AA18CR24

AS (2018) CR 24

2018 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-fourth sitting

Wednesday 27 June at 3.30 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Ms Maury Pasquier, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.35 p.m.)

      The PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.

1. Changes in the membership of committees

      The PRESIDENT* – Our first item of business is to consider the changes proposed in the membership of committees. These are set out in document Commissions (2018) 06 Addendum 2.

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

      They are agreed to.

2. Joint debate:

Extra-territorial processing of asylum claims and the creation of safe refugee shelters abroad

Human rights impact of the “external dimension” of European Union asylum and migration policy: out of sight, out of rights?

International obligations of Council of Europe member States: to protect life at sea (Urgent debate)

      The PRESIDENT* – The next item on the agenda is the joint debate on three reports from the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons. The first report is titled “Extra-territorial processing of asylum claims and the creation of safe refugee shelters abroad”, Document 14571, presented by Mr Domagoj Hajduković, with an opinion presented by Mr Egidijus Vareikis, Document 14585, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

      The second report is entitled “Human rights impact of the ‘external dimension’ of European Union asylum and migration policy: out of sight, out of rights?”, Document 14575, presented by Ms Tineke Strik.

      The final report is entitled “International obligations of Council of Europe member States: to protect life at sea”, Document 14586, presented by Ms De Sutter; this topic was placed on the agenda following the Assembly’s decision to hold an urgent debate on this matter on Monday morning.

      The presentation of these three reports will be followed by a statement by Mr Dimitrios Vitsas, Minister of Immigration Policy of Greece.

      I remind members that there is a three-minute speech limit in this debate. In order to finish the debate by 7 p.m., I will interrupt the list of speakers at about 5.50 p.m. to allow time for the replies and the vote. The rapporteurs have a total speaking time of 13 minutes, which they may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

      I call Mr Domagoj Hajduković, rapporteur, to present the first report.

      Mr HAJDUKOVIĆ (Croatia) – Honourable colleagues, I am honoured to present my first report in this esteemed institution.

      Although the number of migrants arriving in Europe has started to decrease, the total number remains high. Only in 2017, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees counted 172 301 individuals arriving in Europe by boat and 3 139 dead or missing. We can assume that those are not the final numbers and that the number of fatalities at sea is much higher. Faced with such immense human tragedy, often engineered by ruthless smugglers, Europe must explore safe alternatives for asylum seekers to risking their lives in overcrowded boats and ships.

      Dear colleagues, allow me to draw your attention to the many shining examples of brave diplomats who saved thousands of lives by granting asylum and issuing passports to people who were persecuted by the fascist regimes. We in the Council of Europe honour their memory by awarding the Raoul Wallenberg prize, which is named after the outstanding Swedish diplomat who saved nearly 10 000 Jews in Budapest in 1944 by issuing protective passports and sheltering them on diplomatic premises. We also remember that the Papal Nuncio, Angelo Rotta, issued more than 15 000 protective visas; the Swiss Vice-Consul, Carl Lutz, issued 8 000 protective letters; the Spanish embassy issued some 5 200 protective passports; and the Portuguese Embassy issued around 1 000 safe conducts to Jews who had relatives in Portugal, Brazil or Portuguese colonies. Turkey also issued a number of transit visas and admitted many Jewish refugees. These outstanding historical actions can be an example for the issuance of visas on humanitarian grounds through extra-territorial consular processes.

      It is our humane obligation to try to reduce the number of people who take long and perilous journeys to reach Europe, and to examine possible additions to existing asylum mechanisms. I must stress at this point that the intention of the report is not to encourage the practice of extra-territorial asylum but rather to ensure that those member countries that decide to implement such practices extend all the protection and rights, as well as human dignity, to asylum claimants that they would receive on the territory of the member State in question. Fundamental obligations under international law cannot be derogated on the grounds that a third country provides for the possibility of processing asylum claims extraterritorially in the country of first arrival.

      Having been a refugee myself, allow me to share a part of that experience with you, honoured colleagues. Leaving your home, your possessions, your friends and your family – in a single phrase, your whole life – and fleeing for your life is the hardest part of being a refugee. And let me tell you, dear colleagues, that not all people are prepared to leave, even if that means that they will lose their lives. In those cases, safe zones established by the United Nations and NATO are crucial in saving lives that would otherwise be lost. There are numerous examples of the successful establishment of such zones. I can name at least one – NATO Taskforce Fox established a safe zone for Egyptian Roma in Kosovo, which saved many lives. Those Egyptian Roma looked at their village burning from the safe zone. It broke their hearts, but at least they were not burned with those houses. They were saved.

      There is a very wise verse in the Talmud: “He who saves a single life, saves the world entire”. If the additional ways of asylum processing can save even a single life, it is our duty, in the words of the Talmud, to save the entire world.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Sir. You have eight minutes and 20 seconds for replies to the debate.

      I now call Mr Egidijus Vareikis to present the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

      Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – Immigration and in particular the mass arrival of refugees and migrants from across the Mediterranean has been a huge source of political and social tensions in recent years. On the one hand, hundreds of thousands of people have fled and are still fleeing from danger and hardship in their own countries, which are more or less close to Europe. Many of them have died, and many people continue to die, in the course of these desperate journeys. On the other hand, the sudden appearance of so many people has caused widespread alarm and some unease, especially but not only in countries that have little experience of people from different regions and cultures.

      Ever since the unprecedented arrivals of 2015 and 2016, Europe has been searching for a way to reconcile its international legal obligations and humanitarian duty to provide safety and refuge for those in need, and its social capacity to receive large numbers of people. The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons has produced a report that examines some of the more innovative proposals to resolve this dilemma. The general thrust of these proposals was to encourage asylum seekers to apply for refugee status in the first truly safe country that they encounter. While that is nothing very new, the committee’s report also encourages Council of Europe member States to consider allowing asylum seekers to make applications in their embassies and consulates abroad. Those whose applications are successful would be offered protection in Europe.

      This is, of course, a very delicate matter, including from the legal perspective. Refugees should not be forced to seek protection in a country where it is not guaranteed and they should not be forced into unsafe situations while their asylum applications are being considered. So, I am glad to say that on the whole the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons has got the balance right. We broadly support this report.

      The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights proposes just four small amendments to ensure that the human rights guarantees that must be provided under international law are clearly reflected in the report. We also propose a technical amendment, to ensure that the report does not give the false impression that the International Organization for Migration plays a key role in the registration of asylum seekers and determining their status as refugees. That job is for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Vareikis. I now call Ms Tineke Strik, rapporteur on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, to speak on the second report.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – This week, we see that European Union politicians are in turmoil when it comes to migration. They have not managed to agree on more internal solidarity or mutual support. They find themselves agreeing on just one thing, which is to keep migrants and refugees from entering European territory.

      To achieve that goal, the European Union and European countries have entered into co-operation with all kinds of countries – countries that already host a lot of refugees; countries where there is no official government; and countries whose governments have dubious track records on human rights. With compacts, agreements, deals or whatever has been concluded with those third countries, they promise to strengthen their border controls on transit not only to the European Union but also into their own territory, and to take back from Europe migrants who crossed their country. These countries co-operate in exchange for money, trade benefits or visas for their citizens, but it can mean that refugees are stranded in transit countries even if there is no asylum system in place or sufficient reception centres. The European Union invests much more money in border control than in protection regimes in those third countries. One of the problems with externalising border control is that human rights are not a criterion in any way whatsoever in the selection of countries for co-operation, which means refugees can become easily stranded as a result of deals in countries without access to protection.

      In my report, I analyse two examples of co-operation. Turkey already hosts 4 million refugees and that is so much more than other European countries are hosting. Turkey receives money for hosting Syrian refugees; nevertheless, those refugees live in extremely poor conditions and only a few of them have official work permits, so building a future and integrating is a big challenge for them. Non-Syrians have difficulties in gaining access to the asylum procedure and in the meantime they run the risk of deportation. The borders with Syria are de facto closed and Turkey has even created a safe zone for Syrian refugees within Syria, which is a contradiction in itself. Non-Syrians face a lot of difficulties in applying for asylum or in gaining access to legal aid and a proper reception.

      I will give another example. Italy gets millions in funding out of the European Union development aid budget to co-operate with the so-called “Libyan authorities”, which intercept migrants in Libyan waters and send them directly to detention centres, where slavery, abuse and torture take place. First, Gaddafi detained migrants in exchange for money from Berlusconi, but now the Libyan soldiers keep migrants detained as they get money from the UNHCR for them, which they keep in their own pockets.

      Unfortunately, we see this phenomenon everywhere. The moment that migrants become profitable, they become extremely vulnerable, especially in regimes that are repressive, fragile or even at war. These deals also legitimise and strengthen repressive regimes that abuse their own citizens – think of Eritrea and Sudan. That may be unintended, but it is a real effect of putting migration at the top of European Union foreign policy priorities – it is what happens. All the other aims of providing development aid, rule of law and stability are subordinated, which actually makes the European Union itself vulnerable and at risk of violating its own fundamental rights, especially when human rights or protection systems of a certain level are not criteria for the selection of which countries to co-operate with.

      At the same time, we face the unintended consequences of those deals. For instance, when money is spent in Niger to combat smuggling, people start taking alternative, more dangerous routes through the desert, where they might end up starving. Such agreements also stimulate third countries to do the same as we do: shift out responsibility. That chain effect encourages third countries to restrict their admission policies, destroying what mobility was available in certain regions, such as the Economic Community of West African States region. That affects many more people than just those heading to Europe, with migrants unable even to flee their own country.

      We see similar policy trends elsewhere in the world, especially in Australia and the United States of America. The end result is that around the world the pressure is being put on a few fragile regions neighbouring the conflict zones from which people are fleeing. That is exactly the opposite of what the United Nations States are trying to achieve with the global compact on refugees, to be signed this autumn, which is aimed at sharing responsibility equitably. The world is simply too small to let others deal with the problems alone. The refugee convention was built on a common sense of responsibility for refugees, who cannot turn to their own governments. Therefore, our responsibility does not depend on whether or not a refugee is in our territory. Only with that shared responsibility can we ensure that refugees are fully protected and able to create a new future in safety. At the same time, we must ensure that any action we take to co-operate with third countries on migrants does not lead to human rights violations there.

      For all those reasons, the draft resolution asks us to: set human rights criteria for co-operating with third countries on migration; create human rights impact assessments for each deal; establish monitoring mechanisms, and a suspension mechanism so that we can stop co-operation if we discover that violations have taken place; invest substantially in the region; and substantially step up our resettlement efforts. Let us turn this chain of shifting responsibility into one of taking responsibility, by acting in line with our own human rights. The recommendation in this resolution allows us to take the first step. I really hope for a strong signal of your support.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Strik. You have six minutes remaining in which to reply to the debate. I call Ms De Sutter to present the third report.

      Ms De SUTTER (Belgium) – On Monday the Bureau agreed to a request, tabled by the Socialist Group, for an urgent debate on the international obligations on Council of Europe member States to protect life at sea. The debate was requested under the urgent procedure because the problems set out in the report are of an urgent nature. I was appointed rapporteur for the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons.

      I wish to remind the Assembly of some facts and figures. The report is important because member States have been refusing entry to their ports to foreign vessels carrying passengers rescued at sea. Remember what happened to MS Aquarius, owned and operated by NGOs, which had been rescuing asylum seekers off the coast of Libya. MS Lifeline, which has also rescued asylum seekers off the coast of Libya, was also refused entry to Italian and Maltese ports. The Aquarius has since been accepted in Valencia in Spain. That in itself is not in compliance with international obligations to protect human life at sea. These obligations are both moral and legal, because member States have ratified that convention. We are happy that Spain has let the Aquarius enter on humanitarian grounds.

      We could ask, “What does that mean? Why did Italy and Malta refuse to accept those ships?” This is not about pointing the finger at these countries; it is an example of what will happen if European Union member States close their borders as a first step, if there is a lack of solidarity on the part of other European States. The burden on coastal member States will then increase and right-wing politicians will come to power. That is the result of what we see, so the problem is much more complex than just pointing the finger at each other.

      What are the real numbers? We often hear the argument that European countries are now at breaking point, having been saturated with arrivals, but the figures contradict that. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Filippo Grandi, stated as recently as 22 June that Europe today is no longer in the crux of a migration or refugee crisis, and that Mediterranean arrival numbers are now at pre-2014 levels and dropping towards their long-term historical averages. According to the International Organization for Migration, 41 000 refugees crossed the Mediterranean during the first six months of 2018, and 960 people died on the journey. Those arrival figures are 51% lower than last year’s, and 81% lower compared to 2016.

      However, ever if the absolute numbers are going down, the truth is that the closure of borders has put asylum seekers in even more life-threatening positions, because the journeys they now undertake are longer and the routes are more dangerous. I am afraid that this really is a vicious circle. The number of arrivals might have decreased significantly, but a higher proportion of those migrants are dying on the journeys. I want to share with you some arithmetic. In 2015 the number of deaths – people dying while trying to cross the Mediterranean – divided by the total number of crossings was 0.37%, or roughly one in 300. At 2.3%, the proportion dying in 2018 is six times higher. Those figures are from Marta Foresti, the director of the Overseas Development Institute, and were quoted in The Guardian only last Sunday. The reality of migration from Africa to Europe does, in absolute figures, seem more manageable, but at the same time the humanitarian aspect, with all these people dying, has become more urgent.

      What are member States’ obligations? On the eve of the June European Council on migration, security and defence, which starts tomorrow, it seems that the probability of reaching a European Union-wide consensus might be rather small. We hear many different proposals, and we have to question whether they could be implemented and whether they would comply with human rights. The closing of borders by member States has a direct effect, because “Fortress Europe” makes the routes for refugees more dangerous. The externalisation of the European Union migration policy that is on the table might seem like a good technical solution, but the question is whether it will worsen the humanitarian situation – we have seen what happens on the Greek islands and the hot spots.

      What we need are legal pathways from outside Europe, but not at any price. It is therefore of the utmost importance to remind European Union member States of their international obligations to protect life at sea when they are devising and implementing common action, as they plan to do tomorrow and the day after. That means they should ensure that Frontex operations can effectively assist in search and rescue operations, that they should ensure fair and regular resettlement programmes, and – this is really important – that we have to disconnect rescue operations from subsequent applications for asylum by those rescued at sea, because those are two different things and they imply distinct obligations.

      In conclusion, this urgent debate is about not only migration, but humanitarian issues. It is a human rights matter to guarantee safe entry to the closest port for any refugee at risk, and thus to protect life at sea. At any time our minimum standard should remain human rights, and that is a red line that no member State should cross. Harmonisation of maritime law is necessary, but that is not a reason for member States to ignore their international obligations – both legal and moral – to protect life at sea.

      As a doctor, I would like to compare what those ships in the Mediterranean are doing to what ambulances do. Ambulances are vehicles that are meant to pick up people in need, whatever the reason for them being there or for their suffering. An ambulance takes a person who is suffering to the closest hospital, and the refugee boats bring refugees to the closest port. An ambulance cannot leave a person behind because it does not agree with the reason why the victim is there or the circumstances, or because it is not clear who takes responsibility afterwards – those are two completely different matters that, as with emergency and urgent care, have to be dealt with separately. I hope that image stays in your mind during this debate.

      I also hope that the European Union ministers who sit around the table tomorrow take to heart our recommendations, which we attached to the report. To be sure, we recommended asking those ministers to develop guidelines for member States to protect human life at sea through search-and-rescue operations in accordance with obligations under the convention, paying particular attention to the most vulnerable – women and children – in the context of smuggling and trafficking. We also recommend a thematic debate on European policies on the protection of life at sea, on the right to enter a foreign port in distressed circumstances, and on the right to apply for refugee status. If we agree those recommendations, they can be on the table tomorrow when the European Union ministers do their job.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, rapporteur. You have four minutes and 35 seconds remaining to reply to the various contributions to the debate.

      It is now my pleasure to welcome Mr Dimitrios Vitsas, Greece’s Minister of Immigration Policy. Minister, I am especially pleased to welcome you to our Chamber – but I can say your Chamber, too, because you have been a member and even a vice-president of this Parliamentary Assembly.

      Last week we celebrated World Refugee Day, which for 17 years has been an opportunity to pay tribute to the courage and determination of refugees around the world, now numbering 25.4 million. As you rightly underscored in a declaration that day: “The creation and preservation of a society open and tolerant to diversity adds meaning and depth to the World Refugee Day and does not leave space for xenophobia, extremism”. Down the years, your country, Greece, has taught us that very valuable lesson. Although your country has been grappling with an unprecedented crisis, the lesson we learned from you is that welcoming others and living together in tolerance is possible, even if it represents a constant challenge.

      Thank you for being with us today. I know that your statement will constitute a valuable contribution to our discussions.

