes. We must conclude the debate by 11.45 a.m., in order to allow time for the reply and the votes before the next item of business, which is due to begin at 12 noon.

I call Ms Strik, rapporteur. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – I am very glad that there was so much support for holding an urgent debate on the situation for migrants in the eastern Mediterranean. It offers me the chance to share with you some alarming facts and figures, and our experiences on our working visit to Greece last week. With the Ad hoc Sub-Committee of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, we visited Greece in the context of a larger study of how southern member States deal with large numbers of arrivals at their shores. Migrants find their way to Europe, and if one door is locked they will use the next door. After Spain and Italy strengthened their border controls and signed readmission agreements with North African countries, the pressure on Greece significantly increased. Migrants from Asia and Africa, but increasingly from the Middle East and Syria, manage to reach Greek territory.

We were very honoured that our President, Mr Mignon, accompanied us for part of the visit, and I am convinced that our visit proved effective. We were also very well hosted by the Greek authorities – the governors, the parliament and the ministries – and our Greek colleagues from the Assembly accompanied us and were very supportive. All those positive circumstances could not prevent us from being shocked and saddened when we visited detention centres where migrants were held. Greece has more than 6 000 detention places for migrants, which it wants to expand to 10 000.

The detention centres we visited along the land border with Turkey were far below European human rights standards. More than 70 people were stuck in a cell of 100 square metres without heating, warm water or even light. They are allowed to stand for an hour a day behind bars in the open air. They have much difficulty getting access to medical care and communicating with the outside world. Some told us that they had been there for five months and had still not been able to call their families to let them know they were alive. Many were worried about the fate of their family members and insecure about their own future. They do not know how long they will have to stay in detention, and a law has recently been amended to make it possible to extend their detention to one year, and sometimes even to 18 months. They are guarded by police officers who are not trained to support such people or know what they need. Migrants are treated as criminals, solely because they are looking for a better life or protection against war or persecution. Although, formally, detainees may apply for asylum, in practice it proves to be very difficult; it depends on the police officers involved. Such circumstances and such insecurity create extremely distressing circumstances for these people.

Unaccompanied minors are staying among the adults and are not getting any specific attention or protection. As you know, the detention of minors goes against human rights and against many of the resolutions that we have adopted here. Both Mr Mignon and the sub-committee visited women’s departments and concluded that their situation is far below what is required for human dignity. Our colleague, Ms Fiala, promised them that we would not shut up about what we had seen, so this debate is also important for those people. We were very pleased, therefore, to hear the next day that our former colleague, Mr Dendias, who is now the Greek Minister of Public Order and Citizen Protection, promised to release the women and children in the spring, when the first open reception centre is ready. He also promised that the worst detention centres would be closed soon. Furthermore, efforts are being made to solve the backlog of 50 000 asylum claims, and the Greek authorities are developing a new asylum procedure with civilian decision makers that can guarantee a more independent assessment.

That shows the good will of the Greek authorities, and the fact that they recognise that substantial improvements urgently need to be made, but these announcements do not structurally change the policy. The Greek response to immigration is detention 12 kilometres from the Turkish border. That does not solve anything. Instead of crossing the land border, migrants now undertake more dangerous trips, such as to the Greek islands or the Bulgarian border. The response’s effects are therefore inhumane as well as ineffective. Migrants cannot simply be pushed back to Turkey, as there is no guarantee Turkey will offer them protection. Asylum seekers should not be detained, but should instead be offered a careful and swift asylum procedure with procedural safeguards and living conditions in line with European standards. Irregular stay is also not a reason for migrants to be detained indefinitely. My resolution therefore calls on the Greek Government to reform this policy as soon as possible.

We must be clear, however, that this alarming situation is not the fault of Greece alone. Turkey is the main transit country for migrants heading for Europe, and as Greece is located at the southern border of Europe it serves as the continent’s entry point. Its national borders are our common European external borders, for which we are collectively responsible. We simply cannot ignore what is happening to these migrants, but many member States do deny their responsibilities. They sometimes even adopt the Dublin Convention provision allowing them to send all asylum seekers back to the country of first entry into Europe. Greece is funded by the European Refugee Fund. That is an important initiative, but it should be organised more flexibly and effectively, and it is not a substitute for countries sharing responsibility.

There are many things we can do, such as dividing asylum seekers or refugees among the member States or revising the Dublin system. We therefore urge European countries to change their attitude and show solidarity so we can find genuine solutions. I know they can do that.

In my report, I compare the humanitarian crisis with the economic and financial crisis. The eurozone countries swiftly put in place bail-outs and rescue measures for Greece, because they realised that was in their own interests. What is the difference between that problem and the migrant situation in Greece? There is a single market and one geographical area without borders.

While Europe looks the other way, xenophobic movements are gaining popularity by exploiting the migrant situation. Migrants are frequently harassed and attacked in the streets, and they do not have a safe place to turn to. Just last week, a Pakistani migrant was stabbed to death by two young Greeks. According to the polls, Golden Dawn is growing fast. Another bail-out will not rescue Greece from its crisis if it is seriously politically destabilised first.

Anyone who saw what is happening on the Greek border with their own eyes would be immediately convinced of the urgent need to address the situation, and that is even more urgently needed now that we are faced with an exploding Syria, from which millions of refugees flee looking for a safe haven. Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey give shelter to large numbers of these refugees, and we should express our gratitude to them for that, but there is a limit to how many refugees they can accommodate. Increasing numbers of Syrians are trying to enter Europe, hoping for humane treatment and protection, but instead of being given a warm welcome they find themselves stuck in Greek detention centres.

Funding Syria’s neighbours is important, but it is not enough. Europe must take its share of responsibility by organising the settlement of Syrian refugees in European countries. We must look to creative measures, too, such as offering scholarships to young Syrians so they can use their time in exile to learn and help their country in the future. The responsibility to protect does not start at the borders of our individual countries; it does not even start at the border of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Strik. You have five minutes remaining.

I call Ms Kanelli, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Ms KANELLI (Greece) – On behalf of my group, I thank with all my heart you, Mr President, Greece, Ms Strik and the members of the committee for coming to Greece. Despite being faced with many difficulties, within a very short time they produced a balanced and honest report that has no double standards on human rights and politics.

I am speaking not as a Greek but as a human being, but if I were an alien from the red planet of Mars arriving at the Greek-Turkish border, what would I think? I would think that on this planet there is a place with a door to massive misery that is sold as a door to paradise. Thousands and thousands of people have found themselves alone standing at this door wondering whether to use the key, with Cerberus, the three-headed dog, guarding the entry to the underworld. No country would be able to deal with the situation that Greece and Turkey face: 3 000 miles of coastline and 200 miles of land border. Should we erect a wall to protect that border – a wall so long it could be seen from a distant star?

The product, that is the “irregular migrant”, is a political matter. Areas neighbouring this border have had to deal with the so-called Arab Spring, which has produced refugees. There have also been military interventions and wars in Iran, Syria and, a little further away, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Across the world, there are people making wars and money, and that is producing – I am not afraid of using that word – immigrants: desperate people who, whether we describe them as irregular or illegal, are fleeing from danger and misery.

Policies can be implemented, but that requires collaboration between States. We need common ideas on human and political rights so that people can stay in their country and be happy with their schools, their gods and religion, their soil, their freedom and their rights.

These are not masses who move just out of an ambition to seek a better life. They are obliged by bullets, by poverty and by political problems to flee their countries. If over a short period 10% of a country’s population do not accept their misery, that makes for an impossible situation.

I urge members to vote for the report. The only enemy of the good is the better.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Kanelli. I call Ms Bakoyannis, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Ms BAKOYANNIS (Greece) – On behalf of the entire Greek delegation, I thank our President, the rapporteur and Mr Santini and all our colleagues who came to Greece. I thank you, Mr President, in particular, because we were very glad that our colleagues came to see with their own eyes a problem that was not known about and had not been dealt with. We in Greece are facing a big economic crisis. For two years, everybody has been speaking about it, but nobody has been speaking about the big social and humanitarian problem that we face.

Let me try to describe the situation. To portray the issue of illegal immigration, one image will do. It is the image of a small guard post of 27, assailed by a crowd but guarded by just one of the 27 guards. That is the case with Greece. We are responsible for the European border. Greece receives the vast majority of illegal immigrants who enter the European Union. They do not want to stay in Greece; they just want to go through Greece. They know that they will not have a future in Greece, as we are facing a big economic crisis.

We live at the crossroads of three continents. Greece has a coast that is 16 000 km long – that is equivalent to the circumference of the whole of Africa. Furthermore, we have 1 200 km of mountainous frontiers. We do not only have European borders; we have non-European borders too. The decision was made in Dublin II that whoever came to Europe would stay in the country that he first arrived in and would not be accepted by another country if he tried to cross a European frontier.

The result is that in Greece we are facing a political problem, as well as the social and economic problems. For the first time, a country that fought against fascism and that paid a very high price during the second world war has a party and people who believe in fascist ideas. Greece was never xenophobic or racist. Half of us live in different countries around the world – in Germany and elsewhere in Europe and in the United States, for example. For the first time, 10% of Greeks are reacting in that way, because their lives have changed and everything has changed. The cities are no longer secure. People cannot walk around the centre of Athens. They do not recognise their own city.

This problem has to be shared. We cannot pay for the frontiers of Europe with only a small contribution from the European Union. We are made responsible for that but we are criticised. We need a common European migration policy. Those who are surrounded by European Union countries should not hold us entirely responsible and say that we are not doing what we should. Please vote for the report and in your countries give us the help we need.

The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Bakoyannis. I call Mr Schennach, who speaks on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – On behalf of the whole Assembly, I thank Ms Strik for everything that she has done, not just on this report but on other refugee issues in the Mediterranean region. We face a dramatic and almost inconceivable humanitarian disaster. Many desperate people are stranded in Istanbul and Greece. Amnesty has recently produced a report about this disaster.

I listened closely to my two Greek colleagues. Greece needs help – that is important – but it also needs to face up to its responsibilities. If we want to act responsibly with regard to asylum seekers, it is not acceptable to deal with requests only on one given day, so that there are queues of hundreds of people, who for that reason remain illegal or irregular immigrants.

Greek people working in Greece – this does not come from me – talk about the dreadful situation concerning refugees. They talk about the violence and racism that people have to contend with. They are faced with pressure from fascists. There have been clashes and even deaths. If people are placed in detention for six months as refugees and that is increased to 12 months, that is unacceptable. A refugee should not be in prison; they are seeking asylum.

We have to cope with the situation that Greece finds itself in. It concerns the whole of Europe. It is down to the whole of Europe to do whatever it can to provide support to Greece. We need to support Istanbul as well. There are mass graves in Istanbul for asylum seekers who have died or been killed. We have to take action on the situation in the eastern Mediterranean. Streams of asylum seekers are coming from Syria. We cannot allow the police to have such a heavy-handed approach and to beat up asylum seekers. That is just not acceptable. We cannot allow xenophobic and fascist forces to thrive. Greece has never been a fascist or xenophobic country. The current crisis, combined with the financial crisis, has led to this appalling state of affairs. There are also problems with the police, who are carrying out inhuman raids.

We have to take action at the European Union level. The Council of Europe has a part to play in that. We should ensure that money is released to Greece to improve protection and not to create more detention centres.

The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Schennach. I call Ms Fiala, who speaks on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms FIALA (Switzerland)* – I thank my dear friend Ms Strik for her excellent report. I strongly endorse everything in it. When we were in Greece, we shared emotions, we shared what we saw and we shared humanitarian values, which bound us close together. I take this opportunity to thank our friends from Greece, Ms Kanelli and Ms Bakoyannis, for welcoming us and for being so open and candid about what is happening there.