      Mr Dimitrios VITSAS (Minister of Immigration Policy of Greece)* – Madam President of the Parliamentary Assembly, distinguished members and colleagues, it is a great joy and honour for me to have this opportunity to speak to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I am personally acquainted with the mission of this Organisation and have been witness to the protection of human rights, the rule of law and democracy, because I have been a member of the Assembly. Before I became a member of the Greek Government, which took on the difficult task of getting Greece out of the multiple crises assailing it and causing so much trouble to our people, we could already see our efforts bearing fruit. I have full confidence in that, and in the positive part played by the Council of Europe in general and the Parliamentary Assembly in particular in protection of the social and economic rights of the Greeks. I therefore thank you, Madam President, and through you the Council of Europe, for all the support that we have received.

      May I also refer to the unprecedented migration crisis, which affects the whole of Europe and the frontline countries in particular? Of course we all hope that tomorrow or the day after the European Union Council of Ministers meeting in Brussels will provide some significant results. The question we have to ask, however, is whether it really is a crisis. When we talk about a crisis, it is usually something temporary or unusual. The migration crisis, however, is long-standing and has been of concern for many years – the law, lack of liberty, lack of respect for human rights, extreme poverty, social inequality and climate change have been the causes of the so-called crisis. It is not a crisis; it is the reality we face, and we may not close our eyes to it – we have to face it, but that is often where Europe is lacking. For example, given the migration crisis resulting from the war in Syria, we cannot but ask, where are Europe’s initiatives? Why is there no European initiative that might lead to peace or a viable agreement? This tragedy is taking place on the very frontiers of Europe, so why?

      Another issue I would like to address is the urgent need to review our joint European asylum system, which has caused clear lines of demarcation between member States. My country thinks that that joint system has to be viable and just if we are to face future migration crises. We need to share our responsibilities equally between countries – to share responsibility and solidarity. On that, Greece has a constructive position to offer.

      Greece would like to promote an intelligent compromise. As we know, Europe is based on shared values and dialogue, on the ability to compromise and to achieve a compromise that is appropriate for everyone. There is no other way. We cannot have such divisions. We consider the proposal of the Bulgarian presidency of the European Union to be a basis on which we can build and something with which we can work. Furthermore, our positions are very close to those of the European Parliament. Two thirds – the vast majority – of Parliament supported its proposal, so very different political forces were able to support it. For the trilogue to commence, the proposal of the Bulgarian presidency must be accepted by the Council of Ministers. That is how we will be able to begin discussion and development of a position acceptable to all.

      Meanwhile – this is of particular importance to us – we must not make the situation of the frontline countries even worse. In other words, we must share better, with a better way of processing asylum claims. My country is playing a bigger part in all of this than it ought to be playing. In terms of the number of asylum seekers taken in, we are No. 4 on the list. We think that there should be better distribution of this migratory flow with the establishment of legal immigration. If people could come to Europe legally, that would cut out the people smugglers.

      That, however, presupposes the co-operation of all countries. We need a pan-European and co-ordinated approach across the continent if we are to resolve the problem. We need to understand that there are three dimensions to this problem, all of which are at the same level. The first is the interior dimension. We need a better way of sharing in Europe, based, as I said, on solidarity. From the legal point of view, the Dublin and Schengen systems are two sides of the same coin; we cannot take them separately. The second is the external dimension – in other words, the aid that we must provide to the countries that these people come from. We have to understand that in all its detail. I agree with the many proposals we have heard about that. That must start with the wars that are under way stopping. Sadly, the word “migration” continues to be used in proposals. We so rarely see the word “refugees”, but 60% of the people who have come to our countries actually fall into that category. The third dimension is control of Europe’s external borders. That is part and parcel of the other two dimensions, and it is a priority. We are wholly against the idea of prioritising among those three dimensions.

      Are the New York Protocol and the Geneva Convention viable? Yes. Are they still valid? Yes. For what reasons were they established after the Second World War? Can they still function within and beyond frontiers, with full respect of human rights throughout? The Council of Europe is and must remain the guardian of European values – of democracy, human rights and the rule of law – but we must understand and face the main reasons. The European Convention on Human Rights was the very basis of the establishment of the Council of Europe.

      Let me say a few words about what our government is doing and tell you about the situation in my country. We have 61 000 asylum seekers. More than 6 000 of them are on five islands in the eastern Aegean Sea. More than 9 000 are on Lesbos alone. Since April, we have seen an increase in the number of people coming from Turkey. I think that is temporary – it is probably due to the fact that hostilities have resumed in Syria. We are in permanent contact with the Turkish Government and the European Commission. As a result, the number of people appearing at our northern frontier with Turkey at Evros has reduced. Some 350 people traffickers have been arrested in the past few months. I of course understand that there are divergent opinions about the European Union’s joint declaration with Turkey, but whatever we think of it, we cannot ignore the fact that it has allowed us to improve the conditions in which the asylum seekers who remain in our country live. As you know, Greece’s northern frontiers remain closed to them.

      We propose that we should be able to host those people in a decent way, according to international law. More than 1 million people – a whole million; you can understand what that means – have come from Turkey into Greece and moved on to other European countries. They have been divided among the countries of Europe very unequally and unfairly. We in Greece do not consider clandestine immigrants or refugees as invaders or enemies in any sense. Are they people against whom we need to defend ourselves? No, we cannot and we should not be defending ourselves. The basis of our thinking should be the Geneva Convention and international humanitarian law. We have to be systematic and organised, and we have to work together. We need a migration policy and an asylum policy. We need to be able to provide dignified and decent conditions to asylum claimants, and to support local communities at the same time.

      Between now and the end of September, we will reduce the number of people living on the islands to 10 000. In May, a new asylum law went through the Greek Parliament under an accelerated procedure. That will increase the staff of the different services on the islands – people such as translators – by more than 300. It will also increase the number of appeals committees to 20. We hope to increase that number even further by 2019.

      More than 21 000 people have been housed under our housing programme, and we hope to increase that number to 30 000. More than 1 900 minors are in safe places, such as hotels and pensions. The next step is for us to be able to host all minors in housing that is appropriate for children and young people. Those under-age refugees and migrants have to go to school. They are in the Greek public school system – as are all Greek children – in classes specially established for them by the Ministry of Education. Also, as part of our programmes for integrating refugees, we recognise people’s competencies – we allow people arriving in the country to prove that they are able to do a job and give them access to the job market. We hope that allows us to integrate people better.

      We see judgments being taken on all levels – the economic level, the social level and every other – but Europe needs to show dignity and decide which path it intends to take. Will it choose the path of solidarity and co-operation? Will it continue to believe in democratic values and the values that we call European, such as open societies, progress and the equality of nations? Is that the path that we wish to follow? I hope that it is. We must avoid the path of populism, fanaticism and Nazism. A generation of Europeans must reply to this question: will we continue to be Europeans on a shared journey, and will ours be a community of principles and rights?

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Minister, for your important contribution to our debate. I was very glad to meet you in my office a short time ago for a general discussion about Greece’s efforts to address the migration and refugee crisis. I wish you every success with achieving your ambitious objectives.

      In the debate, I give the floor to Mr Divina.

      Mr DIVINA (Italy, Spokesperson for the Free Democrats Group)* – It may seem superfluous to say this, but we must remember that the words “migrant” and “refugee” do not mean the same thing. “Refugee” is a precise legal term that indicates someone who has fled from a country because of war, or because they have been persecuted or discriminated against. Under international conventions, that status gives them asylum rights, which will always be upheld in Italy. Migrants are a different matter, and 90% of those in the migratory flows from south of the Mediterranean are not refugees. More than 90% of them are, therefore, trying to cross the sea and then being repatriated. That led to the setting up of holding centres in North Africa at which people’s asylum rights could be checked.

      Ms Strik’s report criticises Italy’s proposal, which will be discussed in the European Council tomorrow, to discourage people from risking their lives by getting into rickety boats to cross the Mediterranean only to be repatriated. Italy is asking for reception centres to be set up in third countries – for example, in the Balkans – to guarantee those people’s human rights. For the last few years, Italy has been left to deal with the problem alone. Between 2015 and 2017, between 320 000 and 390 000 people were processed every year. We did not receive any help from other European countries when it came to their allocated quotas. Some governments did not even respect the law, and that is being looked at. If NGOs do not sign the Italian Government’s proposed code of conduct, which involves accepting on board a police officer to identify traffickers, it is because they want to work in a grey area rather than operating within the law. Italy can no longer accept that, and so these ships with foreign flags will no longer be authorised to enter Italian ports.

      We are financing assistance for asylum seekers, but I say to Ms Strik that Italy is spending more than €4 billion a year, so no one can say that we are not doing our share. It is now up to everyone else to do their part and share the burden. We will propose various amendments to the report, and we ask for the deletion of all the paragraphs that wrongly target Italy.

      Mr VARVITSIOTIS (Greece, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – This week it is difficult to talk about migration, because there is a lot going on and it is challenging our abilities and values. We need to be pragmatic and realistic, but we must also defend the values, as we have always done. Some countries are doomed by geography to play a larger part in dealing with the situation. At the same time, we are asking countries that have been spared by geography to contribute more to dealing with the common challenge. Is Europe an open space? No, it is not. Europe may welcome anyone who is in need and who is eligible for refugee status, but Europe is not an open space for illegal immigration. That should be clear in everyone’s mind. We cannot contemplate making provision for all who have no right to enter Europe. Until now, the European Union has not created a common asylum policy that can universally address all the challenges. The fact that an asylum petition from the same person in three different European countries may result in a different status in each one shows the need for a unified and universal approach.

      In the Group of the European People’s Party, we have had many discussions about the matter, and we have decided to ask the Assembly to withdraw the reports and review them. That is not because we are absolutely against any particular point that they contain – although there are paragraphs that I personally oppose – but because the matter should not end with this discussion. We need to follow up on it and monitor the position. As time passes and decisions are made at a European level, we should be front runners in the defence of human rights and the defence of the European space. The committee’s work and its proposed amendments are in line with our group’s thinking.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Varvitsiotis. You said that your group wanted to send the reports back to committee. Is that a formal request, and do you mean all three reports? Have I understood you correctly?

      Mr VARVITSIOTIS (Greece) – I am informed that a formal request has to be made on specific grounds. As the committee has made revisions, I cannot say that there are specific grounds for referring the report back. However, I want to present our political position, which is that the matter should be reviewed constantly.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Varvitsiotis, for that clarification. To continue the debate, I call Ms Ævarsdóttir.

      Ms ÆVARSDÓTTIR (Iceland, Spokesperson for the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group) – Human rights, democracy and the rule of law are the fundamental values of our institution, but how does locking people up in camps and prisons for no crime conform to human rights or the rule of law? Council of Europe States are members of the refugee convention, therewith recognising the rights of refugees and confirming the obligation of its signatories to grant due process and refuge to those who fulfil the criteria included therein. However, instead of recognising these obligations and accepting our responsibility by affording protection and due process to people fleeing war, persecution and catastrophe, European leaders are making dirty deals, negotiating ways in which refugees can be detained outside our borders in camps, and are staying largely silent as our allies in the United States separate children from their parents and keep them in cages like cattle.

      While there is an international obligation and a clear human obligation to rescue people whose lives are at risk at sea, thousands of refugees have drowned because of our callous refusal to rescue them. Make no mistake, they have died because of our complete unwillingness to let refugees into our territory legally and safely. Instead, our leaders are now making dirty deals on how to keep refugees on the shores that they are fleeing. Extra-territorial processing centres are a nightmarish construction practised so far only by Australia, which has a terrible record of distaste for refugees. Australia has long imprisoned refugees in processing centres, where they have been kept for years in indefinite, and therefore arbitrary, detention.

      Why is Europe treading the path of the worst example of our Western allies? Let us not forget that these people who are fleeing their homes leave their lives behind but bring their skills with them. They open up shops and stores, as they have done in Iceland, my home country; they start working as doctors and nurses, as they have in Scotland, or open up bakeries, as they have done there as well, in order to contribute to their new homes. Yet these are the same people that we dehumanise and reject from our societies.

      Against that background, how can Europe look at itself in the mirror and contend that it stands for human rights, democracy and the rule of law? The answer is that it cannot, and it will not be able to until it admits its responsibility to protect the lives and human rights of all.

      (Sir Roger Gale, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Maury Pasquier.)

      Mr GOODWILL (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – As we enter the eighth year of the conflict in Syria, I am proud of the United Kingdom’s record on delivering vital assistance. The United Kingdom has the third biggest aid budget in the world, with 0.7% of our gross national product committed to it by law. Some 5 million people have had to leave their homes in Syria, with 1.3 million going to Jordan alone. Since 2012 we have committed £2.5 billion to address the Syrian crisis – that is over €2.8 billion, second only to the United States and considerably more than comparable countries such as France – in a programme that includes £160 million for education and innovative schemes in Lebanon to give families cash so that they can make choices in their lives.

      Under our Vulnerable Person Resettlement Programme, 20,000 children and their families, selected by the UNHCR, are coming to Britain. These are the people most in need – refugees actually in refugee camps. These vulnerable people do not have the money to pay people traffickers, which explains why, when the United Kingdom took 750 child migrants from Calais, only eight of the 750 were actually Syrian – not 8%, but eight individuals. When visiting Nigeria as the United Kingdom Immigration Minister, I was told that although Nigerians arriving in Europe claim to be fleeing Boko Haram in the north of the country, the majority if not all come from relatively well-off families in the south who can afford to pay the people traffickers. Indeed, Ministers made the point that the best thing we could do was to return people to their own villages in Nigeria to cut demand for the services of these criminals. That is indeed what happened when we did the deal with Turkey.

      We must hold true to some basic principles. Asylum seekers must claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach, and the Dublin process must continue to allow children to join their families – not the other way around, because to do so would be to create an incentive to send young, vulnerable children ahead.        Lastly, and this is the most difficult aspect of the whole issue, of course the saving of lives at sea is our obligation – but is the fact that NGOs have vessels waiting outside Libyan territorial waters a vital element of the business model of the vicious, callous criminals who traffic people in a way that shows complete disregard for the migrants that they seek to exploit, both during the often fatal journey and through modern slavery when they arrive in Europe? Yes, we need to discharge our obligations to genuine asylum seekers, but we also need to frustrate the activities of traffickers whose abuses of economic migrants are an insult to everything that we in Europe stand for.

      Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – I thank our rapporteur. According to the UNHCR, 25.4 million people are refugees and 57% of them are from three countries: South Sudan, Afghanistan and Syria. The same body talks about 3.1 million asylum seekers and says that in 2017, 650 000 of them knocked on the doors of the European Union. The report, as well as the European Union, is trying to find a way to stop the deadly crossings of the Mediterranean and to stop the criminals and the smugglers. Let us focus on that, rather than on trying to stop asylum seekers; instead of building walls, let us build deterrents.

      We all noted the steps taken by President Trump. We saw the cages and we do not want to see them in Europe. However, we see other leaders stoking fear of others in Europe today by fuelling extremism and nationalistic populism. This house is built on the ruins of the experience of those kinds of illiberal policies from before. As the rapporteur stated, we must find solutions, at sea or on land, that keep our values high and fulfil our international obligations. In the long run, we need to stay on track for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

      Safe extra-territorial refugee shelters abroad are asked for by European Union members and in the report, perhaps in the hope of not seeing any refugees. That is a short-term solution. There is experience of such shelters in several of our neighbouring countries in the Middle East and Africa and we see no right to return, camps existing for a long time with safe zones becoming a trap over the years, and promises not fulfilled. I heard that the UNHCR set up a camp in Niger to help asylum seekers and migrants from Libya. Last week 1 287 people were staying there, and 173 had been resettled in the European Union out of a promised 3 781. When we go abroad, we risk destabilising even further our neighbourhood of fragile States, which will create more refugees. We should look for sustainable development in our neighbourhood, as well as in our own countries, and uphold our values.

      Ms CHRISTODOULOPOULOU (Greece, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left)* – Colleagues, I shall speak Greek so that I can express myself better, and I apologise for that.

      I would point out that times are hard for rights and for refugees. The population movement as a result of war, poverty and a deteriorating environment is a decisive juncture in the development of the 21^st century. We are talking about a refugee crisis. We can regard it as a temporary crisis that needs exceptional solutions. However, if we are talking about this being the eve of a major and historic population movement, we need permanent solutions, not precarious ones. All, or most, European governments have been looking for temporary solutions, without jeopardising the right to asylum.

      We have seen Hungary pursuing a xenophobic policy thus far, and the protection of refugees is seriously threatened. The leaders of most European countries prefer to go hand in hand with the extreme right populist movement. They do not want to move away from that xenophobic populist stance. It is a question of having extra-territorial processing of asylum claims – claims being lodged outside European countries. This is a challenge to the European Convention but also to primary European legislation. Instead of banning the right to refuge, we are banning refugees’ entry into the European Union. Instead of asylum, we are talking about remuneration for those who are helping us in so far as they are allowing the processing of asylum claims outside our borders.

      So are we going to further denigrate Europe’s history by moving responsibility away from those responsible for war to those who are its victims? The former are invisible but refugees are visible. They have different languages, cultures and skin colours, so they can easily be noticed and seen as enemies. With the end of socialism as we knew it, 1990 was the end of a great history, and I think we are now seeing something similar, with an end being brought to the French Revolution, to the protection of human rights that has existed since the Second World War and to the rule of law. As the Council of Europe, we need to stick to the Geneva Convention and not jeopardise the right to asylum.

      The PRESIDENT – That concludes the speakers on behalf of the political groups. The rapporteurs of course have the right to reply at the end of the debate, but do any of you wish to respond at this stage? That is not the case, so I call the first person on the list of speakers, Mr Vallini of France.

      Mr VALLINI (France)* – Thank you very much, Mr President. I think we are all familiar with the daily tragedy affecting men, women and children who are risking their lives to reach Europe’s shores. This is not a migratory crisis, as we often hear it called, but very much a phenomenon of our age. As the Greek Minister of Immigration Policy said a short while ago in his fine statement, it is a tragedy that will last as long as war, dictatorship, poverty and rising sea levels force human beings to flee their countries – their native lands – with death, but also hope, in their hearts.

      The 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugee provides for asylum seekers to be able to file their claim under safe conditions, and we need exceptionally to enable such migrants to file a claim on the territory of a transit country. In 2017, France issued some 3 000 visas to refugees from Chad and Niger, and the French authorities ensured their safe travel. It would be good, perhaps, for each member State of our Organisation to consider implementing an exceptional mechanism for the extra-territorial processing of asylum claims. Of course, not all transit countries are in a position to provide migrants with even elementary reception conditions, and the procedure for issuing extra-territorial visas must therefore envisage measures that take into account the conditions in countries of first entry. The European Union needs to, and must, provide both technical and financial assistance. It is on that condition, therefore, that I am prepared to support the draft recommendation proposed by our rapporteurs.

      Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – Since 2000, more than 33 000 people have drowned in the Mediterranean Sea. According to the United Nations, this tragedy makes the Mediterranean the most dangerous border crossing in the world. This year, at least 1 000 people have drowned, including more than 200 in just two days off the coast of Libya.

      As mentioned in the first report, a considerable number of these migrants have the right to asylum or other forms of international protection. Our Secretary General has for quite a long time now urged that there be safe and open legal routes to apply for asylum in Europe. He has also sounded the alarm in relation to a sub-Saharan refugee crisis even bigger than those we have seen so far. Despite these facts, very little has happened other than the European Union-Turkey agreement, which has been designed to prevent people from reaching the European continent. So far, European Union members have been reluctant to fulfil our resettlement part of the agreement, and the more we use the term “European standards”, the further away from its actual content we seem to be.

      Yesterday, the Norwegian broadcaster revealed that during the last 14 months more than 13 000 African refugees and migrants have been expelled from Algeria and sent into the desert without food and water.       These deportations are a result of European Union pressure on North African countries to close the Mediterranean routes. Tuesday’s debate shed light on how neighbouring countries bear a burden greater than their capacity. The United Nations is asking for larger contributions in terms of funding and resettlement, but Europe is reluctant. Between ourselves, we leave the countries in front to deal with the problem. Hopefully, the European Union summit will bring us one step closer to a fairer sharing of responsibilities. However, the recent rejections of rescue ships are not too promising, unless we plan to stop rescuing lives at sea, which we cannot do.

      There is an obvious need to reform European migration policies. Extra-territorial processes might be an exceptional measure to prevent more people from drowning, but such measures must comply with our human rights obligations and not be just another means of pushing away our responsibilities, leaving poorer third countries to deal with them. As a minimum, we need binding agreements concerning the operation of reception centres, application processing, the fair distribution of receiving countries and the financing of return programmes. If not, extra-territorial processes could be just another disclaimer, leaving even more people in limbo – out of sight, out of rights.

      Ms OHLSSON (Sweden) – Few topics are as divisive as migration, but together we can make it work. Progressive policy on asylum and migration protects human lives and helps those fleeing violence. When migration is well managed it can enrich our societies. Migration is part of human history and the result of global political, economic and social inequalities.

      The number of refugees, asylum seekers and displaced people around the world topped 68 million in 2017. The vast majority of people do not migrate to Europe. There are more people moving within Africa than towards Europe. More than 80% of refugees globally are hosted close to their home countries, within poor regions. Our policies must be rooted in international human rights law and standards. Refugees fleeing war and persecution must be given the chance to seek protection. Unjust economic conditions, discrimination, human rights violations and the lack of legal migration pathways are a basis for trafficking in human beings.

      To reach Europe, desperate individuals pay thousands of euros each to people who try to benefit from human misery and human tragedy. Human traffickers send migrants across the Mediterranean in unseaworthy boats without any food or protection, exposing them to life-threatening risks and violence. Creating more pathways for regular migration will create safe, orderly and regular migration at our borders and ensure security, reducing the need for migrants to resort to ruthless human traffickers and smugglers to reach our shores. In that sense, we should intensify joint efforts to prevent and combat the trafficking and to break the traffickers’ business model. Our goal must be to have regular, orderly and fair migration in addition to procedures to seek protection.

      All too often, those who arrive in Europe face unacceptable conditions in reception centres. Reform of the Common European Asylum System will be the first important step towards an effective, harmonised and progressive European asylum policy, based on solidarity, the equal sharing of responsibilities and respect for fundamental human rights. Shared responsibility is also important when it comes to protecting our external borders. That does not mean closing borders, but managing our common external border together according to international law and common human rights standards, guaranteeing security for our citizens and newcomers alike, fighting against human trafficking networks and preventing deaths.

      Mr STELLINI (Malta) – Migration should not be shouldered by one country, such as Italy or Malta. It should not even be shouldered by Europe alone. It should be shouldered by all wealthy States, including the Arab States. We need to be realistic, pragmatic, determined and creative in our approach, and that is why I fully support the idea of disembarkation platforms in non-European Union territories.

      It is fundamental that we make a clear distinction between economic migrants and refugees. That is why I do not support paragraph 10.5 of the draft resolution in Ms Strik’s report, which states that it should be ensured that “migrants, asylum seekers and refugees always have access to an effective remedy against deportation decisions”. That paragraph puts economic migrants in the same basket as refugees. Had the rapporteur limited the paragraph to refugees, I would have supported it.

      We should always respect human rights, but Europe is not without borders, and we should have strong border controls. We do not want anarchy in Europe. We want to safeguard the integrity of the European project, and migration sometimes threatens the very existence of the European Union. We should actively seek agreements with third countries and neighbouring States, and there should be a clear link between development aid and co-operation on the one hand and migration control on the other. That is why I do not support paragraph 12.7 of the draft resolution in Ms Strik’s report. Migration control is not solely the responsibility of the European Union countries. However, despite my misgivings about the two paragraphs, I will be voting in favour of the reports, because I am broadly in agreement.

      Finally, search and rescue NGOs should respect orders from the Rome co-ordination centre and from all other co-ordination centres in the Mediterranean. Everyone must follow the law. The European Union is a rules-based project, and we all respect the rule of law.

      Mr MELKUMYAN (Armenia) – Finding solutions to the social, educational, labour and other problems of refugees is one of the most important issues in Europe and around the world. Refugees’ issues are ongoing. It is unacceptable and inhuman that refugee families are unable to enjoy their human rights. In one of our previous sittings, I said in this Chamber that we should not allow social dumping. The subject of public consensus should be ensuring the right of refugee children to enjoy high quality social, educational and health services. It is also necessary that statistical bodies, such as Eurostat, provide us with future social trends for various layers of society, including children, through which we can regulate and prevent unhealthy and inhuman conditions for refugees. We need a statistical methodology for the assessment of the above phenomena, so statistical services in different countries should be obliged to provide information on the situation of refugees and their children.

      Refugee children face greater dangers to their safety and well-being than the average child. The sudden and violent onset of emergencies, as well as the acute shortage of resources that most refugees face, deeply affect the physical and psychological well-being of refugee children. It is a sad fact that infants and young children are often the earliest and most frequent victims of violence and the diseases that accompany population displacement and refugee outflows. So, helping refugee children to meet their physical and social needs often means providing support to their families and communities. As has been said already, it is a fact that Armenia has received about 21 000 Syrian-Armenian refugees, including children, whose work, education and social issues are solved. So, let us create conditions for our children to be honest, professional and equipped with superior knowledge.

      Mr KERN (France)* – Europe faces a constant flow of refugees and migrants from the Balkans, Africa, the Middle East and South Asia. That movement has been scaled up by the arrival of Syrian refugees, which reached its peak in 2015, with more than 1 million people entering the Schengen area. Europe is therefore facing one of the greatest migratory crises in its history.

      Most migrants arrive by sea across the Mediterranean, and the countries on the southern borders of the European Union have been subject to such migration pressure that they have had to delegate asylum and migration procedures to third countries. The externalisation of such responsibilities to third countries that are not European Union members can pose serious human rights problems. Although the number of migrants entering Europe has been successfully reduced, that externalisation has led to the violation of asylum seekers’ human rights. Hundreds of migrants have been stranded in transit countries or subject to refoulement, ill-treatment, arbitrary detention or torture. Countries that use externalisation must ensure that asylum seekers’ rights are properly respected. It is necessary to reduce migratory pressure on the European Union’s southern borders, but that does not excuse European countries from their responsibilities and human rights obligations.

      I call on the European Union to define the concept of “safe third country” where legislation and practice can better ensure the effective protection of rights. The agreement with Turkey of 18 March 2016 has given rise to serious human rights issues involving the refoulement of certain migrants and difficulties in asylum claim submissions and in accessing healthcare and education outside the refugee camps. The political situation in Libya makes it difficult to set up a system of extra-territorial processing of asylum claims that guarantees respect for migrants’ rights, with the necessary funding and logistics that that entails. The European Union is facing a political and humanitarian challenge, and its member States should remember that they are all members of the Council of Europe, the principles of which must be respected.

      Mr HOWELL (United Kingdom) – These reports highlight the enormous problems that we face because of the way that unscrupulous people traffickers take advantage of refugees. It is, of course, also an enormous shame that so many refugees feel compelled to commit themselves to that course of action. The answers to this problem are not easy; as has been shown in the reports, they are complex, and I do not think that having external asylum centres can ever be the complete answer. For example, it has been reported that Libya has been home to torture and even slavery. Instead, I would like to see more effort put into making sure that the conditions in the countries from which the refugees have come are better.

      In one of the reports, France is praised for the provision of visas and transport for people from Niger and Chad. However, that is nothing compared with the political flow of refugees to the Libyan coast that will come from Nigeria and other countries – I mean real refugees, not those mentioned by my colleague, Mr Robert Goodwill – if efforts are not made to help them produce a strong economy in which all can share. That goes to show the importance of aid and an investment programme in those countries, and I say that as the United Kingdom Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Nigeria.

      The reports touch on a complex area. If we are to advocate a third-country approach for making asylum claims, that raises issues of human rights, which are difficult to adapt to. We also need to create a separation between the process of seeking asylum, and the activities of countries such as my own in promising to resettle vulnerable refugees and children from the Middle East and North Africa by 2020. However, one area that that should not be separated from is the resettlement programmes that are being offered by a number of countries, and which provide real help.

      A number of actions have been suggested to deal with this issue, but many contain flaws. How, for example, can we put pressure on Libya when it is not functioning State in a way that we would recognise? As has been pointed out, many migrants come from countries outside the Middle East, which also poses problems. The need for capacity building in some countries to tackle the problem depends on their having the ability to deliver such programmes. There will always be a number of countries that do not like a process of granting asylum overseas, but we are right to raise the issue for examination and discussion here, because the problem of migration, about which we are all so sadly aware, will not simply go away.

      Ms DURANTON (France)* – The plight of migrants fleeing war is unenviable. Generally, they have no other choice than to try their luck in dilapidated boats, and to try to reach the shores of Europe. If they do not drown, they land in Greece or Italy where the asylum system is at breaking point. Against that backdrop, the idea of processing asylum applications in third countries or transit countries through embassies seems attractive. Such a measure would avoid the dangerous crossings, it would hurt traffickers in their pockets, and the flow of refugees coming to European shores would be restricted. Nevertheless, third-country processing of asylum applications is not a panacea, and it is first necessary to establish real co-ordination with the countries where applications are lodged. Reception centres for migrants would have to be financed by the State that is processing the asylum request, and security must be guaranteed – the UNHCR could be a great help in that.

      Consuls and embassies must have the necessary resources to process applications. When an application is successful, we must ensure the safe transfer of refugees to the host countries. Only under such circumstances could one accept the principle of an application being lodged in a third country, and that means that there must be safeguards for transit countries, and a real relationship of trust with those countries. It is also important that European Union member States start by fulfilling their undertakings, particularly on resettlement. The Turkish authorities say that the European Union did not uphold its commitments under the declaration of March 2016 on this issue, and therefore they are not in favour of the external processing of asylum applications in that country.

      Third-country processing of applications must take account of human rights. If turned down, migrants must be sure that the law will be upheld in transit countries. It must be clear that the European Union is liable in such cases, and will prevent any refoulement, arbitrary detention or ill treatment. Today, more and more States in the European Union are relying on neighbouring countries to limit immigration through bilateral agreements, but that provides no effective safeguards for the rights of migrants. Countries can pay money to neighbouring countries to protect their frontiers, but the extra-territorial processing of applications must not be reduced to that.

      Mr CSENGER-ZALÁN (Hungary) – The migration crisis undoubtedly affects all European countries and the future of Europe, and it is our common responsibility to find long-term and effective answers to the migration challenges that we face. For several years, Hungary has advocated a sensible multi-dimensional approach to confronting the migration crisis, which includes tackling the root causes of migration, strengthening the protection of European Union external borders, and establishing external hotspots for asylum applications. Such measures could considerably and effectively ease the migratory pressures on member States, and avoid the risk that third-country nationals undertake dangerous and potentially fatal journeys. It is clear that one fundamental element is the need to strengthen the external dimension of migration in order to stop the illegal influx of people. We welcome the fact that more and more countries are coming to share that approach, and we hope that after the European Council meeting later this week, member States will move further in that direction.

      Let me make a few observations about the two reports. Hungary fully acknowledges the right of refugees to asylum, but our firm view is that asylum applications must be examined outside European Union territories, so that only those eligible for international protection can enter. A number of practical questions need to be addressed to find workable solutions. How can we ensure that European legal standards are clear on the handling of extra-territorial asylum claims? How can we avoid asylum shopping? How can we provide shelter for people who are filing asylum applications in third countries? The reports are right to raise those questions, but let me be clear: Hungary continues strongly to oppose any mandatory mechanism that would resettle migrants in European Union member States.

      In conclusion, I thank the rapporteurs for raising such important aspects of the debate on migration. As I have said, our primary aim should be to assist people to create the necessary conditions locally, so that migrants do not leave their home countries, and so that we can allow people to return home.

      Mr MARQUES (Portugal) – The topic of refugees has been around since the beginning of the week. Some of us are saying that it is an issue for political parties, or for the right wing or the left wing, but actually we have a continental problem. Socialist governments, extreme right-wing governments, centre-right and centre-left governments are having common reactions all around Europe. I was one of the first in my country to criticise a decision by the Italian Government, which was taken in common by a left-wing party and an extreme right-wing party. I can blame them for that one decision, but it is also true that Italy, much like Greece, has been hosting everybody, while some other countries are doing nothing. If we all agree that we face a huge challenge, it will be easier if we solve it together – if each of us does our part of the job. Some of us are not doing that. We discuss human rights in Libya and in the Russian Federation in this Assembly, but some countries in Europe are not doing their job. A boat went to Italy and was refused. The same happened in Malta and in France, yet we are not discussing it.

      We should not be so romantic as to try to solve everybody’s problems. We should have priorities and the priority should be the refugees, not the migrants. We must decide faster who is a refugee and give all the support to them. For refugees, there is no ideology, no religion – nothing. They are just looking for shelter. We spend too much time trying to do everything. Every day we try to do more for more people, and we forget the ones who urgently need our support – the refugees. They are different from the others and should be our priority.

      I have listened to people speaking about the externalisation of the solution. Of course we need to take measures here, but we must also take measures in countries outside Europe and on the oceans. We cannot solve all the problems here. We should co-operate more with African countries. We should help them to improve the conditions for people who live there. Creating hotspots outside Europe, including in Africa, could be a good solution. It is not necessarily a bad solution just because it was proposed by the Italian Minister of the Interior, by the Austrians or by others.