It would be arrogant for me as someone from Switzerland, which is not a party to Schengen, to criticise Greece. Greece is having to contend with something that no country represented in this Chamber could afford to cope with by themselves. We have heard the numbers. There are millions of illegal immigrants, tens of thousands of whom are in detention centres. I agree with my colleague from Austria: we are talking not just about holding centres but about prisons. Once you have seen the situation with your own eyes, you no longer feel innocent or naïve about it; your feelings are hardened, and you can no longer put up with popular opinions about it. If you look into the eyes of refugees from Syria, Palestine, Iraq or sub-Saharan Africa – they have no documents, and have paid up to $1 000, only suddenly to find themselves in prison and in an appalling situation – you are greatly affected from a humanitarian point of view, especially in the current century. Since August 2012, Greece has strengthened its borders – those on rivers are also strongly supervised – and it is very difficult to cross them, but, as has already been said, Greece has a very long coast and 3 000 islands, so not all its borders can be kept under surveillance.

I want you to be aware of the conditions in the prisons, about which we should pillory Greece. There is no hot water and sanitary conditions are appalling. Refugees are separated from their partners for months, and they have no idea what will happen to them, while their families also do not know what is happening to them. I am sorry to say that a humanitarian tragedy is unfolding here that is almost inconceivable. Please do not let that continue; it must change. We promised the prisoners that we would not remain silent on this issue, and we should not stop now: we at the Council of Europe must continue our efforts. We cannot of course save everyone in the world, but we all can take a clear position by acknowledging that we have to rise to this global challenge, which affects us all, and try to find global solutions.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Fiala. I call Mr Chope, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – It is a pleasure to follow Ms Fiala. We had a very constructive visit to Greece, and I support almost everything in the report. However, I emphasise that the report has some omissions: it does not say enough about illegal migrants, people traffickers or the hundreds of thousands of people who are trying to get into the European Union not because they are fleeing persecution or seeking asylum as refugees, but because they want a better life here. There is no limit to the numbers of people who are attracted to the European Union because, as Chancellor Merkel has said, the European Union has 7% of the global population, 25% of global GDP and, not insignificantly, 50% of global social spending. It is obviously a magnet that attracts people from less fortunate parts of the world, but there is no human right to live wherever you want; every country has the right to determine who lives within its borders and to control its borders.

In that context, I want to tell the Assembly an anecdote. When we visited a detention centre, I asked to talk to someone who spoke English. I chatted to one of about 30 or 40 people who were on the other side of a fence. He was about 22 or 23. He said he had come from Afghanistan, having paid $8 000 – he thought that was a bargain-basement price – to be transported across Iran and Turkey, from where he was going to take a boat to the east coast of Italy, thereby avoiding Greece. The boat foundered, but fortunately for him he did not lose his life; too many have been drowned in similar circumstances. He was arrested by the Greek authorities and put in a detention centre. He told me that he wanted to go to London, and I asked him why. He said, “I want to go to London, because I was there six months ago. I had been in London for five years.” The United Kingdom authorities had eventually deported him and put him on a plane back to Afghanistan. That person was not in need of humanitarian assistance; he was playing the system to try to get into the United Kingdom against the wishes of the UK Government and in breach of international law.

It is a mistake for the report to equate such a person with someone fleeing persecution in Syria: we must distinguish between the two. I regret that the report does not say much about our visit to the vice-admiral in charge of the Hellenic coastguard, because he had some horrific stories about people off the Turkish Aegean Sea coast. Those people are getting into a boat with instructions about how to puncture their boat close to a Greek island, knowing that the Greeks will rescue them and take them to a centre. Surely such people should be detained and returned to their own crisis. There is a real crisis in that Greece cannot return those illegal migrants to their own countries, because it cannot get agreements with such places as Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. I have tabled amendments to try to introduce more balance into the recommendations, so that we can help those in need of humanitarian assistance, while penalising those who play the system for their own gain.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Chope. Ms Strik does not wish to respond now, so I call Ms Fort.

Ms FORT (France)* – I want to go back to the situation of migrants and asylum seekers in Turkey. Mr Davutoğlu, the Turkish Foreign Minister, has declared that Turkey will never close its frontiers to Syrian refugees. As the rapporteur points out in the draft resolution, it is our duty to honour Turkey for its generous policy towards the Syrians fleeing civil war and massacre. It has taken in more than 200 000 refugees, and it is perfectly legitimate to ask how many more might arrive and whether Turkey can shoulder that huge flood all alone, particularly as the refugee camps near the border are regularly shelled by supporters of the Syrian Government. More than 10 000 Syrian refugees are still waiting to cross the border into Turkey.

On 16 January, the executive director of the World Food Programme, Ms Ertharin Cousin, visited refugee camps in Turkey. In her statement, she said that the crisis continues, but that we must not allow a single baby to remain hungry: we must ask donors from the world as a whole to add their efforts to Turkey’s and to the efforts of those that are already helping with the food needs of all the victims of the Syrian crisis. Turkey has already spent $360 million, of which $30 million came from the efforts of international solidarity. A recent report from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees shows that space in the camps is still a major challenge. A new camp will be opened at Nizip for another 5 000 people, but just increasing the number of refugee camps will never be a real solution. We also need to think about what will be done once the war is over, so that Syrian refugees can go back to decent conditions in their own country.

For other migrants and asylum seekers more generally, it is obvious that current economic and social conditions in Europe mean that it cannot accept everyone who believes – “believes” is the right word – in a better life in some European Eldorado, which does not in fact exist. The situation in Greece – I was moved by what our Greek colleagues were saying – is symptomatic of the limits of our acceptance policy, but we should never throw stones at other European countries; we should show solidarity. Turkey should have better control over its frontier with Europe, and deploying Frontex on Turkish territory might provide a solution.

      To prepare for the future, we should work together on a coherent joint policy on migrants’ home countries. We should make co-development a priority to allow these desperate men and women to retain their dignity.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Fort. I call Mr Rouquet.

      Mr ROUQUET (France)* – I congratulate Ms Strik on her exhaustive report and her apposite proposals. A fortnight ago, I had the opportunity to go to Greece with you, Mr President, and saw that in some places the living conditions for these women, young children and men are intolerable. What European country could face alone such an influx of migrants? To make matters worse, Greece is confronted with an unprecedented economic and social crisis, and that also makes the situation precarious for migrants and asylum seekers, for many of whom Greece is the entrance door to Europe, for geographical reasons. The problem is not one for Greece alone but for Europe as a whole. As you pointed out during your visit to Athens, Mr President, European solidarity is essential to avoid the situation around the Mediterranean becoming a humanitarian disaster.

Thousands of migrants irregularly enter Greece every year, mostly transiting through Turkey. To manage this influx of people fleeing war or misery, measures must be taken on both sides of the frontier. The European Union, especially through Frontex and European coastguards, also has an important role to play. The high number of asylum requests and the national asylum agency’s crying need for staff and means creates an untenable situation, which is particularly difficult for minors, who are isolated and without their families.

The Greek authorities are resolved to address the 50 000 backlog of asylum seekers, and to improve their holding conditions. I am happy that they have closed a number of centres that did not meet European standards. Without aid from the European Union and its member countries, however, Greece will face increasing difficulties in pursuing its efforts.

My dear Greek colleagues, be convinced that we are fully aware of the difficulties you must face, which I saw for myself with colleagues on our visit to your country. In the shadow of the crisis, the values of the Council of Europe should be our guiding light, and we should accompany you along this path.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Rouquet. I do not see Mr Agramunt, so I call Mr Bies.

Mr BIES (France)* – I thank Ms Strik for her report, which should be a wake-up call to all of us. On the one hand, we have a nation whose economic crisis has brought violence and hardship; on the other, we have migrants, refugees and a political party whose only platform is to whip up xenophobia and hatred. We know only too well on our continent what a dangerous cocktail that is.

A national or local response has never been adequate to face a challenge of this magnitude, and yet the kneejerk reaction is a nationalist one, and not just in the Mediterranean. In all our countries, we can remember clear examples of this happening. In my country, a few months ago an outgoing president was considering suspending France’s participation in the Schengen agreements, but we should be doing the opposite. Whatever we think in our various countries, Europe is attractive for our neighbours. We want and advocate that attractiveness, but we refuse to assume together the responsibilities it brings.

For the economic and financial crisis that almost pushed Greece out of the eurozone, there was only one possible response: European solidarity. To the migratory pressure that is familiar to all European countries that are on the shores of the Mediterranean, particularly Greece and Turkey, again only one response is possible: that same European solidarity. This solidarity should be ambitious in design, but should also take into account the demographic changes that Europe will see over the next few decades. I share the view that seeing migration policy only through the prism of border controls will lead simply to a systematic shift in migratory pressure from one border to the next.

Sharing between all the countries concerned the task of receiving and processing migrants at Europe’s external borders might seem an ambitious idea, but it is necessary. The Council of Europe and our Assembly have, therefore, a major part to play. To allow the emergence of a common European migration policy, it is vital to promote awareness among European Union member States, and that is the point of the draft resolution and recommendation. Given the coming demographic changes, we should also highlight the beneficial and necessary economic and cultural aspects of migration for Europe.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Bies. I call Ms Memecan.

Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – I congratulate Ms Strik, and members of the secretariat, on their efficient work. I also thank Ms Strik for her continued devotion and hard work on the issues of migrants and immigrants.

Before I move on, I want to correct Mr Schennach, who I believe has been misinformed: there are no mass graves in Istanbul for migrants.

Turkey is located on a major migration route and faces increasing numbers of illegal migrants, from its economically and politically unstable neighbourhood, trying to cross its territory towards the west. More than 10 000 smugglers have been apprehended in the last 10 years. We are well aware of the increasing problem of illegal immigration in the Aegean, and we have intensified our efforts to tackle the problem more effectively. In that respect, Turkey’s co-operation with Greece has been remarkably strengthened in the last two years, following the signing of the readmission protocol in 2010. We have recently taken two significant legislative steps, which will establish an immigration policies board, with a view to improving the current mechanisms.

Given the complexity and magnitude of the problem, it is clear that the solutions are beyond the means of a single country and require international co-operation and solidarity. Currently, Turkey is hosting 150 000 Syrian guests in camps all over the country. Some of our colleagues have visited the camps and expressed their appreciation for the hospitality shown to and services provided for the refugees.

Considering the quality of our efforts, which is beyond the scope of any convention, it is disappointing that the issue of geographical reservation is being reintroduced in this report. That matter was raised the last time the Assembly passed a resolution on Syria and we agreed not to make it an issue. We should be consistent and amend this report.

I remind all colleagues that the Syrian people are in urgent need of effective support from the international community. We expect the serious engagement of our Council of Europe partners to help out in these tough times. Your contribution should be more than just to debate these issues. You should do more in practice to share the burden, and sooner rather than later.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Memecan. I call Ms Gündeş Bakir.

      Ms GÜNDEŞ BAKIR (Turkey) – The geographical limitation implemented by Turkey with regard to the acceptance only of refugees from Europe and people uprooted by events in Europe is not the reservation of Turkey. On the contrary, it is a right recognised by Article 1(B) of the 1951 Geneva Convention. The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of A.G. and others v. Turkey makes it clear that geographical limitation and reservation cannot be considered to be discrimination under the rights defined in the European Convention on Human Rights. Given the decision of the Court, Turkey does not have to remove the geographical reservation, which is itself guaranteed as a right in the 1951 United Nations Convention. It is completely legal. Forcing Turkey to do the opposite would be a violation of its sovereign rights and would go against the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.