      We decided here together in a unanimous vote to organise hotspots outside Europe. It is the only way to guarantee that people and refugees over there are protected. We must be there to guarantee that human rights are respected. The ones who really are refugees should come here and the ones who are crossing the sea and are already here should stay.

      We cannot have only one approach. We need neither a radical nor a romantic approach; we need to solve problems. The job of the Council of Europe is not to protect our countries, but to protect human rights.

      Ms ANTTILA (Finland) – I thank the rapporteur, Ms Strik, for her excellent report and for her presentation on a matter that has shaken the whole of Europe. It is highly important that we have an open dialogue about the external dimension of European Union asylum and migration policy. It is highly topical, because European Union leaders gathered for an emergency summit on migration last Sunday.

      I will focus mainly on the external dimension of migration policy. I agree with the rapporteur that shifting the responsibility to reinforce European Union border controls to third countries would entail serious human rights risks. Instead of externalising migration control to countries in which the legislation, policies and practices do not meet the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights, we need to examine more closely the possibility of establishing disembarkation centres for those who have been saved from the sea. Those centres would function in close co-operation with the UNHCR.

      I agree with the rapporteur that it is essential to reduce the need for migrants to undertake potentially fatal land and sea journeys in the first place. We also need to counter the business model of people smugglers and combat all criminal activity that takes advantage of asylum seekers’ despair.

      We need bilateral and trilateral agreements to help each other. We cannot always wait for all 27 European Union member States to agree, as Merkel stated last weekend. Above all, we need to find a way to break the vicious cycle between migration and populist right-wing politics. It seems that new populist governments reject any sustainable policy that would see them handling more refugees. To do so, we must be able to distinguish between economic migrants and those in need of international protection in a way that fully respects international law but does not create a pull factor.

      Lastly, we need to comprehend the complex root causes that make people flee their homelands, which include not only conflict, but environmental causes. One does not need to be a fortune teller to see that the 400 million people in Africa who will reach working age in the near future will not all find their future inside that continent. That is to say, if we cannot find sustainable solutions and solidarity between European Union member States now, we are heading for a much bigger asylum crisis.

      Mr GAVAN (Ireland) – “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” That is the first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As my colleague from the Group of the Unified European Left said, we appear to be turning our backs on those values and rights, as well as on the Geneva Convention.

      We have seen an extremely worrying increase in racist and fascist sentiments in Europe regarding migrants and refugees. The world faces an unprecedented number of humanitarian crises, with war, hunger and oppression devastating many parts of our globe. The unequal economic model that many European countries enforce on the global south has created corruption, poverty, inequality and environmental disaster.

      On 20 June, which was World Refugee Day, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said the total number of refugees worldwide is now 68.5 million. No one becomes a refugee by choice, but the rest of us have a choice about how we help. Europe likes to pride itself on its respect for human rights, but the European Union is currently pushing back vulnerable refugees who are looking for sanctuary. It is a disgraceful and gross violation of human rights.

      The new Government in Italy, which includes the far right, is refusing to let ships full of refugees dock, and has stated that it will carry out a census of the Roma population in Italy. Have we learned nothing since the Holocaust 70 years ago, when Roma, Jews and other minorities were systematically dehumanised and suffered genocide?

      The European Union has made a deal with the oppressive Erdoğan regime to ensure that the Turkish authorities keep vulnerable refugees in that country, where their human rights will undoubtedly be violated. It is also supporting the Libyan coastguard – basically an armed militia – to push boats containing vulnerable refugees back to Libya, where they will be kept in overcrowded jails, beaten, tortured and raped. Unfortunately, while there are many good points in the report on protecting life at sea, I cannot support it because it does not address the horrific reality of what is taking place and the European Union’s shameful role in it.

      European countries, bar a few notable exceptions, need to fundamentally rethink their refugee policies and create a blueprint for responding to refugee needs that respects human rights, human dignity and the right of refugees to claim sanctuary in Europe.

      Mr COAKER (United Kingdom) – I congratulate the rapporteurs on dealing with a sensitive issue in a constructive and positive way. There are many different political views in this Chamber, but your attempts to bring them together in a constructive and practical way that relates to the principles of the Council of Europe is to be commended. If we are about anything, surely we are about trying to do something to meet the challenge of migration, the challenge of refugees and the challenge of the horror we see before us.

      Let us try to bring this issue alive in the Chamber for the people who read this debate. I read in the reports that, just in the first half of 2018, 960 people are estimated to have drowned. I can only imagine what I would feel if that was my relative – my father, my son, my daughter, or somebody else I know. We can argue about why it is happening and whose fault it is, but this Chamber has a responsibility to say that it is unacceptable and that we will not stand aside and do nothing about it. Yes, it is challenging and, yes, it raises difficulties for us, but I, and I am sure all of us here, will say that it is not acceptable on our doorstep.

      Human rights are fundamental to our Organisation and to what we stand for, but that cannot just be looking at what Greece does, or what Turkey does, or what Italy does, or what Malta does, or what Spain does, or what other countries do when they are dealing with huge numbers of refugees. It also means that countries such as my own – the United Kingdom – that do not border the Mediterranean have to accept their responsibility more perhaps than they have done. That is true of all of us. We all have a responsibility to ensure that we support the standards and principles of this Organisation, and to accept the responsibilities we have.

      I will give one example. Just recently, we had a huge debate in our parliament on an amendment called the Dubs amendment. We voted, initially against government hostility, but in the end the government agreed to 3 000 unaccompanied children coming from Calais to our country. And do you know what? When that was argued for and stood up for and campaigned for, the British people actually accepted it and thought that it was something we should be doing.

      To finish, I would like to say that all of us who believe in human rights and think it is unacceptable that children are drowning should stand up in all of our communities and say, yes, of course we do not want abuse, but we will not stand by and watch human misery on the scale that we see it on our own continent, and we are going to do something about it. I think these reports are a practical way forward and I commend you all for that.

      Ms GÜNAY (Turkey) – I thank the rapporteurs for preparing comprehensive reports on the humanitarian dimension of asylum policies. Ms Strik has also conducted a fact-finding mission to Turkey, during which she had the chance to collect data on the efforts of Turkey to meet the needs of the largest refugee population in the world.

      Ms Strik’s report makes several statements regarding Turkey. Regarding the 18 March agreement between Turkey and the European Union, I want to underline that the EU-Turkey deal is already being conducted with full respect for the human rights of every person needing international protection. The Syrians received from the Aegean islands account for only 0.07% of the Syrian population in Turkey. The human rights of Syrians who have been received in Turkey as a result of this deal, or those of Syrians who have arrived in Turkey through other routes, are protected with the utmost respect. Furthermore, this agreement should be implemented with full respect on the European Union’s side.

      Regarding the report entitled, “International obligations of Council of Europe member States: to protect life at sea”, saving lives should be our top priority, while strengthening responsibility sharing to reduce the burden on the member States that are carrying out rescue operations, although the importance of developing a comprehensive migration management approach should not be lost. In this way, equitable and meaningful burden sharing with the refugee-hosting countries that feel the greatest pressure is vital. Closing borders and building more fences are not the right answers in responding to the irregular migration phenomenon we face today. We should also support the countries from which the irregular migrants are mostly coming, in order to build enough capacity to better handle migratory flows. Furthermore, we should strengthen and enrich legal migration methods in order to curb irregular migration flows.

      We must also take into consideration the Palestinian refugees who have become refugees for the second or third time because of the crisis in Syria. The recent decision by the United States to cut funding for Palestinian refugees, in the context of cutting funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, is not helping the current situation of those refugees. Two thirds of people in the Gaza area are living as refugees.

      Turkey is hosting more than 4 million refugees, which is a number almost greater than the entire population of Ireland and about a third of the population of Greece. It has been said that Turkey’s creation of safe zones in Syria is a source of conflict and that human rights have been violated. So I invite all the member States of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to create and build safe zones within their countries to take care of innocent refugees.

      Once again, I emphasise that migration is a global challenge that requires the attention of the international community as a whole. Thus, burden sharing should be our top priority.

      The PRESIDENT* – Mr Vitsas, I understand that you have to leave very shortly. If you would like a few moments to comment on the debate at this stage, the floor is yours.

      Mr VITSAS* – Thank you, sir; I will be very brief.

      We have heard some very detailed information and I would like to ask a rhetorical question; I will not look for an answer, but I would like you to think about it. In 2017, we had a 70% fall in the number of refugees coming to Europe – 50% down on the previous six months. Those are the real figures. The question is: why is the situation now the opposite, if those were the figures back then? Why, back in 2016 and 2017, did the figures go down and not up? The same governments are involved. Why are the governments in the different European countries changing their attitude to one and the same phenomenon? That is my first question.

      I have another question. I think we all agree that we need to protect refugees. We need to find an appropriate response to migration and for migrants. However, if we consider that only those who can prove that they are refugees are refugees, then we will not have an easy answer to offer in response to the problem. As you know, wars are continuing and climate phenomena continue to worsen. For instance, Lake Chad is becoming a more and more arid zone, so people who have lived around Lake Chad are obliged – they are forced – to leave their homes to come to Europe. Are they migrants or refugees? It is not easy to answer that question. However, if we say that a joint asylum system is difficult to establish and we just stop trying to establish one because it is not easy to do so, again that is completely unacceptable.

      As I said earlier, we need to manage this crisis in three different dimensions. I consider that if we establish points of control outside Europe with dissuasive effect, what we will do is to create a protected Europe, a Europe that will be full of what we do not want to see, which is extremism and so on. That is not the right solution. We need to find a compromise solution, with a basis in solidarity and shared responsibility. There must be solidarity towards these men and women, and shared responsibility. The Council of Europe has a primary part to play in this effort, with legal guarantees that human rights will be protected and by working together – co-operating – with the European Union. We must stop basing our thinking on the wrong sort of ideas.

      As you know, today immigration is the third most lucrative activity in the world; after arms trafficking and drugs trafficking, trafficking in human beings is the third most lucrative activity. We cannot simply say, “Stop selling drugs in Europe; sell them somewhere else instead.” That, in effect, is what we are saying about migration. We need to find joint solutions, logical solutions, and solutions that contain no racism or xenophobia, because that is unacceptable.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you for being with us this afternoon, Minister. We wish you a safe journey.

      The next speaker on the list is Mr Grech.

      Mr GRECH (Malta) – I congratulate the rapporteurs on their good work. I endorse the view that European collaboration has once again worked on this occasion, because MS Lifeline, which was carrying over 200 migrants from North Africa, has just docked in Malta after a stand-off lasting five days, so the situation has been settled. I highlight the fact that European collaboration – in this case sharing the burdens of migration – really does go a long way.

      Migration is not new; the phenomenon has been with us for a very long time, throughout the ages. What is different now is the methods of moving around. We must distinguish between economic and humanitarian migrants, who are often mixed up. Were it not for the fact that people migrate in search of a better life, it would be much easier to accommodate those escaping persecution or fleeing for other humanitarian reasons. The Mediterranean crossings mean that southern European States bear the brunt, and obviously there is also the danger of drowning. So something must be done, and urgently, as we have seen this afternoon.

      NGO vessels have been known to clash with Libyan vessels, which transit according to certain agreements: people trying to reach Europe tend to be taken back by the Libyan vessels, whereas the NGO vessels tend to pick up refugees close to the Libyan shore and transport them towards the States of southern Europe. Italy, for example, has borne the brunt of immigration, as 700 000 have been received there over the past four years.

      What do we have to do to find solutions? The answer is European solidarity. It is very important that European States share the burden of migration. Of course there are other aspects to consider, such as the situation in Libya and bilateral agreements between European countries and the African countries from which the migrants originate. Human traffickers, who are criminals, must also be dealt with.

      Mr TROY (Ireland) – I thank the rapporteurs for their reports. There is no denying that there has been a significant increase in the number of migrants coming to, or trying to reach, Europe. Conflict and ongoing humanitarian crises in Syria, Yemen, South Sudan and elsewhere, coupled with extreme poverty, are leading people to seek refuge and better lives elsewhere. Many make hazardous journeys, not only risking their lives in the process, but in some cases losing them. In its annual “Global Trends” report, the UNHCR, the United Nations Refugee Agency, said that at the end of 2017 some 68.5 million people had been displaced. Among them were 16.2 million people who became displaced during 2017 itself, either for the first time or repeatedly. That indicates that a huge number of people are on the move – equivalent to 44,500 people becoming displaced each day, or one every two seconds. That has consequently put the European migration system under strain, with some countries bearing the brunt.

      The many factors at play in migration undoubtedly make this a complex and challenging issue. The reality is that there is simply no remedy or solution to the crisis; what is required is a multifaceted response. My party, Fianna Fáil, believes that it is imperative that all countries take a fair and proportionate share of refugees. We believe that the Dublin system should be reformed and that Europe should examine the feasibility of developing safe alternatives for asylum seekers, including the processing of asylum applications in countries of origin or transit. The European Union also needs to continue its efforts to address the root causes of economic migration and deepen its engagement and co-operation with Africa. Initiatives such as the European Union emergency trust fund for Africa, which was established in 2015, are welcome and, if properly resourced and implemented, can have a positive impact on both regions.

      Finally, it is imperative that the European Union’s return policy arrangements with countries such as Turkey and Libya are subjected to close scrutiny. European money is being used to finance coastguards and detention camps in those countries, and we must not turn a blind eye to the conditions and the treatment of migrants and refugees in those camps. It is imperative that respect for human rights and dignity, as well as the application of internationally accepted norms and the rule of law, is extended to those beyond our shores. This statement rings especially true when one considers the inhumane and cruel attempt by the United States to introduce a policy of separating children from their parents. Such an indefensible and morally bankrupt policy should act as a catalyst for the European Union to re-examine its own migration policies and redouble its efforts to address the migration crisis in a humane and civilised manner.

      The PRESIDENT – The next speaker is Mr Mallia, but I cannot see him in the Chamber. I therefore call Ms Puppato.

      Ms PUPPATO (Italy)* – This week the Council of Europe is essentially dealing with the same topic, but from different angles. I thank all the rapporteurs, who have already spoken about the activities of NGOs, aspects of humanitarian aid and the situation in the countries neighbouring Syria.

      I think that this debate is crucial. There are two important issues at stake. First, we must continue to take a very healthy attitude to the situation. We should not close our eyes to such a difficult situation. We should not end up taking such facile approaches. It is important to look at what has been happening elsewhere in the world and the way in which human rights have been violated. We must look at the political choices that have resulted in decolonisation, at arms trafficking and at all the things that have been happening within and outside Europe.

      Secondly, we are too divided within our super-civilised Europe. I think that too little has been done, and too much attention has been paid to immediate local issues. I think that these times show us that we are suffering from such great difficulties. Perhaps too often we talk about the situation in Italy, but I want to say a few other things that are linked to migration, and something that has particularly affected Italy. I thank the Minister for what he said in this respect, because we have paid dearly for this. Thanks to my government, economic issues have come to the fore, but we have still seen €4 million paid out, and I think that the current situation shows that Italy cannot continue to respond in the way it has been. Our government – the whole situation – has changed. We have come to the limits of what we can do.

      We must have a united Europe that will share the burden of economic migration and the distribution of refugees. We have already heard that we cannot have an à la carte Europe, choosing whom we want, when or why. It is important for our respective governments to be much more aware than they have been so far. The consequences affect us all.

      Mr AMORUSO (Italy)* – We are on the eve of an important meeting of the European Union Council of Ministers in Brussels during which the issue of migration will be on the agenda, and there is no point in denying that it will destabilise Europe considerably. The Council of Europe is considering adoption of a resolution and is discussing an urgent debate in which, unfortunately, an accusing finger has been pointed in Italy’s direction. For years, however, Italy has been abandoned and left to its own devices. There is no point in quoting the figures, which you have heard already, but Italy has been left alone to grapple with the humanitarian and economic issues. The situation is not only urgent but chronically urgent, in spite of what some would have us believe, quoting United Nations figures.

      What have other countries done? They have closed their ports and frontiers, they have pushed migrants back, they have not respected their quotas, and they have violated human rights in the heart of Europe. Think of what happened at Bardonecchia – the seriously ill pregnant wife of a refugee was abandoned, in fact thrown from a police car, at the station at midnight by the French police. That is a fact – such events are facts and have occurred in recent years – and yet people point an accusing finger at Italy because it says the problem of migration is a problem for us all, a problem that we need to share. Italy has never expelled refugees.

      As discussed already, we need to make a distinction between refugees and those who are migrants out of economic necessity. I do not want fuel any controversy, but I will mention a metaphor referred to by rapporteur Ms De Sutter. She talked about an ambulance being called in an emergency. In the Mediterranean, however, we are confronted by a manufactured situation – the driver of the ambulance is in cahoots with those who created the accident so that they might speculate at the expense of those suffering the drama and tragedy of migration.