      The border of Europe in the east is not at the Turkish-Greek border, but at the Turkish-Syrian border. We must not forget that Turkey is part of Europe. There is uninterrupted collaboration and close, friendly co-operation between the Greek and Turkish authorities to counter illegal migration and human trafficking. Numerous bilateral protocols have been signed to control human trafficking. Within the framework of the readmission protocol between Turkey and Greece, the last experts’ meeting was held in Ankara in November 2012. The delegations of both countries agreed on fighting illegal migration and human trafficking in an efficient way.

      Turkey is fulfilling its obligations and is hosting more than 150 000 Syrians fleeing from the Assad regime in 15 camps. Turkey has spent more than $550 million of its own national resources on the Syrians who are sheltering in its camps. The expense of running a camp sheltering 10 000 refugees is $2.5 million a month. The financial assistance of the international community for Syrian refugees remains too low.

      We stand in complete solidarity with the Syrian people. We declare very clearly that we have given every possible humanitarian aid and support to the people of Syria, regardless of their religion, ethnicity or sect. However, it is obvious that the scale of the problem is becoming more than Turkey alone can shoulder. We expect the international community to share the humanitarian burden. It is also apparent that providing such humanitarian relief outside Syria is not sustainable. We should look to provide humanitarian solutions and camps within Syria. In that regard, my country has started to transfer humanitarian aid from the zero point on the Turkish-Syrian border via the Red Crescent.

      Last but not least, we need to find clever and enduring solutions to the problem of the illegal migration of Syrian people. Building barbed-wire fences and increasing the number of police officers or border guards will not prevent such migration unless the internal war in Syria ends soon and a democratic transitional government is established. That should be our first priority.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Gündeş Bakir. I call Ms Pipili.

      Ms PIPILI (Greece)* – Greece cannot accept all the miseries and tragedies of the world in its territory. This is not only a Greek problem, but a European problem. Greece has been trying to tell you that for a long time. At last, someone has heard our appeal and you have embraced our position. We are grateful, Mr President, for the stance you have adopted. We can now move forward and live up to our obligations. Once the enormous problem is acknowledged, we can receive the necessary support.

      We are discussing the report of Ms Strik, who came to Greece with other members of the Assembly. They took the time to visit the outer limit of Europe along the River Evros. Journalists and representatives of non-governmental organisations also participated. It is easy to criticise Greece from afar, but members of the committee had a chance to see things up close: they saw the detention centres, talked to the desperate refugees and listened to us. They had a chance to gauge the complexities of the situation and to get a more comprehensive picture of the situation.

I regret that, for many years, Europe has not understood our difficulties and has not appreciated that we cannot confront the enormous humanitarian tragedy alone. We are just a small country of 11 million inhabitants. We have no experience of colonialism. On the contrary, we are a country of refugees. Indeed, I am the daughter of refugees from Asia Minor. My family lost its country. Greece is also a country of emigrants. There is an outflow of young people from Greece.

In 2010, 132 000 irregular migrants were stopped along the border with Turkey. Furthermore, 90% of the migrants who want to come into Europe are stopped at our border. Those figures come from the Frontex report. There are 600 000 undocumented people in Athens. Imagine the problem that that creates. Let us not forget that we have a racist, extreme, right-wing party.

As a Greek, I am happy that you have finally heard us and understood the scope of the problem. It has been said that we do not treat people in a humanitarian way. That is not true. The border officials and coastguards, who are very poorly paid, continue to do their job along the Evros border.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Pipili. I call Ms Tzakri.

Ms TZAKRI (Greece) – I congratulate the rapporteur, Ms Strik, on her balanced report.

      The issue of immigration, and especially of irregular immigration, has been of great importance to every Greek Government of the past 20 years. Greek citizens, especially those who live in the big cities, worry about the implications of this phenomenon for their lives. Everyone can understand the pressure that is exerted on local economies and on people’s lives when there is a sudden increase in the number of immigrants hanging around without jobs, with poor health and in poor living conditions. This is undeniably the raw material for racism.

Let us look back at the history of this problem in Greece. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, numerous immigrants, especially from neighbouring countries, were flushed into Greece, where they quickly merged with the population and the economy and, after 1998, began to be accepted as citizens of our country. However, in 2005, the picture started to change. Greece became the centre of an immigration crisis as hundreds of thousands of immigrants flowed into the country from all over the world, especially from Asia, Africa and the Middle East, to escape economic and social crisis and, of course, deadly wars. They saw Greece as their European chance of a better life or as a gateway to Europe. Greece, of course, could not deal successfully with this great problem. To understand the problem in terms of numbers, in 2011, we arrested almost 100,000 people, and that is only a small fragment of the big picture. Turkey, as always, did not co-operate with the Greek authorities.

      What have European governments done about the problem? Only a few things. It was hoped that by providing help through Frontex, they could deter immigration flows, and then, by financing other operations such as deportation, deal effectively with the bulk of the problem and provide Greece’s economy and society with a shield or a helping hand. However, none of these efforts was successful. The rest of Europe should deal as a united country with Greece’s irregular immigration issues and treat Greece’s border as the border of Europe. It is obvious that if Greece’s border collapsed, the problem would move to the next European country.

      As you can understand, Greece can no longer accept the Dublin regulations and be the host country for all irregular immigration into the whole European Union. We must protect European solidarity and our economic and social well-being by all acceptable means. Greece is rapidly changing its attitude towards the issue, and our European partners should also understand that this is a European problem, not a Greek problem.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Dame Angela Watkinson.

      Dame Angela WATKINSON (United Kingdom) – I thank Ms Strik for this excellent report. A great deal of time and effort has gone into its preparation, and the results are valuable to this Assembly.

      The proper management of asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migrants is an ongoing challenge for many European countries, but the conflict in Syria is placing great additional strain on Greece and Turkey. The scale of the problem is so great that Greece and Turkey need assistance from other European countries via the European Union and the Council of Europe, and they need to engage in bilateral co-operation. We must work together and plan jointly to cope with this shared problem.

      The need for support is exacerbated by the current difficult economic situation in Greece, which has given rise to xenophobic and racist attacks on asylum seekers and refugees by individuals, vigilante groups and extremists. Asylum seekers and refugees are being made scapegoats for the domestic difficulties in Greece as the flow of new entrants into the country exceeds its capacity to provide appropriate facilities and services. It illustrates that no country can take an unlimited number of new entrants, and it is the reason behind the amendments to the report tabled by my colleague Mr Chope in an effort to highlight the differences between people trying to enter another country for economic, social or other reasons and people fleeing humanitarian crisis, war or persecution.

      I had thought that, as the report says, Turkey, as the main transit country, is already host to 150,000 refugees. A previous speaker from France said 200,000; I am sure that that figure is more up to date than mine. Turkey already hosts a very large and growing number of refugees from Syria, many of whom will want to enter the European Union via Greece.

A functioning, humane system is needed to establish asylum seeker or refugee status as quickly as possible, with particular regard to women’s safety from violence, sexual abuse or harassment. It must also protect children, unaccompanied minors and vulnerable people. The use of detention should be reduced and the standard of accommodation improved for those who are detained. People who are already traumatised should not be exposed to further trauma by detention in unsafe or unclean conditions without light, heat or basic comforts.

Greece has already enhanced its border controls and plans to improve its asylum procedures and detention conditions, but the speed of progress is being overtaken by increasing numbers of new arrivals. Current European Union expectations of what Greece can achieve are unrealistic and need re-evaluating.

This excellent report makes many sensible and practical recommendations, including responsible sharing of the challenge by the rest of Europe and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees supporting Greece and Turkey, strengthened resettlement arrangements for Syrian refugees and a reduction in the backlog of asylum cases. I urge all colleagues to support the report.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Groth.

Ms GROTH (Germany*) – I endorse what the previous speaker said. When we went to Greece last week, we were told by Syrian refugees, “We would rather die in Syria than wait so long here, completely forgotten about.” We saw 11-year-old children from Pakistan who had travelled to Greece and who were severely traumatised, very ill and in urgent need of medical care. They also had been forgotten. We saw 51 women in a dreadful prison in Patras, and they looked at us with tears in their eyes. They said, “Please do something about this. We’re going to die here.”

I would like all European Union Ministers of the Interior to go to that prison – to several prisons in Greece – and see with their own eyes how inhumane the conditions and rules are. They should give some thought to what is happening. We must forget about Dublin II. As a member of the German opposition, I am sure that if Germany were in Greece’s geographical position, Dublin II would have been done away with some time ago. Unfortunately, last week, an amendment was debated.

A humanitarian disaster is unfolding. Perhaps I am playing the moral card, but we will make ourselves guilty if we do nothing about it – if we remain silent and do nothing about refugees starving to death after fleeing their countries from Greece, and we cannot offer them a proper haven in our rich countries. Look at Lebanon: it is a very small country and this year it expects 300,000 additional Syrian refugees. That is as if 25 million were to come to Europe, just to give you an idea of the order of magnitude.

Money is being poured into securing and strengthening the European Union’s outside borders to prevent migrants and refugees from entering, but we are giving almost no money to ensure that proper humane conditions are provided for people who flee their countries and come to these borders. We need to demand that as loudly as we can. Some €200 million has been ring-fenced for managing and guarding borders, yet only €4 million has been made available for a European refugee fund to accommodate refugees in Greece – there is a big difference there.

I am very afraid of what is happening with the neo-Nazi forces in Greece, and similar movements are developing in other countries. We debated what is happening in Hungary and other countries. We need to take this danger very seriously and do whatever we can to fight it. We need to show solidarity in combating these phenomena.

We need to act to help Syria, as well as another group of people who are often forgotten – the Palestinians. What can we do about them? Thousands are fleeing and ending up in prisons. We met some of them. None of them knows what is going to happen to them.

I call on everyone to approve the report, give it our wholehearted support and disseminate it as widely as we can.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Marias.

Mr MARIAS (Greece)* – This is the first time that I have participated in an Assembly meeting, and I am delighted to be here to discuss an important matter that concerns Greece and migrants. I do not wish to speak from a written text. I think the truth should be stated in this room.

Our country took in thousands of migrants when the Soviet Union changed. We accepted and integrated them not because there was a legal responsibility to do so but because the Greek people are generous, they like foreigners and they help people in need. Now though, we have tremendous tension because we have many more migrants, very few of whom are genuine asylum seekers. They do not have identity papers and they do not want to stay in Greece; they want to go elsewhere in Europe. Greece has been turned into a reserve of souls. We cannot support the situation, economically or socially. We have 1.5 million Greek unemployed, thousands of shops are closed and GNP has declined by 25%. We have had a spate of suicides. We have an adjustment programme imposed by the troika and we are in the midst of a crisis.

I would like to put a question to you. With the situation as it is, is it possible for us to manage hundreds of thousands of refugees? We cannot. We are not the only ones responsible. We need European solidarity, otherwise we will have a social explosion – racism and Nazism are just the precursors. Europe has to assume its responsibilities. Turkey, too, has its responsibilities because thousands of people cross Turkey to get to the Aegean islands or to the border at Evros. All that is taking place in silence.

We have to establish a European policy. The European Union has invested billions to save banks, and that is very good. But let us think now too of the flow of the refugees and migrants, because after Syria we will have an even greater problem. Dublin II has to be amended. It is not possible for Greece to play host to millions of people who cannot go to western Europe. I beg you to grasp the importance of this matter. We may not agree with everything in the report, but it constitutes a first step.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Neill.

Mr NEILL (United Kingdom) – I join colleagues in congratulating the rapporteur on the quality of her report, which is very valuable and highlights important issues for us all. The United Kingdom has a long history of receiving and, I hope, welcoming migrants to our shores. This is a problem that now confronts us all in Europe, and the report highlights the need to deal with it on a holistic basis.

I pay tribute to the work being done by Greece in very difficult circumstances. Although there are pressures on Greece, and nothing is ever perfect, we should recognise the good work that is being done and endeavour to give Greece practical support to help it to deal with those issues. That is something that the United Kingdom Government is doing at the moment. We give practical support to Greece through the European Asylum Support Office to try to develop capacity to deal with asylum claims. We have had to improve our own capacity to deal with asylum claims in the United Kingdom. We have speeded that process up, and we are willing to help others by sharing that work and any expertise we have developed. We also work with Greece through Frontex and its operations at the Greek-Turkish frontier. That practical support is very important.

It is important, however, that at the same time we recognise our obligation to support and care for genuine refugees and asylum seekers. It is important that we draw a distinction between those who are honestly and genuinely under pressure and those who seek cynically to manipulate the system. That is why I hope, in due course, colleagues will pay particular attention to and support the amendments tabled by Mr Chope. It is the fact that a minority cynically manipulate the system that feeds the extremism about which we have heard from colleagues in this debate. Genuine compassion and a firm-but-fair system of migration control go hand in hand. I hope that Mr Chope’s amendments will reflect that.

It is important that we recognise that while we must co-operate and work together, I would be concerned by any hint that there should be a physical burden sharing other than on a voluntary basis. As I said, the United Kingdom has a history of welcoming migrants to its shores. Forty-one years ago we welcomed many East African Asians to the United Kingdom when they were expelled from Uganda and Kenya, some as victims of the vile dictator, Idi Amin – a man in the same category, perhaps, as President Assad of Syria, where the same thing is happening now. That was a case of the burden being taken on. We have to be careful to ensure that within the European Union we do not allow burden sharing to become compulsory because that could defeat the most important objective, which is, first, to try, through regional protection programmes – which we should emphasise more – to enable people to return to their homeland when the situation improves and, if that is not possible, to integrate fully with the community where they have settled. There is a risk – I do not say that it is intended – that too rigid a set of mandatory relocation procedures will impede the integration that we all want and which is the other part of defeating the extremist attitudes towards migrants that we sometimes see. I hope that we can get that balance in the report.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. Mr Tatsopoulos has the floor.

Mr TATSOPOULOS (Greece) – In literature, theatre and cinema, and in reality, we see the image of the kind boss, who is always polite, cultivated and erudite, and the guy who guards the gate who is the mean bad guy in the story. But the bad-guy gatekeeper is there only because he is following the orders of his nice boss. The person who gives the orders – this kind, nice boss – is far away and distant and never hears the cries of the victims of this nasty gatekeeper, but that does not in any way diminish the responsibility of this nice, kindly boss.

Greece is a small country, which is for the fifth or sixth year in the midst of a terrible recession. Unemployment has reached 30%, and among young people it goes as high as 50%. Greek citizens have experienced a plunge in their standard of living – the worst drop ever experienced in a European country. We live in a country that is facing an emergency situation – a general crisis – and to which are drawn, due to its historical and geographical context, people who are in an even worse situation than the Greeks.

Those who arrive in Greece think that we are simply a gateway; they are convinced of this by those who transport them. Thousands of people come from the United Arab Emirates or even further afield – from Bangladesh, for example – thinking that they will find a job as soon as they arrive. They are victims of manipulation and lies. They are dropped in Greece, although sometimes they do not know that they are in Greece. Some think that they are in Italy. They think that they have come to El Dorado and they are quite surprised when they find out that their dreams do not correspond to the reality.

You, Mr President, visited Greece and were able to see with your own eyes and witness this tragedy. It is not for me to tell you about the conditions in the detention centres – they are quite tragic. I do not want to say which centres are better or worse, or to rate them. The conditions in these centres are horrible.

Greece should not play the role of the evil, mean gatekeeper in my parable. We need to launch a global campaign to get the message out about the conditions migrants encounter when they come to Greece, to explain to people that what they have heard is not true. We need to share the burden of responsibility among all the members of the European Union; otherwise, Greece is condemned to fulfil a mission that will be a failure.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. That concludes the list of speakers.

I call the rapporteur, Ms Strik. You have five minutes.

Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – I thank you, Mr President, and all members for their support for my report and recommendations. This makes it clear that there is much agreement that the humanitarian situation now for migrants in Greece is unacceptable and that we need to address it.

The ad hoc committee consists – it is a deliberate choice – of members from a wide range of political parties. Last week members of the committee – Mr Santini, Mr Chope, Ms Fiala, Ms Groth, Mr Cederbratt – visited Greece. Mr Mignon and Mr Rouquet were also there. Our response to and judgment of what we saw was the same. This is important. If we are all of the opinion that Greece cannot be left alone with these problems and that the humanitarian crisis in Greece should be tackled, this should be echoed in the national parliaments of the member States, to end the political deadlock at the negotiation table, where governments of northern and southern member States are still struggling over who is to take responsibility. The deadlock should be ended, because the only victims are the asylum seekers, who are stuck in this situation.

Ms Fiala is right. This is only the first step. We have to go further and take the matter to the capitals, and plead there for more solidarity.

Mr Schennach is also right. Greece is also accountable for what is happening there. But we can use European solidarity by influencing the priority that has to be given to this matter, while investing in a better outcome. That means not extending the number of detention places, but investing in open reception centres and independent asylum procedure safeguards. We can only do that, of course, if we change our attitude and if we urge Frontex not only to assist in deterring people but to ensure that protection is being granted.

The situation in Greece really has to be changed and Greece is accountable, but I know that it is willing to change its situation. It does not want to play this game. The situation for asylum seekers has been bad for a long time, not only since the financial crisis started. As we know, two years ago the European Court of Human Rights prohibited member States from sending people back to Greece, because of serious violations by Greece of asylum seekers, who were prevented from having all basic human rights met.

I emphasise the urgency of the situation. We cannot wait until the financial crisis has been improved, although I understand that politicians are cautious, at the moment, about improving the situation of migrants. Perhaps some are cautious because they think that that might promote xenophobic feelings, but I am quite convinced of the opposite. If we keep the situation as it is, with irregular migrants on the streets being prevented from receiving any help that they need, this could also provoke more xenophobic feelings. Golden Dawn can only gain from the situation as it is. I urge the Greek Government to improve the situation now and not to be afraid of a counterproductive effect.

Mr Chope, Dame Angela Watkinson, and Mr Neill emphasised that we should distinguish between asylum seekers and refugees, and irregular migrants. This is exactly what the report is doing. We make it clear that the automatic response of deterring, pushing back and detaining people also affects the fate of asylum seekers and refugees – those who have just fled war in Syria, for instance – who come to find protection but find themselves in the present situation because of the generous policy on irregular migrants. I think that we have the same attitude. We should make such a distinction.

Mr Chope said we should put more emphasis on general measures to close borders and prevent irregular migrants from entering Europe. The problem is that we cannot distinguish between these two groups before they arrive in Europe. Instead of blind measures – using deterrents and so on – which cannot identify those who really need protection, we must have proper asylum procedures.

Trafficking and smuggling are different. Trafficking is trade in people. The maritime authorities told us, however, that because refugees cannot apply for a visa or for protection from abroad, they have to use smuggler organisations to enter Europe and then apply for protection.

Mr Chope and others gave the impression that Europe was threatened by large numbers of irregular migrants, but Ms Groth pointed out its true scale, saying that Lebanon – a small, fragile country – was receiving 300 000 Syrian refugees, while already protecting 400 000 Palestinian refugees. If we want to promote peace and stability in the world, we must take our share of people driven from their homelands. Instead of saying that we cannot cope, we must be generous and rational.

Finally, I thank the people who made it possible to draw up the report so quickly. I thank Mr Mignon and Mr Rouquet for supporting us on the visit and members of the ad hoc committee, especially Mr Santini, who pleaded for this urgent debate. I also thank the staff for supporting us on the working visit and helping to produce the report so quickly afterwards. An urgent debate places time pressures on the staff as well – Sebastian Rietz, in particular, did a marvellous job in Greece and on the report.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Santini to respond in his capacity as chairperson of the committee.

Mr SANTINI (Italy)* – I thank the rapporteur for the passion with which her important report describes our intense week in Greece and the secretariat for drafting the report. I also thank you, Mr President, for going to Greece. Having the President of the Assembly among the delegation gave greater force to our mission. I also thank you for your support in the Bureau when I proposed this urgent debate on behalf of the committee.

The passion of colleagues today confirms the appositeness of this debate on the urgency of a humanitarian situation that concerns Greece in particular. Given the unforeseen arrival in Greece of many immigrants from distant countries – not only Syria, Africa and the Maghreb, but Afghanistan and Pakistan – as well as the economic crisis, which prevents Greece from confronting the problem, the country needs assistance.

We appeal to all European countries to assume their share of the burden – including the economic burden. Our Greek colleagues, including Ms Tzakri and Ms Bakoyannis, recalled another factor that we heard about when we met the immigrants. Very few wish to stay in Greece or even come to Italy – we are not doing much better than our Greek colleagues – but instead they wish to go to Sweden, Germany, France or the United Kingdom. We appeal to European countries, therefore, to take in quotas of immigrants, and not just help economically.

We ask Greece to speed up the asylum process. There is a backlog of 50 000 requests. The bureaucracy is too slow and immigrants must wait for one year in the conditions we recorded. The presence of the President of the Assembly enabled us to obtain precise answers from the administrative and political authorities in Greece, which promised that three centres where the conditions were unsustainable would be closed and that from this spring women and minors who were irregular migrants would no longer be detained. That is an excellent result: the immigrants will feel less alone in the centres and Greece will feel less alone at the Council of Europe. Its members have appealed to us with their hearts in their hands, and henceforth they will have our support.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Santini.

The debate is closed.

The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons has presented a draft resolution, to which seven amendments have been tabled. The committee has also presented a draft recommendation, to which four amendments have been tabled. We will now consider the amendments to the draft resolution. They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the compendium and the organisation of debates.

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

      You wish to have the floor, Mr Schennach?

Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – While caught up in the emotion of the debate, I described Istanbul and talked about mass graves. In fact, the mass graves are on the other side of the border in Greece. I would like this to be corrected for the record.

THE PRESIDENT* – I said that the debate was closed, but I will allow Ms Bakoyannis to respond quickly.

Ms BAKOYANNIS (Greece)* – I have heard many things, but this is the first time I have heard of mass graves. There are no mass graves in Greece. Please be careful, colleague, when you talk about Greece. Please show some respect.

THE PRESIDENT* – As I said, the debate is closed.

I understand that the chairperson of the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendment 11, which was unanimously approved by the Committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11.

Is that correct, Mr Santini?

Mr SANTINI ((Italy)* – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT* Does anyone object?

There is no objection.

The following amendment is adopted:

Amendment 11, tabled by Ms Tineke Strik, Ms Viola Von Cramon-Taubadel, Mr Vilmos Szabó, Mr Christoph Strässer and Mr Valeriy Sudarenkov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 12.5, delete the words “of the Soros Foundation”.

We will proceed to consider the amendments in the order set out in the Organisation of Debates. I remind members that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Christopher Chope, the Earl of Dundee, Dame Angela Watkinson, Mr David Davies and Mr James Clappison, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, delete the words “irregular migrants,”.

I call Mr Chope to support Amendment 2.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The rapporteur has conceded that it is important to distinguish between asylum seekers and refugees on the one hand, and irregular or illegal migrants on the other. The amendment is designed to achieve just that. While the number of asylum seekers and refugees should not pose an insurmountable problem, it has become an insurmountable problem because of the number of irregular and illegal migrants.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Ms Strik.

Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – With the amendment, we deny part of the problem. This is only an introductory remark to describe the situation. Normally speaking, member States are able to tackle the problem of irregular migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, but for Greece it has become an insurmountable problem because of the large numbers. I do not see any problem with that. We distinguish between the groups afterwards, but this is only an introductory remark that covers all three groups.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr SANTINI (Italy)* – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 2 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Christopher Chope, the Earl of Dundee, Dame Angela Watkinson, Mr David Davies and Mr James Clappison, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 14.1, delete the words “irregular migrants and”.