      We need to fight crime, the business that migration has become, and we need to fight illegal migration flows. We need to do so more forcefully in the reports presented today. We, in the Italian delegation, have tabled some amendments, but they were rejected, and we are unhappy about that. Speaking in a personal capacity, whether amended or not, I shall now be voting against the report.

      Mr MAIRE (France)* - I thank our rapporteurs for their reports, which are fully in tune with the information we have had and make one of the principal points to be dealt with at our next meeting, which is that the right of asylum is under threat. That right is threatened because some countries are refusing people if an applicant is from North Africa or is an Arab, which is direct racism, while other countries support the NGO boats but refuse to accept them in their ports. We need reform, and we need it to be legal, European and in tune with our international commitments.

      Among the possible solutions is the extra-territorial processing of asylum claims or people being sent to a safe country, and I would say that that does not put a question mark over the right to asylum. The closer the asylum seeker is to Europe, the easier it is, but there have to be conditions – we have to ensure that the right to asylum is applicable in the African territory as well. Niger and Chad have hotspots too, because of the difficulty in Libya, with people being held against their will. People helped in those places have all the guarantees, but everything then depends on the possibility of being reallocated to host countries. France has offered 3 000 places, and some other countries made an effort too – Canada or Switzerland – but the system only functions if everyone participates. We are far from being there.

      The African partners are important, too. Those countries have to deal not only with the human dramas but with their frontiers. That is part of the problem, and the consequences are difficult for the local populations – in particular the people living in the midst of all this. We need places for people, and the host countries and the International Organisation for Migration carry an extra burden. The rapporteurs point out how important all that is, so we need accessible hotspots, and we need to help the local communities that host them.

      Mr AMRAOUI (Morocco, Partner for Democracy)* – Over the past few years, Morocco has gone from being a country of origin of migration to being a host or transit country. The number of clandestine migrants from sub-Saharan Africa is growing and, because of the globalisation of migrant flows, their management has become a challenge. Whatever their level of development, immigration affects all host and transit countries. We cannot look at this just from the security perspective, as a threat to the northern countries; African countries need to tackle the issue too. More than seven out of 10 Africans try to move to another country in Africa, so Africa has development challenges, but in Morocco we share a lot of the fate of Europe, because we definitely suffer the consequences of migration into and through our country.

      Morocco has a generous hosting policy, we conduct regular education, training and employment programmes, and we are a model transit and host country, being designated as such by the United Nations. Morocco requires a vast amount of resources for surveillance equipment and its reception centres, including the ones at Ceuta and Melilla in particular. In fact, there is great co-operation between Morocco and Spain, and Morocco is no longer the leading point of entry to Europe from North Africa.

      We also show solidarity to the countries from which migration originates. More and more groups of Syrian refugees in precarious situations are being taken in by Morocco, which the UNHCR said was very humanitarian. Morocco is also designated leader in the African Union for migration issues and, at a forthcoming summit, we will propose an African agenda for migration. The European Union and the African Union are two regional bodies that need to get together on that.

      In recognition of Morocco’s efforts, the United Nations General Assembly said that it should host the forthcoming international conference on migration in which the global compact on orderly migration is to be adopted. That will go hand in hand with the Global Forum on Migration and Development, which is being chaired by Germany and Morocco, and will take place in Marrakesh before the conference. That United Nations conference will be the biggest ever conference on migration, and the declarations adopted there will form the first United Nations document ever passed on migration as a whole.

      Mr OVERBEEK (Netherlands) – I congratulate the rapporteurs on their three timely reports. They deal with an unfortunate trend, which in all likelihood will be confirmed at the European Union summit at the end of the week: the outsourcing of the European asylum process.

      The first report deals with the extra-territorial processing of asylum claims and the creation of safe refugee shelters abroad. I commend the rapporteur, Mr Hajduković, for his detailed overview of the situation in the member States of the Council of Europe. However, I am quite critical of his conclusions. We have tabled a number of amendments to try to correct some of the problems with the draft resolution, but its starting point nevertheless remains problematic. It uses notions such as “safe country”, “safe third country” and “country of first arrival”, which are not properly defined. That threatens to undermine the protection of refugees in accordance with international legal norms.

      The report speaks positively of various forms of extra-territorial processing of asylum claims but completely ignores the fact that European Union member States in particular do not properly support existing mechanisms. Those States are seriously deficient in their obligations towards the UNHCR, in the sense that they both underfund it and refuse to take their fair share in its resettlement efforts. As we heard from several speakers, those States have for years cynically ignored the mounting problems in Greece and Italy, yet they now propose to impose sanctions on fellow European Union member States that refuse to participate in the European Union’s own relocation scheme. Given that, there is no reason to expect European Union member States to honour their obligations under any newly established scheme.

      The second report, which deals with the human rights impact of the external dimension of the European Union’s asylum and migration policy, is generally strong, and I support it without reservation. However, it has its limitations. First, it does not call for a fundamental overhaul of existing externalisation practices. Instead, it chooses to impress on member States that, even when they engage in those practices, they are bound by a range of international legal instruments. That is all very well, but we must be somewhat sceptical of the idea that member State governments will always accord the highest priority to those legal obligations.

      Secondly, in spite of the report’s title, it really deals only with asylum policies and has little to say about migration policies. That reflects the fact that the European Union has an elaborate system of asylum policies but no serious immigration policy to speak of, but it is nevertheless a limitation of the report that it does not address those issues more clearly.

      The third report deals with the acute crisis unfolding in –

      The PRESIDENT – I am sorry; I must interrupt you. We are trying to run to time and we are already running over. I call Mr Kleinwaechter.

      Mr KLEINWAECHTER (Germany) – A previous speaker drew a distinction between migrants and refugees. We have to take that very seriously. As has been mentioned, a lot of the migrants who come to Europe are not refugees but people seeking economic betterment. Even those who claim to be refugees are not necessarily refugees according to the Geneva Convention, which defines a refugee as someone who fears “being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion”.

      According to Article 31 of the convention, refugees have the right to cross a border only once before reporting to the authorities. Article 31(1) states: “The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.” We have people coming to Europe who do not conform to those standards and who are not refugees according to the definition in the Geneva Convention. I simply remind you to keep that in mind, please.

      That brings me to the three reports and the urgent debate about saving lives at sea. Yes, it is a shame that thousands of people have drowned in the Mediterranean because human traffickers promised them a better life in Europe, and that others rely on helpers from NGOs picking them up and bringing them to Europe. That is wrong. It is our duty as member States to adhere to the standards that we signed up to in the Geneva Convention. That means that, although the helper ships should of course save people’s lives, they should then take them back to Libya, where we should indeed have extra-territorial processing of asylum claims with respect to human rights.

      We would do a lot for the lives of those people – we would really raise humanitarian standards – if we focused our attention on creating safe welcome zones for refugees in Africa, in countries neighbouring the ones that people are fleeing. We could examine people in those zones and maintain the highest standards there, and perhaps make offers to those who were very qualified to join us in Europe. We cannot leave the situation as it is. We cannot invite the world to Europe.

      The PRESIDENT – As Ms Alheisah is not here, I call Ms Kavvadia, who will have to be the final speaker.

      Ms KAVVADIA (Greece) – Colleagues, once again we are debating the litmus test of our common European values, our humanity and our legal culture – the issue of migratory flows into Europe. We have spoken several times about Europe’s failure to live up to her responsibilities on this matter. The reports paint a rather bleak picture of where we stand.

      It is unfortunate to say that Europe faces a refugee migrant crisis. The word “crisis” means something extraordinary and temporary that can be addressed by emergency measures. What Europe faces is a population movement of a scale that is unprecedented since the end of the Second World War. The idea that the problem will be solved by deterring or restricting refugees and migrants in so-called first-line countries, or even with extra-territorial facilities and procedures such as those we are discussing, is therefore a dangerous delusion.

      The refugee migratory phenomenon will not disappear. It is here to stay, and it will be the main European challenge for years to come. The most outrageous thing in all this is that Europe could easily have made a different choice. Europe could organise a permanent search and rescue operation in the Mediterranean to prevent loss of life, which is the legal obligation of all European States under international law. Europe could create legitimate and safe outlets for asylum seekers so that they do not turn to traffickers and do not put their lives at risk at sea. Europe could easily meet those people’s immediate humanitarian needs, or even absorb the bulk of refugee flows in the long run, if they were allocated among all member States in a balanced way instead of restricted to first-response countries or kept outside Europe and outside Europeans’ field of vision. Europe has already moved to the next stage of hypocrisy: if the problem is not visible, it does not exist.

      We heard from the Greek Minister for Migration Policy, Dimitrios Vitsas, who is a former member of this Assembly. Since 2015, Greece, a country that already faces enormous economic difficulties, has had to shoulder the enormous burden of being one of the front-line European States. We are proud of the fact that we managed to fulfil what we consider to be our humanitarian duty, but we can no longer accept being left alone. Nor can we accept the suggestion that European solidarity will be limited to kind words and money. What Europe needs, and what we demand from our European partners, is a comprehensive European approach to the issue on the basis of international law, solidarity among European States and respect for human rights and humanity. Nothing less will do.

      The PRESIDENT – I am faced with a very difficult position. We have three people on the speakers’ list, one of whom came in very late to the debate. I do not like curtailing debate, so I am going to ask the rapporteurs if they will exercise a self-denying ordinance and be as brief as possible.

      Next I call Ms Dumery, who has, I know, been here for the entire debate.

      Ms DUMERY (Belgium) – This debate brings us to the core business of the Council of Europe: human rights, particularly those of migrants and refugees at the borders of the European Union. The crossing venture of refugees and migrants is extremely risky, but anyone who succeeds receives an entry ticket to European prosperity. That is why the so-called suction effect remains. The processing of asylum claims abroad is therefore a very important development in this report. It will save lives, and it will give the applicants a clear view of their chances of gaining access to the European Union.

      According to new statistics published by the UNHCR on 19 June, almost 70 million people worldwide are on the run. If even a fraction of them move to the North African sea border and attempt to reach Europe, the asylum crisis will return to us with great intensity. The Turkey-Greece migration flow has been largely halted by the European Union-Turkey deal, which still stands two years later. That is an important precedent, from which we must draw lessons. A similar and improved model could be applied if adjustments were made for all who migrate by boat across the Mediterranean Sea. The report that we are debating describes what those adjustments might be.

      We do not want to leave people to their fate, but we want to make it very clear that there are solutions other than just offering reception and accommodation within the European Union. Therefore, we also need to offer asylum procedures at the outside borders and take our responsibility for resettling refugees. It must be clear in our communication and policy that illegally crossing the border to gain access to European territory is not an option. That is the only way to break the model of terrible human smuggling.

      Ms ANAGNOSTOPOULOU (Greece)* – We are witnessing one of the greatest population movements since the last world war. This is not a passing thing; it is an immense problem that will last a long time. To deal with the new reality, the European Union needs a strategy that is in line with international and European law on human rights. Instead, as we see in the first report, attempts are being made to establish safe zones that will keep migrants, who are seen as a threat to European values, at a great distance from Europe – despite the fact that we in Europe did a great deal to create the current situation. The first report details proposals to deal with asylum requests outside Europe. Doing so would create a sort of camp for large numbers of these people far beyond the borders of Europe, where Europeans will not have to see them or think about them. It is an attempt to hold the problem at arm’s length, because it is seen as a threat. The adoption of these proposals will lead to the violation of human rights and the values that underpin the European Union. It is crucial that we speak as one on this matter and show migrants and refugees that there is a safe way for them to reach Europe. They need the right to asylum in all European countries.

      Mr CAZEAU (France)* – The sight of the Aquarius sailing around the Mediterranean in search of a port that would accept it brought home to us the awful situation of migrants today. The extra-territorial processing of asylum claims is designed to eliminate the obligation to be physically present on European soil in order to file an asylum claim, and to remove the need for migrants to make the dangerous and expensive journey across the Mediterranean to get to Europe. It is suggested that such a joint European Union initiative would enable us to make better use of our expertise, personnel and infrastructure; harmonise systems within the European Union for determining refugee status; and allow for a balanced dispersal of refugees among the member States that will accept them.

      Such a system would create problems of its own. We are far from achieving the goals laid down in the agreement of 18 March for the resettlement of refugees who cross into the European Union from Turkey. The fact that most of those who have been resettled are in Germany and the Netherlands demonstrates the lack of solidarity in the European Union. Bilateral agreements between European Union countries and others – including Spain and Morocco, Poland and Ukraine, and Hungary and Serbia – are motivated by a desire not to let the migrants in. Many of them involve a promise to send migrants back across the border, which is in violation of the principle of non-refoulement.

      Migrants in transit countries are often held in conditions that do not meet the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights, and transit countries often lack asylum expertise and the infrastructure needed to host such large numbers of people. I fear that rather than stemming from an awareness of migrants’ rights, proposals for extraterritorial processing of asylum claims may represent an attempt to limit the current migratory stress on certain European countries. The solution will require the commitment of all member States of the European Union that intend to use the system. They must make sure that migrants are hosted in decent conditions and that transit countries respect people’s rights, including the right to asylum.

      The PRESIDENT – That concludes the list of speakers.

      I would like to make the point that whoever is sitting in the chair always seeks to accommodate as many speakers as possible. The courtesy and the understanding is that members who wish to speak actually hear the debate; they do not normally walk in halfway through and then expect to be called. If there are any members who were on the speakers list who have not been able to speak, although I do not think that is the case, then speeches may be given to the Table Office for publication in the Official Report. Those texts would have to be submitted in typescript, electronically if possible, no later than four hours after the list of speakers was interrupted.

      Mr Hajduković, do you wish to reply? You have eight minutes remaining.

      Mr HAJDUKOVIĆ (Croatia) – Thank you, Mr President. I thank all colleagues for this constructive debate, especially my learned colleague from the United Kingdom, Mr Coaker, who spoke so eloquently about this issue. I cannot be so eloquent in English because for me it is a foreign language, but he put it very nicely.

      This report cannot solve all the problems. It certainly cannot solve the problem of a lack of European solidarity. What it can do is save a few lives. I must reiterate, because certain colleagues have mentioned it in this debate, that the objective of the report is not to promote extra-territorial asylum processes; those practices already exist. Our goal is to ensure that those member countries that are practising extra-territorial asylum claims give all the necessary protection to the claimants in order to protect them, their human rights and their human dignity.

      I agree that the report and the existence of extra-territorial asylum processing cannot be a pretext for shifting responsibility to third countries. I draw colleagues’ attention to the fourth paragraph of the draft resolution, which says that the Assembly, “emphasises that this fundamental obligation cannot be derogated from on the grounds that a third country provides for the possibility of processing asylum claims extra-territorially in that country of first arrival. Refugees must not be denied their right to asylum in any country because another country is allowing extra-territorial asylum applications”.

      As has been mentioned, 30,000 people died in the Mediterranean, many of them young children. Alternatives must be provided; if there had been alternatives earlier, some people might still have been alive. What if Raoul Wallenberg had said in 1944 to Jews who sought the protection of the Swedish embassy, “No, that’s not in accordance with our practice; I cannot give you asylum, a passport or a guarantee of safe conduct”? How many more people would be dead? But that courageous Swedish diplomat did what he did and entered history. Today we are also entering history because first and foremost we are trying to protect these people. I will sleep easy if this report, this pile of papers, saves or helps to save a single life. Then we will have saved the world in time. I implore you, colleagues, not for me, not for the rapporteur, but for those people who are daily risking their lives, to support this draft resolution.

      As my colleague mentioned, I intend to monitor the effects of the resolution and inform the committee and this august body of what they are. If there are some corrections that need to be made, I will of course be happy to go through them with you and share my reservations if I have any. I intend to bring this forward to the European Parliament, which must be informed of the new standards that we are trying to set for the protection of refugees.

      I thank the UNCHR, the IOM, the European Commission and all the national parliaments that have co-operated with me on this work in the secretariat for their correspondence. Thanks also go to the secretariat, who have tirelessly worked with me on this very sensitive issue.

      Lastly, I call upon colleagues’ consciences. Support this report, and we may save lives – and if we save a single life, we have saved the world.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. Ms Strik, do you wish to respond? You have six minutes remaining.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – I too thank all members for their constructive contributions, and for the good dialogue that we have had. I have heard the words “human rights” many times so I know that members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe think that these are the most important thing that we should guarantee to immigrants and refugees.