I call Mr Chope to support Amendment 3.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – In moving Amendment 3, I am trying to differentiate the detention policy of economic migrants – people who are playing the system – from those who are genuinely seeking humanitarian assistance. I do not think that the latter should be detained. I hope you will accept the amendment and that we ask Greece to review its policies in relation to the detention of asylum seekers without having to review its policies in relation to illegal migrants.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Ms Strik.

Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – This paragraph urges Greece to reform its policies in relation to detention. That means that we ask it to review its policy; it does not mean that irregular migrants can never be detained from now on. It proposes, just as in the report, that automatic detention without taking into account individual need, and the automatic detention of minors and women, goes against our human rights standards. We are not saying that irregular migrants can never be detained; we are saying that it must be according to our standards.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr SANTINI (Italy)* – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 3 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Davies, Dame Angela Watkinson, the Earl of Dundee, Ms Cheryl Gillan, Mr James Clappison, Mr Miloš Aligrudić, Baroness Diana Eccles and Mr Jonathan Evans, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 14.1.2, replace the words “and distinguishing between asylum seekers and irregular migrants” with the following words: “of asylum seekers”.

I call Mr Chope to support Amendment 4.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – Amendment 4 aims, again, to distinguish between reducing the periods of detention of illegal migrants and reducing those of asylum seekers. I do not think that we need to reduce the periods of detention of illegal migrants, but we certainly need to reduce those of asylum seekers, if not to eliminate such detention altogether.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Ms Strik.

Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – Paragraph 14.1.2 asks Greece only to reduce the periods. As I also said, it can take up to one and a half years without any safeguards and without any attention being paid to the individual circumstances. That can also pose a threat to the human rights of irregular migrants.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr SANTINI (Italy)* – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 4 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Davies, Dame Angela Watkinson, the Earl of Dundee, Ms Cheryl Gillan, Mr James Clappison, Mr Miloš Aligrudić, Baroness Diana Eccles and Mr Jonathan Evans, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 15.1, insert the following paragraph: “reintroduce a visa requirement for those travelling to Turkey from the Maghreb;”.

      I call Mr Chope to support Amendment 5.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – What is Turkey doing to help counter illegal trafficking? It was only in 2012 that it changed its visa regime so that it is now possible to travel for about £50 from North Africa into Istanbul and then engage in an illegal smuggling network to try to get across the Aegean Sea into the European Union. That is why we want to introduce this specific visa requirement.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Ms Strik.

Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – Mr Chope wishes us to say something about the visa policy of another country. That goes far beyond our mandate. We deal with human rights in the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, and we cannot interfere in the migration policy of a certain country. That is the sovereignty of a country, so we should limit ourselves and stick to the report. We are not dealing with migration policies in general.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr SANTINI (Italy)* – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 5 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Ms Pelin Gündeş Bakir, Mr Burhan Kayatürk, Mr Şaban Dişli, Ms Tülin Erkal Kara and Mr Ahmet Kutalmiş Türkeş, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 15.4.

I call Ms Gündeş Bakir to support Amendment 1.

Ms GÜNDEŞ BAKIR (Turkey) – Paragraph 15.1 of the report is in contradiction with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of A.G. and others v. Turkey, which decided that geographical limitation and reservation cannot be considered as discrimination regarding the rights defined in the European Convention on Human Rights. Forcing the opposite would be a violation of the sovereignty rights of Turkey and against the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, so I propose that the paragraph be deleted.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Ms Strik.

Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – The Council of Europe urged Turkey to lift the geographical limitation, because the limitation means that only refugees that flee from Europe to Turkey can ask for asylum and be granted protection status. That is the opposite of what is needed. I do not think there are a lot of refugees coming from Europe, but there are a lot coming from other parts of the world, and Turkey should take its share in this. Syrian refugees are being received very generously, but they are treated only as guests. Everyone should have access to real protection.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr SANTINI (Italy)* – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 1 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 6, tabled by Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Davies, Dame Angela Watkinson, the Earl of Dundee, Ms Cheryl Gillan, Mr James Clappison, Mr Miloš Aligrudić, Baroness Diana Eccles and Mr Jonathan Evans, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 15.4, insert the following paragraph:

“honour its agreement with Greece for the return of migrants who have entered Greece without authority from Turkey.”

      I call Mr Chope to support Amendment 6.

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – As we heard from Ms Memecan, there is a readmission protocol between Greece and Turkey, which was signed in 2010. I am asking for it to be honoured. It is apparent that there were 728 readmissions in 2011, but only 105 in 2012. That is why we had strong representations from the Greek authorities during our visits that the Turks were not honouring this agreement.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We now come to the oral sub-amendment to Amendment 6, which reads:

      “In Amendment 6, at the end, insert the words ‘with respect to the principle of non-refoulement.’.”I

      I remind the Assembly of Rule 33.7.1 which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and provided there is not opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated.

      In my opinion the oral sub-amendment meets the criteria of Rule 33.7.a. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated?

      That is not the case.

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

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – I cannot agree with Mr Chope’s amendment as it stands. We have just said that asylum seekers who are being returned to Turkey do not always have access to an asylum procedure because of the geographical limitation. However, I can agree with the amendment if it is very clear that, first, Greece has to assess whether these people are in need of protection. The readmission agreement could be applied only if that is not the case.

      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?

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – I suppose half a loaf is better than none, so I will accept the oral sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr SANTINI (Italy)* – The committee voted yes.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 6, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr SANTINI (Italy)* – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 6, as amended, is adopted.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13106, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 13106, as amended, is adopted, with 114 votes for, 1 against and 5 abstentions.

The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons has also presented a draft recommendation, to which four amendments have been tabled. They 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 7, tabled by Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Davies, Dame Angela Watkinson, the Earl of Dundee, Ms Cheryl Gillan, Mr James Clappison, Mr Miloš Aligrudić, Baroness Diana Eccles and Mr Jonathan Evans, which is, in the draft recommendation, before paragraph 4.1, insert the following paragraph: “encourage member States to congratulate Greece on its recent successes in intercepting, detaining and punishing those engaging in the vile trade of people trafficking;”.

I call Mr Chope to support Amendment 7.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – This amendment would encourage member States to congratulate Greece on its recent successes in intercepting, detaining and punishing those engaging in the vile trade of people trafficking. Do members want to endorse a policy of impunity for people traffickers, or do they want to follow the policy set out in the amendment?

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Ms Strik.

Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – We must focus on how we can make our recommendations more effective; I am not sure this amendment does that. Instead of encouraging member States to congratulate a country, we should try to produce effective recommendations. I object to the content, too. Mr Chope again refers to traffickers. The report does not deal with trafficking; it deals with smuggling in part, but it mainly deals with migrants, who are not trafficked. We will discuss a report on trafficking tomorrow.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr SANTINI (Italy)* – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 7 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 8, tabled by Mr Christopher Chope, Ms Liana Kanelli, Dame Angela Watkinson, the Earl of Dundee, Mr James Clappison, Ms Cheryl Gillan, Baroness Diana Eccles and Mr Jonathan Evans, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 4.4, insert the following paragraph: “examine how member states of the Council of Europe can assist Greece in its important work of disrupting people smuggling networks and detaining people traffickers;”.

I call Mr Chope to support Amendment 8.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The rapporteur says this report is not about people traffickers, but we found evidence of people trafficking and met people traffickers when we visited Greece. Why should we not support detaining people traffickers, who are causing so much misery, including loss of life, to their victims?

THE PRESIDENT* – We now come to the oral sub-amendment to Amendment 8, from Ms Strik, which reads as follow: “In Amendment 8, delete the words, ‘and detaining people traffickers’.”

I remind the Assembly of Rule 33.7.a which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and provided there is not opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated.

In my opinion the oral sub-amendment meets the criteria of Rule 33.7.a. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated? That is not the case.

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

Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – It is important to distinguish between smuggling and trafficking.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

I call Mr Chope.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – I oppose the sub-amendment because smuggling is part of the process by which traffickers operate; the two are inextricably linked. If we were to allow the sub-amendment, the detention aspect of the amendment would be lost. We should encourage Greece and other countries to detain people traffickers.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr SANTINI (Italy)* – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 8, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr SANTINI (Italy)* – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 8, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment 9, tabled by Mr Christopher Chope, Dame Angela Watkinson, the Earl of Dundee, Mr James Clappison, Ms Cheryl Gillan and Baroness Diana Eccles, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 4.4, insert the following paragraph: “facilitate urgently a discussion in the Committee of Ministers on what further measures can be taken to prevent and deter unauthorised entry into member states of the Council of Europe by economic migrants who are not refugees, asylum seekers or in need of international protection;”.

I call Mr Chope to support Amendment 9.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The amendment is entirely reasonable.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Ms Strik.

Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – The amendment goes against the core message of the report by calling for more deterrents. We must, of course, deal with irregular migration, but we must also find out who might be in need of protection. That cannot be established before a person enters the country. Only general deterring measures will prevent Europe from possibly violating human rights.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr SANTINI (Italy)* – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 9 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 10, tabled by Mr Christopher Chope, the Earl of Dundee, Dame Angela Watkinson, Mr James Clappison, Ms Cheryl Gillan, Baroness Diana Eccles and Mr Jonathan Evans, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 4.4, insert the following paragraph: “encourage member states of the Council of Europe and the European Union to consider making financial aid to countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh conditional upon those countries being willing to accept the return of their nationals who have entered Greece without legal authority and are not asylum seekers or refugees;”.

I call Mr Chope to support Amendment 10.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – When we were in Greece, we heard that there were great difficulties in securing agreement for returns to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh. I mentioned earlier the person who had deliberately returned from Afghanistan through Greece, having previously been expelled from London. Greece cannot send that person back to Afghanistan, but meanwhile Greece and many other European Union member States are giving substantial financial assistance to these countries. We should make that assistance conditional on their accepting returns.

THE PRESIDENT* – We now come to the oral sub-amendment to Amendment 10, from Ms Strik, which reads as follow: “In Amendment 10, delete the words ‘consider making financial aid to countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh conditional upon those countries being willing to accept their return’ and replace with ‘take a stronger stand against countries refusing the return.’”

I remind the Assembly of Rule 33.7.a which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and provided there is not opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated.

In my opinion the oral sub-amendment meets the criteria of Rule 33.7.a. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated? That is not the case.

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

Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – I recognise the problem. Countries are obliged to accept their own nationals if there is no protection need, for example, and it is a problem if they do not do so. I have proposed the oral sub-amendment to make it clear that countries of origin must do that. However, Mr Chope’s amendment is too concrete in its interference with countries’ development aid policies. As with the visa policy, we should not take that approach as a human rights organisation. Many countries already have conditional development aid policy. I do not think that we should go as far as imposing an extra condition in relation to Greece.

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?

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – What does “take a stronger stand” mean? It does not mean anything. My amendment is specific. It identifies three countries that are a real problem for Greece, which is subject of today’s debate. A high proportion of the illegal migrants enter Greece from those three countries, which refuse to take them back because they deny that they came from those countries in the first place despite the evidence.

The PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr SANTINI (Italy)* – The committee is in favour.

The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Before we vote on Amendment 10, as amended, we need to examine the oral sub-amendment that has just been submitted by Ms Gündeş Bakir. It is:

“In Amendment 10, after ‘Greece’ insert the words ‘and Turkey’”.

I consider the oral sub-amendment to be admissible. Do 10 or more members object? That is not the case.

I call Ms Gündeş Bakir to support the oral sub-amendment.

Ms GÜNDEŞ BAKIR (Turkey) – Illegal migration is a problem for Greece but people also want to enter Turkey illegally, so these measures should cover Turkey as well, to encourage the three countries to take these migrants back.

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?

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – I would be happy to accept the oral sub-amendment in the spirit of solidarity between Greece and Turkey.

The PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr SANTINI (Italy)* – The committee does not have an opinion, because the oral sub-amendment was not submitted to us, so we will trust the wisdom of the President.

The PRESIDENT* – The President does not vote. The committee will trust the Parliamentary Assembly. By the way, I commend the many parliamentarians who have shown an interest in this topic this morning.

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 10, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr SANTINI (Italy)* – The committee is in favour.

The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 10, as amended, is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13106, as amended. A two-thirds majority is needed for the recommendation to be adopted.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Document 13106, as amended, is adopted, with 126 votes for, 3 against and 2 abstentions.

5. Message of thanks

The PRESIDENT* – Before we come to our next debate, let me say that I have just found out that Ms Renate Wohlwend is attending one of her last meetings, as this week is the last parliamentary part-session that she will attend. Renate Wohlwend has been a member of our Assembly since 1994. She has authored some 20 reports – and not just any reports. She has always been actively involved in our work in committee and in plenary. Her statements have always been remarkable. She is passionate about the work of the Council of Europe. I thank her on behalf of us all for her commitment and I wish her every success in her future endeavours. I say to her very sincerely that we will miss her. She has put her stamp on the work of the Parliamentary Assembly and the Organisation as a whole. Thank you, Ms Wohlwend, and good luck in the rest of your career. You have the floor, of course.

Ms WOHLWEND (Liechtenstein)* – Thank you very much, President. I thank all colleagues who have supported me in my work. As you said, I authored a number of reports, in particular for the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. I have held many interesting meetings and I have made a lot of friends, whom I will certainly visit when I return to Strasbourg as a tourist. Thank you very much.

The PRESIDENT* – I call Luca Volontè.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy)* – On behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party, I associate myself with what you said, President, in thanking Renate for what she has done over the years. Her ability, her devotion, her passion for human rights, her competence and her presence on so many committees, including that on the election of judges, have deeply marked the life of our Assembly and our group. I express my thanks to Renate for her work, her experience and the example she has provided to us all.

6. Urgent debate: Recent developments in Mali and Algeria and the threat to security and human rights in the Mediterranean region

The PRESIDENT* – Dear colleagues, as you know, the order of business has changed. Mr Štefan Füle, the European Commissioner, is a little late, so we will begin the urgent debate on recent developments in Mali and Algeria and the threat to security and human rights in the Mediterranean region.

(Mr Boden, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Mignon.)

THE PRESIDENT* – The time limit for speakers in this debate is three minutes, as the Assembly decided on Monday. We will continue the debate this afternoon.

      I call Ms Woldseth, the rapporteur. You have a total speaking time of 13 minutes, which you may divide between the presentation of the report and the reply to the debate.

      Ms WOLDSETH (Norway) – During the October part-session, the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy discussed the conflict in Mali and the serious human rights and security concerns that it has raised in the Sahel and northern Africa. On Monday morning, the Bureau decided to hold this urgent debate. I have done my very best to prepare it, but the time schedule was changed suddenly and I have had four hours fewer than I expected, while this is also the first time that I have led an urgent debate, so please excuse me if I stumble.

We are currently deeply concerned about the situation in Mali and Algeria. The security situation is deteriorating and human rights are not being respected, which is posing increasing threats to the stability of the Mediterranean region, as was illustrated by the attack on the gas production facility at In Amenas on 16 January. In that attack, hundreds of Algerian and foreign nationals were taken hostage by terrorist groups and, unfortunately, many of them were killed. Norway is still missing five people. Algeria is in the immediate neighbourhood of the Council of Europe, so this debate is both relevant and significant for our Assembly.

We all know that the conflict that broke out in Mali this month has its roots in the Tuareg people’s long-standing aspiration for independence. The Assembly welcomes the fact that the Tuareg rebels have recently renounced their aspiration to independence in favour of political autonomy within Mali, declaring that they will help their former opponents in the fight against terrorism.

As I have said, developments in Mali and Algeria have affected Norway directly – the gas production facility is run by the Norwegian company Statoil, in co-operation with British Petroleum and the Algerian company Sonatrach – and five Norwegians are still missing. The terrorist attack was the worst on Norwegian commercial interests in peace time, and it has affected our whole nation. It has affected me: I personally know one of the Norwegians who was taken hostage and is still missing. Eight Norwegian families have been reunited with a family member who was in Algeria, but five Norwegian families are still living in uncertainty and despair. Around the world, 37 families have lost a loved one, and we must not forget that many Algerian families are also in mourning. We cannot stand by passively when such tragedies happen, so this debate is of great importance. As we have seen, the escalating conflict in Mali affects Europe directly.

The Norwegian Prime Minister, Mr Stoltenberg, briefed the Storting yesterday. He said that terrorists must not be allowed to achieve their goals, or to determine how we live, where Norwegian or other companies do business or with which countries we co-operate. He underlined that they will not succeed in spreading fear and that Norway is, and will remain, an open democracy. Throughout the hostage crisis, the Norwegian Government has been in close contact with other affected States and with Algeria. Mr Stoltenberg has made it clear that the international community’s fight against terror must be strengthened, and I support him. In the exchange of views following the Prime Minister’s briefing, all Norwegian political parties agreed that terrorism must be fought and stressed the importance of using political means.

I believe that we must focus our efforts on political tools, and the Council of Europe has those means. Democracy, human rights and the rule of law are the pillars of our Organisation. They are the necessary building blocks for peaceful co-existence within and between countries. Our Organisation is based on universal rights and values, and we must stand united in condemning this terrorist attack and terrorism in general, and in supporting the necessary democratic developments.

I am greatly concerned by the fact that women and children are at special risk in the region. Women are being harassed and abused, and are falling victim to sexual violence by terrorists. That is totally and completely unacceptable, as is the fact that children are recruited as soldiers. I cannot imagine the fear that both women and children are living with in the area. Their rights under the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights are being violated – and that has to stop.

We must fight every terrorist in the region and elsewhere – terrorists are in fact from all over the world: of those involved in the recent attack in Algeria, three were Canadians – because nobody should live in fear. I call for all member States to support the fight against terrorism in the region, and we must support the United Nations Security Council’s call for the authorities in Mali to finalise a road map for the restoration of constitutional order and of the country’s national unity.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Woldseth. You have six minutes remaining for your response. I call Mr Mariani, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr MARIANI (France)* – In the present Saharan crisis the stakes are tremendous: will Islamist guerrilla warfare be able to install itself durably in the region? We have reached a breaking point, although that is nothing new. Terrorist groups are extending throughout Mali the Islamist regime that they installed by force in the north, and they threaten the existence not only of that country, but of democratic regimes in the region.

On 20 December, the United Nations adopted Resolution 2085, which envisages the deployment of an African force – the African-led International Support Mission in Mali or MISMA. The President of Mali asked for the military assistance of France, a country with which it has special relations. The French operation – Operation Serval – has begun, sustained by the international community, and the result is that the terrorist groups’ offensive has been halted, which was what was urgent. The rapid deployment of MISMA’s next phase, the Economic Community of West African States and African countries mobilised against terrorism will all need to be supported.

What will follow? Combating terrorism is a matter for the whole Saharan area. The determined and heavily armed groups constitute a danger to the fragile States of the region and their populations. They fund their activities through arms trading and drug trafficking. As Ms Woldseth states in the draft resolution, we should be concerned about the infiltration in Mali of terrorist cells from all over the world. Their methods are similar to those already employed in Somalia and Afghanistan. Particularly heinous acts have been perpetrated in the Islamist sanctuary installed in Timbuktu. The treatments inflicted on women and girls have been intolerable and degrading, as well as contrary to the tolerant Islamic traditions of that country. Such repeated violence and breaches of human rights, which also infringe cultural, religious and other rights, must be condemned by our Organisation. It is regrettable that Egypt, a country with which the Council of Europe has special links, should have condemned earlier this week the French intervention.

The transition period must be finalised, but the path to peace is a long one, because our adversaries are determined to fight against the values we defend – the rule of law and democracy – and to make populations live in the darkness of obscurantism. For that reason, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party, I ask colleagues to support the draft resolution.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Mariani. I call Lord Anderson to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – I warmly congratulate the rapporteur.

The region that we are discussing was described by Churchill as “the soft underbelly of Europe”. Europe has considerable financial and economic interests there, but we also have an interest in stability and in promoting humanitarian development. Algeria has a recent history of violent terrorism, and surely we should understand its robust response to the outrage in the gas plant. In Mali, the immediate context is clear: a well-armed group of warriors from Libya were too strong for local forces, who fled. We must also recognise, however, that such armed forces would not have made progress if they had faced a stable and well governed State. The region has a history of fragility, neglect of the north of Mali, poverty and poor governance.

What should be the response of the West? First, I congratulate the French Government and our French colleagues on the necessary and immediate military response by France in Mali. Without that, Bamako would have been taken and there would have been a regional terrorist base, and of course the intervention was in accordance with international law. The French and the Malian armies need the help of other countries. My country, the United Kingdom, has offered transport and special forces, our troops are on high alert, and we take part in the European Union training mission. Local countries must always be in the driving seat, but we must be ready if asked to provide training, as we do for ECOWAS. The situation illustrates that, in some cases, soft power needs the underpinning of military force, actual or potential.

I make two speedy final reflections. First, we should not allow these terrorist outrages to distract us from the good news in Africa and in the region. I think, for example, of our partner country Morocco, and of Ghana. Secondly, we should recognise that, ultimately, there must be a political solution if there is to be stability not only in Mali but in the region as a whole. If asked, and in a spirit not of the old colonial powers but one of partnership, we should help countries in the region to build democratic structures. Where better to start than with the Council of Europe?

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Lord Anderson. I call Ms Schuster to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms SCHUSTER (Germany)* – I thank the rapporteur for the report. As it says, we should condemn the terrorist attacks at the gas plant and express our condolences to the victims. We also condemn the atrocities that have been committed in northern Mali, and the violations of human rights: we have heard talk of executions, rapes and torture carried out by Islamic extremists. It is, therefore, right and proper for the International Criminal Court to begin investigations. We are concerned to hear reports of human rights abuses committed by the Malian troops, and that should not be tolerated.

We should address two important issues. The first is the humanitarian situation, which will clearly get worse. The UN expects 700 000 people to be forced to flee the country, and we should aim to prepare the neighbouring countries so that the right conditions are provided. In addition to United Nations Resolution 2085, we should give thought to the political foundations of the situation. The transitional government had the remit to put together a road map setting out the political process, but problems that have been around for so long cannot be resolved if the neighbouring States are not included in the process. Dialogue must be pursued, and measures such as joint development work should be taken.

Lastly, on security interests, the danger is not just for Africa but for Europe too. Wherever terror is being spread, our interests are at stake, so it is important for the Parliamentary Assembly to be aware of the situation in Mali and neighbouring countries.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Schuster. I call Mr Walter, who will speak on behalf of the European Democratic Group.

Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – I thank the Bureau for accepting my suggestion that we have this debate today, and I especially thank the rapporteur for her excellent report.

We should be clear about aI-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. It is a Mali-based Islamic organisation that aims to overthrow the Algerian Government and institute an Islamic State. The group has declared its intention to attack Algerian, Spanish, French and American targets. It has been designated as a foreign terrorist organisation by the US Department of State, and similarly classed as a terrorist organisation by the European Union. The group is heavily involved in drug trafficking, smuggling and other criminal activities, and it has focused on kidnap for ransom as a means of raising funds.