      Some people have said that we should not mention refugees and economic migrants in the same context because they are in different situations. Let me be clear: refugees do not have any legal means for travelling. They do not have any visas, and there are carrier sanctions so that they will not be taken on board a regular ship or aeroplane, so they are forced to travel irregularly if they do not have a place of safety where they are. This means that naturally they get mixed up with other irregular migrants, so you cannot distinguish irregular migrants from refugees before you have assessed their need for protection in safe circumstances and with procedural safeguards. As long as that has not been assessed, there is a need to treat all those migrants as refugees.

      I thank the minister from the Greek delegation for his marvellous speech and for his call for support for refugees. I found his speech really moving, especially when we know how hard the difficulties are that Greece is facing. The same goes for Italy. Greece and Italy face the biggest difficulties of any European States. I must say that I feel quite ashamed on behalf of all the other member States that have failed to give support in respect of Greece’s and Italy’s needs and have failed to show solidarity and mutual support. This is the same situation that we see reflected at a global level. More than 90% of the refugees are staying in that region but they have not received the support that they need from the rich Western world, through financial means but also resettlement. That means that those regions are become more fragile and that the refugees themselves more vulnerable.

      Ms Christoffersen rightly points to the situation whereby 13 000 migrants are being dumped in the desert by Algeria. Crossing the sea in such a dangerous way is also a symptom that no safe routes are available and that these refugees are left alone. We should not react by saying, “Let’s save their lives by pulling them back into inhuman situations such as the detention centres in Libya.” We should keep them away from dangerous situations and offer them protection. Sometimes, if they are not in need of protection, that may even mean sending them to their country of origin if that is safe, rather than dumping them in transit countries where they do not have any guarantees at all.

      I understand the Italian position very well, and I call for more support in my resolution. I do not point the finger at Italy but I have to say that Libya is no alternative. That is the whole point. It is the same with Turkey, which we also need to support more. I do not want to point the finger at Turkey, but if we put pressure on a few States, then we will reach a situation where the refugees are the victims. There is therefore a call for more solidarity and methods that are in line with human rights. More solidarity within the European Union, as well as at the global level, is the only way, as the Greek minister rightly said. We need sustainable solutions such as fair trade and real partnerships with third countries. Mr Overbeek was right that we should be more comprehensive than what is written in the report. This will of course not be the last report so I invite Mr Overbeek to come up with a report and go a bit further, beyond the limitations that I had in mine.

      My last point is that our foreign policies and all our actions should go hand in hand with human rights. We lose our credibility and authority if that is not the case. The European Court of Human Rights has already made it clear that there is a legal responsibility if we have physical control over migrants and we are not allowed to send them back to unsafe situations. But do you really think that if we no longer have physical control but instead trade and make deals, we will have the same responsibility for human rights violations? We should be careful about that, and bear it in mind. New case law will come through the European Court of Human Rights, with the new complaints that have been submitted, but let us not wait for new judgments; let us take our own responsibility and act in accordance with the recommendations in the report.

      I thank members for their contributions and for their voting acts to come. I also thank Ms De Sutter for her support for the report.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Strik. Ms De Sutter, do you wish to respond? You have four and a half minutes.

      Ms De SUTTER (Belgium) – If you will allow me, Mr President, I will make three points as a consequence of the debate. I thank everybody for their very constructive remarks.

      First, I will address Mr Amoruso. You were angry, and you are perfectly right to be angry, because I am angry myself. The thing is, who are we angry with? You said that Italy is being pointed at. Yes, the Aquarius was refused entry by Italy and we mentioned that in the report, but I was clear in my introductory remarks about why Italy did that. It is not Italy’s fault; it is the fault of the whole European Union, which has shown no solidarity in the whole issue, leaving Italy alone for far too long. Italy has a tradition of accepting refugees: we know all about Lampedusa, and the tradition actually started after the Second World War. In addition, we know what the European Union has been doing with Greece, also leaving it alone. We cannot ignore Europe’s collective responsibility. That makes me angry as well. I hope that tomorrow and the day after the European Union ministers or heads of State will convene on the matter and try to find solutions that show solidarity and move towards a collective asylum policy that upholds our human rights values.

      So I share your anger, Mr Amoruso, but we are perhaps angry about different things. You said that we cannot accept the ambulance comparison I made because it is the smugglers who are doing the driving. That is an important point and it came up earlier today with the Lifeline, which has now been accepted in Malta. However, Malta will start legal proceedings against the ship, which will be impounded, as the German Interior Minister has requested. He will also have the crew questioned. This is a grey area. It is a very difficult thing. These people are trying to save lives, and for them this is the most important thing to do. We have maritime law and refugee legislation that are not in line. One of the points in my report is that we look at that and try to harmonise legislation so that we do not have to have a discussion about somebody who saves a life being a criminal. That is unacceptable. The matter has to be solved and with some goodwill it can be. That is definitely one of the points I would like to make.

      Somebody also said that migration threatens the European Union project, and I want to respond to that because I immediately thought, “I’m afraid I don’t follow this reasoning.” It is of course not migration that is threatening the European Union project; it is the anti-migration narratives that come up that will lead to its disintegration if we cannot reverse their evolution, so I really do not agree with that statement.

      Finally, I want to say that, in this whole debate, I have heard from people who represent countries that are worried, people who want to preserve values, people who are angry, and people who feel they have been left alone. I have heard many similar views on the problem that needs to be solved. Also, the human rights standards that we represent here need to be upheld. We need to find a solution in which there is no conflict between the human rights standards we want and the solutions we need to find. We need to reconcile those things and I am very hopeful that we can. Again, I hope that the European Union ministers will start that off tomorrow.

      I ask for the whole Assembly’s support not only for my report but for the two others. I think you have understood how complementary they are and that they are a serious and important step towards a more humane solution to the refugee crisis we are living through.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. Does the chairperson of the committee wish to respond? You have three minutes.

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – We have been debating three important reports in the presence of the Greek Minister of Immigration Policy. His contribution was very precious, and I think it will have an impact on our final decisions in recommending the reports today.

      Although we have discussed the reports together, they are very distinct and we should not mix them up. The discussion of refugee issues and migration policies requires that we look closely and calmly at each subject and try to find viable approaches. I was therefore sad to hear that the members of the Group of the Unified European Left announced in my committee today that they would vote as a bloc against Mr Hajduković’s report because several of the amendments did not find a majority in the committee. In Europe, we as politicians should try to work towards common solutions to the pressing challenges that affect all Europeans. A policy of “non” or “niet” is not sufficient in the face of the human tragedy that so many refugees are experiencing. The people of our countries expect us to find solutions and not that we veto attempts to progress. Earlier, we heard from my own political group that it wishes the vote to return the three reports to the committee. We need to continue to find solutions other than that of returning reports to committees.

      On behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, I thank the three rapporteurs and the rapporteur for opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. I recommend that the Assembly adopt all three reports.

      The PRESIDENT – The debate is closed.

      I have had an indication, although not a formal one, that there is a wish to refer all the reports back. If that is so, I would like to take it formally now because I do not propose to waste a lot of the Assembly’s time going through amendments to have them knocked back. If anyone wishes to move formally and has the support to do so, please say so now or forever hold your peace, as the expression goes. Thank you. I will take the silence as a no, meaning that we can now proceed, in the knowledge that there will not be a call for the reports to be referred back.

      The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons has presented a draft resolution to which 17 amendments have been tabled and a draft recommendation to which one amendment has been tabled.

      We will consider first the amendments to the draft resolution. I understand that the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly than Amendments 6, 3 and 7 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, be declared as agreed by the Assembly. Is that so?

      As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 6, 3 and 7 to the draft resolution have been adopted.

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

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – It is important that we do not stick to the text as drafted, because if we want an effective, authoritative resolution, it should be beyond doubt that the information is correct. The paragraph currently says that an international law obliges asylum seekers to ask for asylum in the first country of arrival, but that is not the case. I asked the UNHCR and legal exports for clarity, but they all said that there is no such legal obligation in international law, so I ask the Assembly to support the amendment to ensure that the relevant paragraph is correct. I also ask the Assembly to support Amendment 1, which makes the paragraph a little better.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 5 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 1, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4, replace the words: “should apply for refugee status in the first safe country of arrival” with the following words: “may be expected to apply for refugee status in the first safe country of arrival, provided that country can guarantee effective protection in accordance with international standards”.

      I call Ms Ævarsdóttir to support the amendment.

      Ms ÆVARSDÓTTIR (Iceland) – The rejection of an asylum application and the removal of the applicant to a third country on procedural grounds is inherently risky. Now, although the current text uses the adjective “safe”, it would be strengthened by clarifying what that means, with greater emphasis on the essential conditions and safeguards.

      The PRESIDENT – I have been informed that Mr Hajduković wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, which is, in Amendment 1, to replace “may” with “should”.

      In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? Fewer than 10 members object, so I call Mr Hajduković to support his oral sub-amendment.

      Mr HAJDUKOVIĆ (Croatia) – I am in favour of Amendment 1, but I propose to change “may” to “should” because “may” is not strong enough and “should” places much more emphasis in the proposed text.

      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 main amendment?

      Ms ÆVARSDÓTTIR (Iceland) – I do not object to the oral sub-amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour, so I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote. The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      We will now consider the main amendment, as amended. Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – The committee is favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 2, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6, to replace the words: “Referring to the Guidelines on human rights protection in the context of accelerated asylum procedures adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 1 July 2009, the Assembly recalls that” with the following words: “The Assembly recalls that under international law, including relevant provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Nations 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, and customary international law,”.

      I call Ms Ævarsdóttir to support Amendment 2 on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

      Ms ÆVARSDÓTTIR (Iceland) – It is the opinion of the committee that it would be more accurate for the requirement in the relevant paragraph to be based on the specific, binding provisions of international treaty and customary law, rather than on the Committee of Ministers’ guidelines, which are non-binding.

      The PRESIDENT – I have been informed that Mr Hajduković wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, which would change Amendment 2 in the following way: “In the draft resolution, paragraph 6, after the words “recalls that” insert “under international law, including relevant provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Nations 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, and customary international law,”.

      In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? Fewer than 10 members object, so I call Mr Hajduković to support his oral sub-amendment.

      Mr HAJDUKOVIĆ (Croatia) – The European Convention on Human Rights and the 1951 Convention are important, but we should also refer to the relevant guidelines of our Committee of Ministers and cite the relevant articles of international conventions. I therefore suggest that we merge both what has been suggested by the committee and what was in the original draft.

      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 main amendment?

      Ms ÆVARSDÓTTIR (Iceland) – I would request some clarification. Is the intention to replace or to merge?

      Mr HAJDUKOVIĆ (Croatia) – To merge.

      Ms ÆVARSDÓTTIR (Iceland) – Then I do not object.

      The PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour, so I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      We will now consider the main amendment, as amended. Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – The committee is in favour.

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

      The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 8. Is Mr Hunko here or does another representative want to support the amendment? That is not the case. Amendment 8 is not moved.

      We come to Amendment 9. I call Mr Overbeek to support the amendment.

      Mr OVERBEEK (Netherlands) – First, there is no need to demand quotas. If we did, we would force refugees above the quota into the hands of smugglers and on to life-threatening routes. Secondly, making the presentation of identity documents a criterion is a complex issue that cannot be solved as easily as proposed in the paragraph. Member States have established criteria and can be trusted to settle that question in a balanced manner.

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

      Mr HAJDUKOVIĆ (Croatia) – We have a choice here between being realistic or idealistic. In this case, I choose idealism. For example, France has accepted 3 000 refugees from the Lake Chad region as an important humanitarian gesture, but I am sure that President Macron would not have done that without a limit of 3 000 people. Imagine 100 000 people flooding to the French embassy when France announced that it would accept some migrants.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the view of the committee?

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – The committee is against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 9 is rejected.

      Does anyone wish to move Amendments 10, 11 and 12? That is not the case.

      I call Mr Overbeek to support Amendment 13.

      Mr OVERBEEK (Netherlands) – We can only speak of information when it is in a language that the affected person can understand. Therefore we wish to insert the words, “in a language that they understand.”

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Mr Psychogios to support Amendment 14.

      Mr PSYCHOGIOS (Greece) – We wish to change the wording, and instead of “ensure that rejected asylum seekers have”, insert the following words, “access to a complaint mechanism and”. Therefore, as well as the legal procedure for asylum seekers, if people have problems in the camps, there will be a full complaint mechanism so that they can address those problems.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Mr Overbeek to support Amendment 15.

      Mr OVERBEEK (Netherlands) – We feel strongly that paragraph 11 should be deleted. There may be some examples of successful protective zones having been established, but the overall record, including in Srebrenica and Rwanda, is terrible and does not call for continuation. To include NATO as a protective agency is pushing discretion to the limit, taking into account that NATO destroyed the functioning government in Libya, which is now the cause of so many problems.

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

      Mr HAJDUKOVIĆ (Croatia) – I spoke about the safe zone in Kosovo as one of the examples that saved lives, and I reiterate that, if we can save a single life, we have done a good thing. Yes, some safe zones have bad records, but we talk only about the bad things and tend to ignore those that have actually saved lives. As I said, people are being forced to leave behind their home, family and friends – some people will die for that, and we should not forget that. I am against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 15 is rejected.

      I call Mr Psychogios to support Amendment 16.

      Mr PSYCHOGIOS (Greece) – Given that Amendment 1 has not been accepted, we propose in paragraph 11 to delete the words, “in countries affected by violence or conflict or”.

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

      Mr HAJDUKOVIĆ (Croatia) – The point is that we need safe zones precisely in countries where there is conflict. If they are outside the country, it is not a safe zone; it is a refugee camp.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 16 is rejected.

      I call Mr Overbeek to support Amendment 17, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13, replace the words: “pursue similar action in Libya” with the following words: “support these programmes”.

      Mr OVERBEEK (Netherlands) – We support the amendment because such programmes should be in the hands of international experts, much like foreign development aid. It is not practical when every State opens up its own project, as that leads to inefficiency and chaos on the ground.

      The PRESIDENT – I have been informed that Mr Hajduković wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, as follows: in Amendment 17 replace the words “support these programmes” with “support similar programmes”.

      In my opinion the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

      Fewer than 10 members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated, so I call Mr Hajduković to support his oral sub-amendment.

      Mr HAJDUKOVIĆ (Croatia) – I agree with the amendment, but I think that inserting the word “similar” would give more clarity to what it seeks to achieve.

      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 main amendment? I call Ms Ævarsdóttir.

      Ms ÆVARSDÓTTIR (Iceland) – In favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour. I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      We will now consider the main amendment, as amended.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – I will now put the amendment, as amended, to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      I call Ms Ævarsdóttir to support Amendment 4, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

      Ms ÆVARSDÓTTIR (Iceland) – The amendment is a factual correction of the report, since the International Organisation for Migration does not play a role in the registration or status determination of refugees, as the report currently suggests. The IOM’s sphere of activity is different. Since 2016, it has been part of the United Nations organisation, and it should therefore not be encouraged to duplicate work already done by another United Nations organ, the UNHCR, which was created for that purpose.

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

      Mr HAJDUKOVIĆ (Croatia) – This is the only amendment from the committee that I could not accept. It is not up to us to favour one United Nations agency over another. The United Nations family will ensure that there is no duplication or overlapping of activities, and I think we should leave it up to them.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – The committee is against.

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

      The vote is open.

      Amendment 4 is rejected.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 14571, as amended. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      We now come to the consideration of the draft recommendation, to which one amendment has been tabled.

      I call Mr Psychogios to support Amendment 18.

      Mr PSYCHOGIOS (Greece) – In paragraph 1 of the draft recommendation, after the words “by setting”, we propose to insert the words, “human rights based”, because we think that the Assembly should point out that the question is not of common standards, but of minimum standards conforming with the European Convention on Human Rights.

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

      What is the view of the committee?

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 14571, as amended. A two-thirds majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons has presented a draft resolution to which 11 amendments have been tabled and a draft recommendation to which no amendments have been tabled.

      I understand that the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that amendments 7 and 11 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11.

      Is that so?

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – Yes.

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

      Amendments 7 and 11 are adopted.

      We come to Amendment 9. I call Mr Corsini to support the amendment.

      Mr CORSINI (Italy)* – I do not want to reiterate the reasons that my Italian colleagues have just set out, but the substance of the amendment is to force member States to support the changes to the Dublin regulation. Member States of the European Union should be competent when it comes to examining changes to national legislation. The criteria drawn up by the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs in July 2017 set out the conditions under which member States, which are signed up to the Geneva Convention, should live up to their responsibilities to welcome and host refugees in Europe, in line with Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – that is to say, in full respect of the principles of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibilities between member States when it comes to refugees.

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

      What is the view of the committee?

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I have received an oral amendment from Ms Strik, which reads as follows: “In the draft resolution, paragraph 10.1, at start insert the words ‘While acknowledging the Turkish efforts,’”.

      In my opinion the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.7.a. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated? That is not the case.