The group has its roots in the bitter Algerian civil war of the early 1990s, but has since evolved to take a more international agenda. Its reach has also expanded across the Sahel region south of the Sahara desert, attracting members from Mauritania, Morocco, Niger and Senegal as well as from within Mali where, in alliance with other groups, it is fighting French troops on the ground. During the Mali crisis, its fighters have dramatically increased their profile, allowing them to further their aim of spreading Islamic law and jihad across West Africa. Its influence over other nascent Islamist cells comes from its wealth: it is one of the region’s best-armed groups thanks to the money it makes from kidnapping westerners and from drug and cigarette trafficking across the Sahara.

A successful counter-terrorism campaign has forced the group from its base of operations along Algeria’s Mediterranean coast to the Sahel region that includes Niger, Mauritania, and Mali, where the group has established significant footholds in major cities. Its volunteers were also very active in Iraq against the United States, often performing suicide bombings. However, unlike other al-Qaeda affiliates, it has not yet been able to execute attacks on Europe or domestic United States targets. However, arrests of suspected terrorists with ties to AQIM have been made throughout Europe, in the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Portugal and the Netherlands. Some analysts point to thwarted attacks and arrests of those terrorists as evidence that the group is capable of attacks on western Europe.

The United States State Department has expressed concerns that the group is networking with Nigeria’s Boko Haram, Somalia’s al-Shabaab and Yemen’s AQAP – al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

We in Europe will regret it if we do not acknowledge the security and human rights risks posed by al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. We ignore them at our peril.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Walter. I call Mr Villumsen to speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark) – I offer the condolences of the Group of the Unified European Left to the friends and families of the civilians who have been killed recently in Mali and Algeria.

It is good that we are having this debate because North Africa is our close neighbour. Our group shares the worries that have been expressed about this situation. However, we do not believe that quick military action is the best way to solve such problems, whether in North Africa or elsewhere. The military intervention in Mali, led by France, the former colonial power, lacks a clear objective or precise timetable. There is therefore no clear idea about how to get out in a timely manner. It is not strange that many people are already speculating about a new Afghanistan. That worries us greatly. The past 12 years of war in Afghanistan have shown with deadly clarity that a strategy is needed to avoid a total mess at the cost of the civilians in the affected areas.

The Islamist offensive seems to have been stopped. We therefore propose that negotiation with the Tuareg rebels and other groups should be carefully considered in order to find a sustainable solution in northern Mali. First and foremost, we endorse the search for a sustainable peace in Mali, instead of endorsing a new war.

All members of the Assembly are very worried about recent events in Mali and Algeria, but we are obliged to look to options other than military intervention. History has proved that such interventions seldom provide sustainable solutions and too often drag the international community and the citizens and soldiers involved into a dangerous, dark and awful swamp. Let us not endorse that option again; let us try to find a sustainable solution in Mali.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Villumsen. Ms Woldseth does not wish to reply now, so I call Mr Dişli.

Mr DİŞLİ (Turkey) – The recent developments in Mali and the terrorist attack perpetrated at the gas plant in south-eastern Algeria have demonstrated once again that extremism and terrorism are gaining ground in the Sahel-Sahara region. That constitutes a direct threat to the security of the whole region and has repercussions beyond that. The international community cannot remain indifferent to the developments that are unfolding in that region.

In Mali, we should continue to support the international efforts under African leadership, with the aim of maintaining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country, achieving stability and reinstituting democracy.

Turkey believes in the necessity of the rapid implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2085, which envisages the deployment of the African-led International Support Mission to Mali and supports the decisions of the African Union and the Economic Community of West African States.

      A new process has been launched within the framework of the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation, on the initiative of Turkey, to discuss the latest developments in Mali and to determine what common action should be taken.

The terrorist attack at In Amenas in Algeria once again demonstrates the need to combat terrorism determinedly and efficiently. Terrorism has neither religion nor nationality. It constitutes a crime against humanity. The need to combat terrorism therefore demands the unity and solidarity of the international community.

The use of expressions such as “radical Islamist terrorist” and “Islamic terrorism” in various paragraphs of the draft resolution seriously offends me, as I am sure it offends all true believers of the Islamic faith. When politicians in western Europe use the term “Islamist”, it has different connotations from the equivalent words in the languages of Muslim people, such as Turkish and Arabic. For Muslim people, the association of Islamism with terrorism is an unfortunate misunderstanding. Terrorists always hide behind something, whether it be religion, nationalism or ethnicity. However, to associate terrorism with any religion, nationality or ethnicity confuses the matter: it sends out the wrong signals and legitimises terrorist acts, with adverse consequences.

Madam Rapporteur, we must deal with the problem and try to solve it, but do not insult the whole Muslim world by using these words.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Dişli. I call Mr Muñoz-Alonso.

Mr MUÑOZ-ALONSO (Spain)* – This is a necessary and opportune debate. I am grateful to the rapporteur for her report.

We do not know whether the war in Mali and the attack on the gas site have a cause and effect relationship. However, we do know that throughout the Sahel and the southern Sahara, from Mauritania to Sudan, a terrorist sanctuary has been established. That constitutes a considerable threat to our collective security and our energy security. There is a security threat not only to countries of that area, but to nearby European countries. Spain is the closest country, not only because it is situated on the Iberian peninsula, but because of the Canary Islands and our cities in Africa.

Some experts say that a sort of terrorist condominium has been created in the north of Mali. Terrorists are being trained by al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. Another group is Ansar Dine, which is a Tuareg movement that is seeking autonomy and independence, but has not yet achieved its objectives. There have been other distinct groups. Mokhtar Belmokhtar is a determined terrorist leader. There are also serious problems coming in via post-Gaddafi Libya and Sudan, and all the way to Somalia, which has al-Shabaab – yet another group that is connected to al-Qaeda. This is a form of terrorism with which we were already acquainted because it worked in Europe and certain countries in northern Africa, such as Morocco and Algeria. We thought that its base was in Afghanistan, especially after 11 September. It is now very close to our shores and we must react to that.

The action in Algeria has been accepted by some and criticised by others. However, Algeria has experience in combating terrorism. It had a terrible civil war and knows what to do. Of course it is lamentable that there have been civilian victims, but I do not think that negotiation was a possibility.

France intervened, as has been pointed out, through a resolution of the United Nations and after a request from Mali. It has done what it had to do to help train the Malian Army so that it can respond to the terrorist threat. Thus we come to the possibility that Mali might become a functioning State. It has poverty, corruption and a multi-ethnic population comprising many tribes. Things in that country have not worked well. We should help those African countries become able to structure themselves, and we must therefore be aware of the risk that is close to our shores.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Rouquet.

Mr ROUQUET (France)* – The conquest of northern Mali by Islamic armed groups creates a situation that is worrying in more ways than one. First, it is an unacceptable infringement of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of an already weakened country. It has also entailed a series of violations of the rule of law, democracy and the most elementary human rights.

      In a report published a few days ago, the UNHCR drew a particularly harrowing picture of the situation: summary executions, rapes, torture and so on, as well as the destruction of religious sites in Timbuktu that are part of our planetary cultural heritage. Such actions remind us of the darkest days of the horrors committed by the Taliban. That is why we should welcome the fact that the International Criminal Court has opened a case involving the war crimes committed in Mali since January 2012. From the rostrum of the United Nations General Assembly, President François Hollande of France qualified the situation as intolerable, inadmissible and unacceptable, not just for Mali but for the region as a whole.

Faithful to its principles and commitments, France moved to mobilise the international community to combat this fundamentalist threat that could spread throughout Mali and perhaps even beyond its borders. The French military intervention, decided on 11 January at Mali’s request, is intended as a response to acts of clear aggression that threaten the very existence of the State of Mali. It has been undertaken in full compliance with the United Nations charter, and with the express agreement of the Security Council. Mr Ban Ki-Moon welcomed France’s initiative.

The initiative has a simple, well-defined goal: to stop the advance of terrorist groups, to allow the State of Mali to recover its territorial integrity and sovereignty and, most of all, to create the conditions that will allow the African-led UN international support mission in Mali to be deployed and do the job with which it is tasked by the United Nations. France has no mission to stay in Mali forever. Its priority is to hand over to the African force as soon as possible. Many African countries are already mobilising, including Niger, Benin and Senegal. The African-led international support mission in Mali will be aided by the European Union, which established a mechanism on 21 January for processing requests for and offers of logistic support. France is not alone in this conflict. I thank all those countries represented here that are part of the process.

The army of Mali has been accused of atrocities, said to have been committed over the past few days. I state firmly that France takes very seriously any risk of atrocities perpetrated by the military during its operations. Be aware that France will be vigilant and active in its dealings with the Malian authorities, and that the protection of human rights and the civilian population and the combating of impunity for perpetrators remain priorities for France.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Árnason.

Mr ÁRNASON (Iceland)* – Although I come from a country that does not have an army and is fortunately not used to such military matters, the French intervention in Mali seems to me to be both logical and necessary. We cannot accept the visitation of savagery on the heart of north-western Africa by groups of Islamic thugs. It is unacceptable for the populations concerned and for the international community.

That said, we can only hope that the French and their African allies have a clear vision of the final objective underpinning the current military intervention. We also hope that they have clearly defined the political aims, in particular restoring to Mali the democracy that has been so much celebrated over the past 20 years. It is vital for other European countries to lend their support to France in its combat against jihadist forces, and to the Malian population through all the means and resources available, to ensure that military action and political and humanitarian measures are successful and that the war does not become prolonged as in Afghanistan.

In France and elsewhere, we have talked a great deal about terrorists and terrorism. That is understandable, but such terms should not cause us to lose sight of the local specifics of the conflict: terrorists fleeing from Libya to the north of Mali have replaced the Tuareg rebel forces. One task that should be carried out in Mali and in the region is to come up with a political solution that satisfies the Tuaregs’ aspirations to self-determination.

The French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Laurent Fabius, stated that we must be unyielding in the face of terrorism. Yes, indeed, but let us not forget that the terrorism in Sahel has its origins in poverty and under-development, and in the significant economic and ecological problems there. The lack of democracy, the failure to comply with human rights, the shake-up of fundamental values and the despair felt by young people are also factors that drive people into terrorism. Let us be unyielding in the face of terrorism, but let us also be unyielding in the face of its causes. I thank our Norwegian colleague, Ms Woldseth, for her very good report on this incredibly important subject.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The last speaker this morning is Mr Gross.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland)* – It is certainly true that this military intervention was unavoidable, as we can see if we consider the south of Mali and the capital, where people want to express their joy and relief at the French military intervention because it stopped the whole country from being taken over by the rebel forces. Let us not ignore the fact that the integrity of the country cannot be restored by military means alone. We must also make political efforts to come up with the right solutions; they must be better than those that were applied in the past, when the situation was conducive to terrorism and crime.

To identify exactly what should be done, two things are necessary. First, we must be very much more aware in our discussions that there are rebels who are not terrorists, criminals who are not terrorists, Muslims who are not terrorists or rebels, and terrorists who are not Muslims or smugglers but simply people who oppress others for their own reasons. There are also Islamic groups who are trying to force their religion on to other people, but they are not terrorists. When we talk to people, we must be very aware of all those peculiarities. As our colleague Mr Muñoz-Alonso was saying, we have to be much more exact and clear in the way in which we go about this.

The second point, which is also very important and was made by Mr Árnason, is that the previous situation was not satisfactory and gave rise to violence. That has something to do with the colonial past, during which the north of the country was completely neglected. Only 30% of people in the country could read and write, which is a disaster for economic development. The more desperate people are, the easier it is for them to turn to terrorism.

The central State structure, which works with terrorists, is not in a position to create a multicultural society. We need to carry out decentralisation and create autonomous regions to ensure that the country’s integrity is restored. We made mistakes in the past, and we need to be aware of exactly what those were and what has been done with our money and our trade.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I must now interrupt the list of speakers.

The debate on “Recent developments in Mali and Algeria and the threat to security and human rights in the Mediterranean, Document 13107, is adjourned and will be resumed at the afternoon sitting, when we will finish the list of speakers.

7. Next public sitting

      THE PRESIDENT* – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3.30 p.m. with the Agenda which was approved on Monday.

      The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 1.00 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1.        Organisation of debates

2.        Changes in the membership of committees

3.        Personal statement by Mr Harutyunyan

4.        Migration and asylum: mounting tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean

Presentation of report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons by Ms Strik, Document 13106

Speakers:

Ms Kanelli (Greece)

Ms Bakoyannis (Greece)

Mr Schennach (Austria)

Ms Fiala (Switzerland)

Mr Chope (United Kingdom)

Ms Fort (France)

Mr Rouquet (France)

Mr Bies (France)

Ms Memecan (Turkey)

Ms Gündeş Bakir (Turkey)

Ms Pipili (Greece)

Ms Tzakri (Greece)

Dame Angela Watkinson (United Kingdom)

Ms Groth (Germany)

Mr Marias (Greece)

Mr Neill (United Kingdom)

Mr Tatsopoulos (Greece)

Replies:

Ms Strick (Netherlands)

Mr Santini (Italy)

Amendments 11 and 6, as amended, adopted

Draft resolution contained in Document 13106, as amended, adopted

Amendment 8, as amended, and Amendment 10, as amended, adopted

Draft recommendation contained in Document 13106, as amended, adopted

5.        Message of thanks

6.        Urgent debate: Recent developments in Mali and Algeria and the threat to security and human rights in the Mediterranean region

Presentation of report of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy by Ms Woldseth, Document 13107

Speakers:

Mr Mariani (France)

Lord Anderson (United Kingdom)

Mr Schuster (Germany)

Mr Walter (United Kingdom)

Mr Villumsen (Denmark)

Mr Dişli (Turkey)

Mr Muñoz-Alonso (Spain)

Mr Rouquet (France)

Mr Árnason (Iceland)

Mr Gross (Switzerland)

Debate adjourned

7.        Next public sitting

Appendix

Representatives or Substitutes who signed the Attendance Register in accordance with Rule 11.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The names of Substitutes who replaced absent Representatives are printed in small letters. The names of those who were absent or apologised for absence are followed by an asterisk.

Francis AGIUS*

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Arben AHMETAJ*

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ

Karin ANDERSEN

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI/ Gerardo Giovagnoli

Khadija ARIB/Tineke Strik

Volodymyr ARIEV

Mörður ÁRNASON

Francisco ASSIS*

Danielle AUROI*

Þuriður BACKMAN

Daniel BACQUELAINE/Dirk Van Der Maelen

Viorel Riceard BADEA

Theodora BAKOYANNIS

David BAKRADZE/Giorgi Kandelaki

Gérard BAPT/Philippe Bies

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

José María BENEYTO

Levan BERDZENISHVILI

Deborah BERGAMINI

Robert BIEDROŃ*

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY/Robert Neill

Ľuboš BLAHA/Darina Gabániová

Delia BLANCO

Jean-Marie BOCKEL

Eric BOCQUET*

Olga BORZOVA

Mladen BOSIĆ/Ismeta Dervoz

António BRAGA

Anne BRASSEUR

Márton BRAUN*

Federico BRICOLO*

Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL*

Piet DE BRUYN/Ludo Sannen

Patrizia BUGNANO/Giuliana Carlino

André BUGNON*

Natalia BURYKINA

Sylvia CANEL*

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU*

Mikael CEDERBRATT/Kerstin Lundgren

Otto CHALOUPKA*

Irakli CHIKOVANI*

Vannino CHITI/Paolo Corsini

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV/Stanislav Ivanov

Lolita ČIGĀNE*

Boriss CILEVIČS

Henryk CIOCH/Grzegorz Czelej

James CLAPPISON*

Deirdre CLUNE*

Agustín CONDE

Igor CORMAN*

Telmo CORREIA

Carlos COSTA NEVES

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Giovanna DEBONO*

Armand De DECKER*

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA/Carmen Quintanilla

Peter van DIJK

Klaas DIJKHOFF*

Şaban DİŞLİ

Jim DOBBIN

Karl DONABAUER/Sonja Ablinger

Ioannis DRAGASAKIS

Daphné DUMERY/Fatiha Saïdi

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*

Josette DURRIEU/Bernadette Bourzai

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Baroness Diana ECCLES

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Gianni FARINA

Relu FENECHIU/Ionuţ-Marian Stroe

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Axel E. FISCHER*

Jana FISCHEROVÁ/Rom Kostřica

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO

Hans FRANKEN*

Jean-Claude FRÉCON

Erich Georg FRITZ

Sir Roger GALE

Jean-Charles GARDETTO

Tamás GAUDI NAGY

Nadezda GERASIMOVA

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Paolo GIARETTA*

Jean GLAVANY/Christian Bataille

Michael GLOS*

Pavol GOGA

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI*

Svetlana GORYACHEVA/Anton Belyakov

Martin GRAF*

Sylvi GRAHAM/Ingjerd Schou

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST

Dzhema GROZDANOVA*

Attila GRUBER*

Gergely GULYÁS*

Pelin GÜNDEŞ BAKIR

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ*

Ana GUŢU/Corina Fusu

Carina HÄGG/Jonas Gunnarsson

Sabir HAJIYEV

Andrzej HALICKI/Marek Borowski

Mike HANCOCK

Margus HANSON

Davit HARUTYUNYAN

Håkon HAUGLI/Magnhild Meltveit Kleppa

Norbert HAUPERT

Alfred HEER/Gerhard Pfister

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Andres HERKEL

Adam HOFMAN*

Jim HOOD*

Joachim HÖRSTER

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN

Anette HÜBINGER

Andrej HUNKO*

Susanna HUOVINEN/Riitta Myller

Ali HUSEYNLI*

Rafael HUSEYNOV*

Shpëtim IDRIZI*

Vladimir ILIČ

Igor IVANOVSKI*

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI*

Denis JACQUAT/Marie-Louise Fort

Roman JAKIČ

Tedo JAPARIDZE*

Ramón JÁUREGUI*

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN

Mats JOHANSSON

Jadranka JOKSIMOVIĆ/Aleksandra Djurović

Birkir Jón JÓNSSON

Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ/Svetislava Bulajić

Antti KAIKKONEN*

Ferenc KALMÁR

Božidar KALMETA*

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI*

Marietta KARAMANLI/Jean-Pierre Michel

Burhan KAYATÜRK

Jan KAŹMIERCZAK*

Serhii KIVALOV*

Bogdan KLICH

Serhiy KLYUEV/Volodymyr Pylypenko

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN*

Alev KORUN

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO*

Dmitry KRYVITSKY*

Václav KUBATA

Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ

Athina KYRIAKIDOU*

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT*

Igor LEBEDEV/Alexander Sidyakin

Harald LEIBRECHT/Annette Groth

Orinta LEIPUTĖ/Dangutė Mikutienė

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE*

Lone LOKLINDT*

François LONCLE

Jean-Louis LORRAIN*

George LOUKAIDES*

Younal LOUTFI*

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ*

Philippe MAHOU*

Gennaro MALGIERI*

Nicole MANZONE-SAQUET*

Pietro MARCENARO

Thierry MARIANI

Epameinondas MARIAS

Milica MARKOVIĆ

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA*

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA*

Sir Alan MEALE

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Ivan MELNIKOV*

Nursuna MEMECAN

José MENDES BOTA

Jean-Claude MIGNON/Marie-Jo Zimmermann

Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ/Elvira Kovács

Federica MOGHERINI REBESANI*

Andrey MOLCHANOV*

Jerzy MONTAG*

Rubén MORENO PALANQUES

Patrick MORIAU

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK*

Alejandro MUÑOZ-ALONSO

Lydia MUTSCH

Lev MYRYMSKYI*

Philippe NACHBAR/ Bernard Fournier

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ

Gebhard NEGELE

Aleksandar NENKOV

Pasquale NESSA

Fritz NEUGEBAUER

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON/Charles Kennedy

Elena NIKOLAEVA/Olga Kazakova

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Mirosława NYKIEL*

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O'REILLY

Lesia OROBETS

Sandra OSBORNE*

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS/Petros Tatsopoulos

Eva PARERA*

Ganira PASHAYEVA

Lajla PERNASKA*

Johannes PFLUG*

Foteini PIPILI

Ivan POPESCU

Lisbeth Bech POULSEN/Nikolaj Villumsen

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Cezar Florin PREDA*

John PRESCOTT/Michael Connarty

Jakob PRESEČNIK*

Radoslav PROCHÁZKA*

Gabino PUCHE*

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Mailis REPS*

Eva RICHTROVÁ/Miroslav Krejča

Andrea RIGONI

François ROCHEBLOINE/Rudy Salles

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA/Ana Catarina Mendonça

René ROUQUET

Marlene RUPPRECHT

Ilir RUSMALI*

Pavlo RYABIKIN

Rovshan RZAYEV

Giacomo SANTINI

Giuseppe SARO

Kimmo SASI

Stefan SCHENNACH

Marina SCHUSTER

Urs SCHWALLER

Damir ŠEHOVIĆ*

Senad ŠEPIĆ*

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN/David Crausby

Oleksandr SHEVCHENKO

Boris SHPIGEL/Yury Solonin

Arturas SKARDŽIUS/Remigijus Ačas

Ladislav SKOPAL/Dana Váhalová

Leonid SLUTSKY

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Lorella STEFANELLI/Alessandro Rossi

Yanaki STOILOV

Christoph STRÄSSER*

Karin STRENZ

Giacomo STUCCHI

Valeriy SUDARENKOV*

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO*

Vilmos SZABÓ*

Melinda SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉMI/Imre Vejkey

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO/Robert Shlegel

Romana TOMC

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Latchezar TOSHEV

Mihai TUDOSE*

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ*

Theodora TZAKRI

Tomáš ÚLEHLA/Pavel Lebeda

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Viktor USPASKICH/Egidijus Vareikis

Giuseppe VALENTINO*

Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS/Liana Kanelli

Ljubica VASIĆ/Stefana Miladinović

Volodymyr VECHERKO/Larysa MelnychukStefaan VERCAMER

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN*

Luigi VITALI*

Luca VOLONTÈ*

Vladimir VORONIN*

Varujan VOSGANIAN*

Tanja VRBAT/Melita Mulić

Klaas de VRIES

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Zoran VUKČEVIĆ

Piotr WACH

Johann WADEPHUL*

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON

Katrin WERNER

Renate WOHLWEND

Karin S. WOLDSETH

Gisela WURM

Karl ZELLER*

Svetlana ZHUROVA/Guennady Gorbunov

Emanuelis ZINGERIS*

Guennady ZIUGANOV/Anvar Makhmutov

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Levon ZOURABIAN

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

Vacant Seat, Montenegro*

Vacant Seat, Romania*

Vacant Seat, Romania*

Vacant Seat, Romania*

Vacant Seat, Romania*

Vacant Seat, Romania*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Terence FLANAGAN

Maria GIANNAKAKI

Naira KARAPETYAN

Konstantinos TRIANTAFYLLOS

Łukasz ZBONIKOWSKI

Observers

Marjolaine BOUTIN-SWEET

Corneliu CHISU

Sladan ĆOSIĆ

Héctor LARIOS CÓRDOVA

Michel RIVARD

Bev SHIPLEY

Nycole TURMEL

Partners for Democracy

Mohammed AMEUR

Mohammed Mehdi BENSAID

Nezha EL OUAFI

Bernard SABELLA

Mohamed YATIM