      I call Ms Strik to support the oral amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – I support the amendment because we need to underline that Turkey is making great efforts to ensure that there are all these safeguards. However, we must call on it not only to make efforts, but to ensure that the safeguards are there in practice.

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

      The committee is obviously in favour.

      The vote is open.

      The oral amendment is adopted.

      I understand that Mr Kiliç wishes to withdraw Amendment 1. Does anyone else wish to move it? That is not the case.

      Amendment 1 is withdrawn.

      I have received an oral amendment from Ms Strik, which reads as follows: “In the draft resolution, paragraph 10.2, at start insert the words ‘While acknowledging the Turkish efforts,’”.

      In my opinion the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.7.a. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated? That is not the case.

      I call Ms Strik to support the oral amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – The reasoning is the same as for my last oral amendment.

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

      The committee is obviously in favour.

      The vote is open.

      The oral amendment is adopted.

      I understand that Mr Kiliç wishes to withdraw Amendment 2. Does anyone else wish to move it? That is note the case.

      Amendment 2 is withdrawn.

      We come to Amendment 3. I call Ms Yaşar to support the amendment.

      Ms YAŞAR (Turkey)* – Turkey is pursuing an open-door policy and has done so since the beginning of the Syrian crisis. The fact that there are already about 3.5 million Syrians in Turkey means that it is pursuing an open-door policy.

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

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – Adding the words “continue to” would contradict the reality that the borders are closed and that only Syrians in life-threatening situations are admitted to Turkish territory. Adding “continue to” would give the impression that Turkey is already giving access to all refugees, which is not the case.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the view of the committee?

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 3 is rejected.

      I have received an oral amendment from Ms Strik, which reads as follows: “In the draft resolution, paragraph 10.5, at start insert the words ‘While acknowledging the Turkish efforts,’”.

      In my opinion the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.7.a. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated? That is not the case.

      I call Ms Strik to support the oral amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – It is the same argument that I used before.

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

      The committee is obviously in favour.

      The vote is open.

      The oral amendment is adopted.

      I understand that Mr Kiliç wishes to withdraw Amendment 4. Does anyone else wish to move it? That is not the case.

      Amendment 4 is withdrawn.

      The PRESIDENT – I understand that Amendment 6 will be withdrawn, but I am told there is an oral sub-amendment, but we do not have a manuscript of it – or at least I do not. Apparently we do.

      If you would like to read and quickly outline your amendment, which is oral, I will then have to consult the committee and we will see whether we can accept it.

      I call Ms Gambaro to speak to the oral sub-amendment.

      Ms GAMBARO (Italy) – In our oral sub-amendment, we ask that the Italian efforts in this last year on migration are recognised. So we kindly ask the rapporteur to accept this oral sub-amendment, as you have done with Turkey.

      The PRESIDENT – I cannot pretend that this is wildly satisfactory, but I will endeavour to do your job for you. What this effectively does is to preface the statement in the report in paragraph 11 with “acknowledging Italian efforts”. Bearing that in mind, the committee clearly has not been consulted, so I have to ask whether the committee wishes to accept this.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – We have not taken any position on this oral sub-amendment. It is only for the Assembly to decide.

      The PRESIDENT – It is not up to the Assembly to decide; it is up to the chair to decide whether to accept the oral sub-amendment or not. I am afraid I am not going to accept it.

      Actually, a colleague tells me, quite correctly, that given I am not accepting the oral sub-amendment, if you wish to move Amendment 6 rather than withdraw it, Ms Gambaro, then you may do so.

      Ms GAMBARO (Italy) – I support Amendment 6, as long as a sentence is inserted to ensure that the Italian effort is recognised, acknowledging it in paragraph 11 – I think. We would like the phrase “Acknowledging Italian effort” to be inserted into the draft resolution, please.

      The PRESIDENT – I am sorry, but that is not actually what Amendment 6 says. Amendment 6 is as written in the documents before us.

      I am taking that as an attempt to move Amendment 6.

      Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – Amendment 6 would replace the words “Government of Italy” with “European States”. The resolution already has a lot of recommendations for all European States. This is specifically targeted at Italy, because of its bilateral co-operation with the Libyan coastguard, and therefore it would not be logical to change the wording to “European States”, although I acknowledge that European States are also supporting this bilateral co-operation.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the view of the committee?

       Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 6 is rejected.

      Does anyone wish to move Amendments 8 or 10? That is not the case.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 14575, as amended. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 14575. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons has presented a draft resolution to which no amendments have been tabled, but to which there are two oral amendments that some members wish to propose. The committee has also presented a draft recommendation to which no amendments have been tabled.

      I have received an oral amendment from Mr Nicoletti, which reads as follows: in the draft resolution, paragraph 1, after “immediate action needed” insert the following words:        “Resolution 2072 (2015) ‘After Dublin – the urgent need for a real European asylum system’”.In

      In my opinion, the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.7.a. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated?

      That is not the case. I therefore call Mr Nicoletti to support Oral Amendment 1. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr NICOLETTI (Italy) – The oral amendment is just to make the list of the resolution of the Assembly more complete, including, “Resolution 2072 (2015) ‘After Dublin – the urgent need for a real European asylum system’”, which was also recalled in the previous report that we have adopted.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – The committee is in favour.

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

      The vote is open.

      I have received a further oral amendment from Mr Nicoletti, which reads as follows: in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 6.1, insert the following words: “following Resolution 2072 (2015) ‘After Dublin – the urgent need for a real European asylum system’”.

      In my opinion, the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.7.a. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated? That is not the case.

      I therefore call Mr Nicoletti to support Oral Amendment 2. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr NICOLETTI (Italy) – This is consequential to the adoption of Oral Amendment 1. We want to include the reference to the same resolution, containing the call to the member States of the European Union for a revision of the Dublin regulation, in order to have a fairer distribution of asylum seekers in our continent.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee on the oral amendment?

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – The committee is in favour.

      I shall now put the oral amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in document 14586, as amended. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 14586. A two-thirds majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      (Ms Mendes, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Sir Roger Gale.)

3. Persecution of LGBTI people in the Chechen Republic (Russian Federation)

      The PRESIDENT* – The next item of business is the debate on the report entitled “Persecution of LGBTI people in the Chechen Republic (Russian Federation)”, Document 14572, to be presented by Mr Piet De Bruyn on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination.

      In order to finish by 8.30 p.m., I will interrupt the list of speakers at about 8.05 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.

      Mr De Bruyn, you have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between your presentation of the report and your reply to the debate.

      Mr De BRUYN (Belgium) – Dear colleagues, on 1 April 2017 the Russian independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta published its first report on a campaign of persecution against LGBTI people in the Chechen Republic, which is part of the Russian Federation. This anti-gay purge included abduction, arbitrary detention, torture and even the extra-judicial killing of men presumed to be gay. It was only possible with the direct involvement of Chechen law enforcement officials. The journalists estimated that the campaign of persecution started in February 2017, against the existing backdrop of serious, systematic and widespread discrimination against and harassment of LGBTI people.

      Astonishment and shock were the first reactions of the international community. Several European political leaders condemned the alleged human rights violations and called on the Russian authorities to launch an official investigation. Following the international reaction, President Vladimir Putin reportedly ordered law enforcement agencies to support the Russian Federation’s commissioner for human rights in addressing what he called the “rumours” of abuse in the Chechen Republic.

      Among those who reacted were several members of our Assembly. At the April part-session, Mr Jonas Gunnarsson, my predecessor as general rapporteur on the rights of LGBTI people, and Mr Frank Schwabe, the rapporteur who produced the report “Human rights in the North Caucasus: what follow-up to Resolution 1738 (2010)?”, issued a joint statement. Mr Johan Nissinen from Sweden and other members of the Assembly tabled a motion for a resolution asking the Assembly to look into the matter, and the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination appointed me as rapporteur during the October part-session.

      In preparing this report, I relied on secondary sources, such as media and NGO reports, as well as the information I obtained through various meetings with people directly involved or affected. I feel no shame in admitting that sitting in a hotel lobby in a European capital in front of a victim of this anti-gay purge was quite intense – especially given that both Chechen and Russian authorities keep saying that there are no gay people in Chechnya. I was appalled when Mr Alexander Konovalov, the Russian Federation’s Minister of Justice, as recently as 14 May, in his address to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations, denied the existence of LGBTI people in the Chechen Republic. Such statements by high-ranking Russian officials, which deny reality, are deeply disturbing.

      Although I was shocked, I was not surprised. Over the past few years, a climate of rising homophobia has been perceptible throughout the Russian Federation. This climate was epitomised by the adoption in 2013 of a law prohibiting the so-called propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships among minors, despite international criticism. Although the European Court of Human Rights found that the law violated Article 10, on the freedom of expression, and Article 14, on the protection from discrimination, of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Russian Federation shows no intention of reconsidering the legislation.

      Within this rather LGBTI-unfriendly framework – yes, that is indeed an understatement – Mr Kadyrov has had a free hand to promote his particular vision of traditional Chechen society. He has stated that his mission is to cleanse the nation of all deviations, including alcohol and drugs, and he has made multiple references to the need to cleanse the blood of the nation. Using this aggressive and barbaric language has contributed to the climate of fear. As an illustration of the kind of language Mr Kadyrov uses to refer to LGBTI people, let me quote from an interview he gave that was broadcast on HBO. He put it this way: “Take them far from us so we don’t have them at home. To purify our blood, if there are any here, take them. They are devils. They are for sale. They are not people.” On another occasion, in spring 2017, he talked about his plans to have the gay population “eliminated” by the start of Ramadan, as cited in a report from the British Minister of State for the Foreign Office, Sir Alan Duncan.

      All the experts I spoke to while trying to understand Chechen society confirmed that there is no way to be openly gay in Chechnya, because coming out would mean being shunned by the family, as homosexuality is considered both a disease and a provocation. LGBTI people are therefore forced to hide their sexual orientation and live a secret life. They fear being rejected, beaten up, tortured, abducted or even killed if they come out. These statements by experts were confirmed by the victims I was able to speak with. They informed me in detail about the many difficulties that any LGBTI person has to deal with on a daily basis in Chechen society. Most shocking and horrifying were the personal stories of what happened to them when they were arrested during the purge. They spoke to me about mistreatment, torture, aggressive interrogation, the pressure to give the names of other LGBTI people, the threats to inform their families about their sexuality, the constant process of dehumanisation and their captors’ many other forms of cruelty.

      At this point, I pay my tribute to all victims of that anti-gay purge, whether known or unknown. We cannot accept impunity for the perpetrators of those crimes. Without a full and independent investigation, we will never know how many people were affected. In a hearing during our April part-session, Tanya Lokshina of Human Rights Watch called the purge “unique in its magnitude and horror”.

      Doing research for my report, I was able to meet with Maxim Lapunov. Mr Lapunov remains the first and only victim to file an official complaint and to speak out publicly about what happened to him. After his release from arbitrary detention, he was threatened not to tell anyone about what had happened. Even after fleeing the Chechen Republic and joining his family in the Ural region, he and his family members received threats from Chechnya. Maxim went to Moscow and was supported by the Russian LGBT Network. After making his official complaint, he asked the Russian authorities for State protection but received no response.

Ms Moskalkova, the Russian Commissioner for Human Rights, took his statement and sent it to the federal investigative authorities. The pre-investigation check was opened and normally would have lasted for 30 days before a decision was taken on whether to open a criminal case, but it has come to a complete standstill. It would have been of great value to learn more from Ms Moskalkova about this case and about the overall situation, but unfortunately I received a negative reply to my invitation to take part in our hearing. She informed me that she would only be able to contribute to the debate after the return of the Russian delegation to our Assembly. My second request was to provide a written contribution to this report, but I received no further reply.

      Despite the lack of an investigation by the Russian authorities so far, human rights organisations have been documenting the purge meticulously by interviewing victims and witnesses. I share their hope that this valuable work will at some point be useful to bring justice to the victims of the purge.

      Denial of what happened in Chechnya is not an acceptable response. An acceptable response would be for the Russian authorities to conduct an impartial and effective investigation into last year’s events and to ensure no impunity for the perpetrators. The fact that relations between the Parliamentary Assembly and the Russian Federation are far from satisfactory does not change the obligation of the Russian Federation to uphold human rights. Should the Russian Federation refuse to conduct an inquiry, it should at least allow an international independent investigation by an international human rights organisation.

      In April, we learned from Mr Igor Kochetkov that the Russian LGBT Network managed to organise the escape of 119 people out of Chechnya to the Russian Federation, of whom more than 100 have even left the Russian Federation. I urge all Council of Europe member States to welcome persons fleeing persecution in the Chechen Republic on the grounds of their real or perceived sexual orientation and to provide them with a safe haven, taking into consideration that they have to fear reprisals from the Chechen diaspora as well.

      This report is not a full investigation into what happened in Chechnya between February and April 2017. It is the responsibility of the Russian authorities to do that. This report, nevertheless, casts a light on the wave of persecution against the LGBTI community in the Chechen Republic in 2017. I hope that it will give a voice to all those victims who have no other choice than to remain silent, fearing retaliation against them and their families. It should also make all of us as politicians aware of the challenges that LGBTI people still have to face in Europe in the 21^st century.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, rapporteur. You have three minutes remaining to reply to the speakers. We now move to the general debate.

      Mr ZINGERIS (Lithuania, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – We have just had a long debate on immigration and now we continue our efforts to make Europe a humane place based on fundamental values

      I have spent several months to help people under direct threat of death in Chechnya. I thank our group secretary, Denise O’Hara, and all those who, even during all the anti-corruption fight in our Assembly, tried to reach Chechens to get them to speak here. Our EPP group and other groups held hearing after hearing, inviting Igor Kochetkov and other friends. My Minister of Foreign Affairs in Lithuania did everything possible through our diplomatic corps in Moscow to bring Chechen colleagues out of that terrible place, Chechnya, under that terrible governor whom we should find a way to bring to international justice.

      In our proposed follow-up to Resolution 1738 (2010) on human rights in the North Caucasus, paragraph 3.5 stated: “the State-orchestrated mass scale persecution of a target group based on the sexual orientation presents a grave concern of mass atrocities taking place within a Council of Europe member State, and compels the Council of Europe to take urgent steps and to adopt a resolution ordering a special investigation into the matter”. Today, after some months, we have a resolution.

      I thank not only the rapporteur but Russian democratic society – not, as the rapporteur just said, the Russian Government or governmental bodies. Russian democratic society, even though it is under pressure from Mr Putin, helped Chechen homosexuals and lesbians to cross the border, to come to Europe and to be sheltered. Those in Moscow and St Petersburg remain under threat from the Governor of Chechnya. In my view, we should take international legal action against the Chechen authorities, because they are like an international terror organisation persecuting Russian democrats and trying to reach them even outside the Russian Federation to kill them.

      For such reasons, we must have extreme measures to deal with such international criminals. We need the right verdict against them. I thank everyone in the Chamber, especially those who in recent months met with Igor Kochetkov and other LGBTI people to help them and to save the lives of Russian citizens.

      Mr GUNNARSSON (Sweden, Spokesperson for the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group) – On behalf of the Socialist Group, I thank Mr De Bruyn for his work, and I ask all my colleagues to vote in favour of the report.

      The report is important. Reading its explanatory memorandum is like receiving a blow to the stomach. The text describes an almost dystopian society in which the leadership has turned on parts of its own population. It is a society where torture, violence and honour killings are used as tools of control to scare large parts of the public into obedience, silence or being perpetrators too. The authors of the motion that initiated the report expressed concern at the “numerous reports of extreme, State-initiated discrimination and crimes against homosexuals, especially males, in the Chechen Republic…resulting in alleged detentions in camps, beatings and torture by uniformed State personnel, and disappearances – in certain cases said to be followed by executions.” Having read the report and taken part in the hearings that the committee organised while preparing it, I must conclude that the fears expressed by the authors of the motion seem justified.

      The treatment of LGBTI people in the Russian Federation has once again been shown to be appalling. The facts, reports and testimonies that lay the foundation for the proposed resolution bear a scary resemblance to atrocities we usually connect only with the crimes of war, but the report is not about the events of a war; it is about the complete failure of the authorities in a Council of Europe country to protect even the most basic rights they should grant their citizens.

      In most parts of Europe, the situation for LGBTI people is getting better. In many countries, you can express who and how you are without having to fear violence or maltreatment. We even have a couple of examples of gay or lesbian people being elected prime minister. There are LGBTI representatives – I am one – in many member States’ legislatures, and several of us in this very Assembly identify ourselves as LGBTI in one way or another. Sadly, there is a counter-movement in parts of our continent, which at its most extreme, as it is in Chechnya, ends in harassment, violence, torture and even death. Protecting the human rights of LGBTI people has become somewhat of a litmus test for the general protection of human rights in a society. The Russian Federation so far has failed that test completely.

      Mr EVANS (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – Can you believe that we are having this debate in the 21^st century? Rapporteur, I congratulate you on your report. It is awful that you had to write it.

      This is 2018, and we are talking about homophobia on a different level from anything we can understand. In the United Kingdom we have made great advances over the years – certainly in the 26 years I have been a member of parliament – yet there is still more to be done. Just when we think we will reach some sort of great victory, things start rolling back in other parts of the world. We have only to look at a number of countries in the Middle East to see people being summarily executed simply for being gay or being thought to be gay. People live in fear in their own families and societies just in case people discover who they really are. That carries on in 2018. What sort of world are we living in?

      I chair the British Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. In March, we decided to put forward a motion, for debate in October, that we had discussed LGBT issues. It went to a vote. I was shocked by how many countries voted against us just discussing LGBT issues. Never mind a resolution or a mandate – we simply proposed discussing LGBT issues. The people who voted against the motion included the Ugandans, who said that anyone who was discovered to be gay would serve a prison sentence. Can you believe that that happened in 2018?

      I read an article about two teenage gays in Iran who were executed in public for being thought to be gay. The article said they looked like two teenagers going out for a stroll. I mentioned to Iranian politicians that they had executed people, and they said, “No, if we discover people who are gay they will be tortured.” They actually used that word. I said, “Yes, you tortured them – and then you killed them.” In Chechnya, people are summarily executed simply for being gay. That cannot be right.

      What influence do we have with the Russian Federation? Let us be fair: we do not have an awful lot. I do not know whether you have noticed, but they do not turn up anymore and they do not pay. We therefore need to focus on what we can do in our own countries. We have to look at our own legislation. If there is any discrimination at all in our own countries, that has to be eradicated. Until we eradicate discrimination in our own countries, it will continue somewhere else. That is what I ask you to do.

      In my country, as a gay man, I cannot get married in a church. The Archbishop of Canterbury is afraid to show leadership on that in the United Kingdom. The British Government has to start to show some leadership, too. Sadly, until we eradicate discrimination in each and every one of our own countries, people will continue to live in fear in theirs. People will be discriminated against and, in the worst cases, will end up being killed. We have an opportunity to change that, and I hope that we do.

      Mr COMTE (Switzerland, Spokesperson for Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe)* – Over the past few years, several European countries have advanced the rights of the LGBTI community, including by legalising gay marriage. Unfortunately, some others either have not made such progress or – much worse – have regressed. In some European states, LGBTI people do not have equal rights and suffer discrimination, aggression or worse on a daily basis.

      The rights of LGBTI people are not a Western creation. They are not a regional invention; they should apply to all members of the Council of Europe. We cannot pretend to defend human rights if we fail to defend the rights of the LGBTI community, and we cannot claim to be members of the Council of Europe unless we defend the rights of all people, including LGBTI people. As the Council of Europe, we cannot accept human rights being put into perspective, so to speak, when it comes to LGBTI people.

      What is happening in the Chechen Republic is horrific. I thank the rapporteur for his clear statement and his brave report. The facts that have been reported are reprehensible, and the Council of Europe should condemn them in the strongest terms. Those who perpetrate such acts are criminals. Those who tolerate such acts without reacting are accomplices. Impunity in the face of such crimes is unacceptable.

      We need to pit the Russian Federation against its responsibilities. The Russian Federation should shed clear light on all ongoing and past acts of such aggression, and it should defend the rights of all human rights activists, in particular those who defend the rights of the LGBTI community. The ALDE group invites the Assembly to send a powerful message in favour of the rights of LGBTI people and to accept with determination the measures put forward by the rapporteur.

      Mr GAVAN (Ireland, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – I commend and warmly welcome the report, which highlights the persecution of LGBTI people living in the Chechen Republic. On behalf of the Unified European Left, I fully endorse both the resolution and the recommendations in the report.

      The record of both the Chechen and Russian authorities is shameful. There are documented cases of abduction, arbitrary detention, torture and indeed killing of men presumed to be gay, with the direct involvement of Chechen law enforcement officials. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the situation is the Chechen and Russian public officials’ denial of the very existence of LGBTI people in the Chechen Republic. I agree with my colleague Mr Evans – what century do these people think they are living in? I particularly welcome the language in the report condemning such practices in the strongest possible terms.

      On behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left, I give full support to the call for a fair and impartial investigation by the Russian authorities. The Russian Federation must intervene. Its role in this process is vital, and it should be held to be culpable by omission if it does not allow an impartial investigation. By the way, I cannot help noticing who is not here this evening. Some of those on the extreme right have been only too quick to condemn the Russian Federation, but they do not seem to be here tonight. I wonder why that is; perhaps it is because of the topic.

      In the absence of an investigation by the Russian Federation, I support the call for an investigation by an international human rights body. I believe that the Council of Europe could and should undertake this task. I fully endorse calls on the Russian Federation to implement the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Bayev and Others v. Russia, and to repeal, as recommended by the Court, the law prohibiting so-called propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships among minors, which has reinforced the overall climate of discrimination and prejudice against LGBTI people.

      My own country, Ireland, is a very good example of how progress on LGBTI rights can be achieved and a culture of oppression changed. It was only as recently as 1993 that homosexuality was finally legalised in Ireland. Thankfully, we have made rapid progress. We have a gay Prime Minister, and we were the first country in the world to pass a referendum on marriage equality. We in Sinn Féin are still fighting for the establishment of marriage equality in the north of our country, and we will continue that struggle until we succeed.

      Finally, I want to make the point that this issue also highlights the need to have the Russian Federation back in this Chamber, not just so that it can play its part in the Council of Europe’s human rights work, but so that it can be held to account for its actions in Chechnya and elsewhere.

      The PRESIDENT* – Mr De Bruyn, you make take the floor now if you wish. I see that you want to do so later, so we will continue with the list of speakers. I call Ms Åberg.

      Ms ÅBERG (Sweden) – It has been more than a year since the horrific revelations in the Novaya Gazeta about the abduction, torture and murder of hundreds of individuals in Chechnya who were presumed to be gay, which included allegations about the direct involvement of Chechen authorities. The tragic revelations represented an unimaginable escalation of the longstanding and silenced violence against the LGBT people of Chechnya. It was even more astounding that such a purge had been conducted in a member State of the Council of Europe, which is a beacon of human rights.

      The Russian Federation has shown a distinct lack of willingness to seek justice or investigate this tragedy, so little is known about the situation to this day. Torture and detention continue, and the authorities remain blind. LGBTI people risk persecution not only from the authorities, but from their families, society and a corrupt justice system that denounces their most fundamental human rights. The anti-LGBTI purge in Chechnya is testament to the ongoing persecution of homosexual people in the Russian Federation in recent years, including the gay propaganda law in 2013, which was viewed as de facto criminalisation of LGBT culture. Even as a Council of Europe member State, which has a responsibility to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights, the Russian Federation closes its eyes to the crimes that are committed against minorities in the country. It seems as though human rights in the Russian Federation are reserved for those whom the authorities deem to be normal.

      During his last visit to the Russian Federation, Secretary General Jagland said in his speech that the accession of the Russian Federation to the European Convention on Human Rights 20 years ago had been very important for Europe and for the Russian people. I believe it would be more important if the Russian Federation upheld the universal values of human rights that it agreed on, rather than being a member State only on paper. Finally, I thank Mr De Bruyn for the report. I hope that it sheds light on the tragic and silenced violence against LGBTI people in Chechnya and brings justice to those who have been denied their human rights.

      The PRESIDENT* – The next speaker, Mr O’Reilly, is not here, so I call Ms Blondin.

      Ms BLONDIN (France)* – I pay tribute to Piet De Bruyn, our rapporteur, who drafted this report. I commend him for the accuracy of his reporting of the appalling events in Chechnya, and I understand that this difficult task has had a real impact on him and on everyone who accompanied him on his mission. When a wave of homophobia was unleashed in Chechnya, a republic of the Russian Federation, the Russian Federation – a member of the Council of Europe – systematically denied that it was happening. Our Assembly has been forced once again to remind one of its members of the human rights responsibilities that it clearly does not want to face up to. President Kadyrov’s rhetoric has been dreadful: “We don’t have gay people here. Let’s take them all to Canada and cleanse the blood of our people.”

      As an official from an LGBT association has said, the torture of human beings should motivate everyone, not just gay people, to act. A recent study by the French organisation SOS Homophobie revealed that the number of homophobic acts had increased by more than 4.8% in the last year, so we have to be vigilant. France wants to do its part in speaking out about what has happened in Russian territory. The French President mentioned this issue in his meeting with the Russian President in May, and I hope that the Russian President got the message. Whenever political officials go to the Russian Federation, they must meet representatives from human rights organisations and the LGBTI community. Against that backdrop, our ambassador – along with others from the European Union, starting with Lithuania – issued emergency visas to victims of homophobic persecution. Several of them are now in France, and they have been supported by the State and local solidarity networks. The European Union has done a great deal to co-ordinate such measures.

      The football World Cup in the Russian Federation has had an impact on the situation and the Russian authorities may well have started putting pressure on Chechnya, but what will happen when the global spotlight is no longer on the region?

      Mr TORNARE (Switzerland)* – I also express my gratitude to the rapporteur, who has been doing a fantastic job in the committee as general rapporteur on this issue. He has been extremely efficient and people listen carefully to what he has to say, and he deserves our thanks.

      If you go to Geneva, you will see that alongside our local river, the river Rhône, we have a commemorative plaque that contains an apology for the drowning of homosexuals during the middle ages. Today’s city authorities are saying sorry. That was back in the 16^th century whereas, as our British colleague has just said, we are now in the 21^st century. In other words, in many countries, very little progress has been made. This sad phenomenon of the persecution of LGBTI people is something that has great resonance in Switzerland. Questions were put to the government, which responded expressing its profound regret regarding what happened, as did the press in our country. It is simply not acceptable.

      We should remember that there is a homophobic climate in many of the republics of the former Soviet Union. We also hear about this in countries such as Slovakia, Hungary, Poland and indeed the Russian Federation. We hear people saying in public things that are quite unacceptable and ideas that belong in the past. Dictators including Putin – I say that loud and clear – and the Chechen dictator should be tried in the court in The Hague because of crimes that they have committed not just against members of the homosexual community but against others as well.

      This situation is quite unacceptable for us as members of the Council of Europe. The reason why we are here is that we believe in certain principles. Those principles are not out of date and we have to fight hard to make sure that they prevail. Just a few years ago Simone Veil was elected President of the European Parliament, and she will be buried in the Panthéon on Sunday. She was a great champion of human rights together with all those founding fathers of the Council of Europe, those who inspired the idea of Europe. The barbaric, criminal leaders of Chechnya should not be forgiven. We cannot tolerate that situation just a few hours away from here. We need an official inquiry conducted not just by the Russian authorities but by NGOs, which should be given access to Chechnya so that they can go there and find the truth.

      I thank our colleague Piet De Bruyn for his work. I also thank all those democratic countries that have taken in people from Chechnya who have been persecuted, and I actively encourage others to do it. As a Swiss citizen, as a citizen of the city of Geneva, the seat of the United Nations institutions, and as someone from the city where the Red Cross was set up by Henri Dunant, perhaps I have a greater awareness and sensibility when it comes to the issue of persecution of groups such as LGBTI people. Once again I thank our rapporteur for having paid tribute to all those who are subject to persecution and their families.

      Mr THIÉRY (Belgium)* – It is my turn to thank Mr De Bruyn for his excellent report. The draft resolution was tabled in May 2017 and called on the Assembly to make appropriate recommendations. This has now been done after a year of hard work by our rapporteur. The report shows that the attitude of senior Chechen and Russian officials who deny the existence of LGBTI people in the Chechen Republic must be firmly condemned.

      As our rapporteur said, it was on 1 April 2017 that the Russian paper Novaya Gazeta published its first report on a wave of persecution against LGBTI people. This included abduction, arbitrary detention and the torture of men who were presumed to be homosexual – I stress that they were presumed to be; that was enough – and the law enforcement services of the Chechen Republic were directly involved. This campaign took place against a background of serious acts of discrimination and harassment carried out on a large scale and systemically against LGBTI people. I stress that that means lesbians, gay, bisexuals, transgender and intersex; not everyone is always familiar with what the acronym stands for.

      More than 114 people and members of their families fled the Chechen Republic, and those who stayed do not report ill treatment because they fear retaliation. The Assembly urged the Russian Federation to begin a transparent investigation into these allegations in order to bring the perpetrators to justice and to ensure the security of the LGBTI community in the North Caucasus, as well as the security of human rights activists and journalists who shed light on such violations. The Russian Federation, as a member of the Council of Europe – for it is still a member – is duty-bound to uphold the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights over all its territory and to ensure that those guilty of such violations do not go unpunished. It is also essential that the Russian Federation should authorise an international human rights organisation to carry out an independent international investigation should there be no investigation at a national level.

      Protecting all people from torture, degrading treatment, forced disappearance and extra-judicial executions regardless of their origin, the colour of their skin, their age, their gender or their sexual orientation is one of the founding principles of the Council of Europe, so we need to defend the rights and security of LGBTI people as we do for each and every one of us. Nothing will change unless we send a powerful political signal about the intolerable nature of the persecution of LGBTI people. That is what we are trying to do here today.

      Thank you, Mr De Bruyn, for the excellent report and this firm but constructive approach.

      Ms PELKONEN (Finland) – Thank you, Mr De Bruyn, for this excellent report. I want to remind us that each of us is equally important and valuable. Everyone deserves to be treated equally and respectfully, always and everywhere. There are no valid justifications for treating people before the law in different ways depending on their sexual orientation. Particularly for us legislators, the legal equality of people must be self-evident. It is not a matter of conscience; it is about fundamental rights, parity, equality and the freedom to be oneself. A society that treats its citizens differently before the law depending on their sexual orientation is not a developed society. Work on homophobia and human rights violations has to be done every day.

      Mr HAJDUKOVIĆ (Croatia) – I also congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent work. I join my other learned colleagues who are appalled that we have to debate such topics in the 21^st century. How can anyone endeavour to deny the existence of LGBTI people? We might just as well deny that there are bald, tall, short, fat or thin people. That is just a fact. How can love be a crime? Regardless of whether you like Ivan or Ivanna, love is love. As long as I draw breath, I will fight for the right to love and be loved and to be what you are. The least that we can do is to support the draft resolution, not just here but in our national parliaments because, as we know, unfortunately some European countries also have rather discriminatory practices when it comes to LGBTI people. Love is love – remember that.

      Ms JANSSON (Sweden) – I thank Piet De Bruyn for his excellent report. If you have not read it, I can tell you that it is a detailed report with horrifying testimonies concerning an unacceptable and terrifying situation for LGBTI people. It is also clearly explained in the report that persecution against LGBTI people goes hand in hand with heavy oppression against women and so-called honour-related crimes. Yesterday the Assembly called on member States to respect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of human rights defenders, including the right to a fair trial and freedom of expression, association and assembly.

      One example of the numerous violations in the Chechen Republic is that in January 2018 the Chechen authorities intensified their attacks on the Russian human rights organisation Memorial – also mentioned in the report – by jailing the human rights defender and head of Memorial’s local office, Oyub Titiev, on fabricated criminal charges.

      For the past decade, the head of the Chechen republic, Ramzan Kadyrov, has repressed even the mildest dissent. Human rights defenders have been threatened, beaten and killed, while their offices have been set on fire. Last year, Novaya Gazeta published a report on the campaign of persecution against LGBT persons. It is obvious that president Putin allows Kadyrov to continue with his acts of terror against Russian citizens and his violation of their human rights.

      The situation for LGBT persons in the Russian Federation in general is terrible, and it is even worse in the Chechen Republic: the situation so dangerous that it is not even possible for LGBT people to live there. As a member State of the Council of Europe, the Russian Federation is obliged, as everyone has said, to protect its citizens and their human rights.

      I urge the Assembly to vote yes to the draft resolution. Thank you for the report.

      The PRESIDENT* – Mr Blanchart is not here, so I call Ms Lundgren.

      Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – Thank you, Mr De Bruyn, for this important report, which brings facts to, and sheds light into the black hole of, our discussion about human rights. Chechnya is a black hole and the responsibility is heavy on the shoulders of President Putin. We noticed how he smiled at the table with Ramzan Kadyrov when the discussion ended: there were no problems, there were no LBGTI people in the region. No one believes that. I have myself met several, and have had discussions about what to do and how to bring light into their situation. Now, with the World Cup, we have a month during which there is an exception, for some. We have heard that you do not have to be afraid if you are going to the event, but for people who live in the country the situation is still there. The legislation is still there, and we all know that harassment doubled in the Russian Federation after the anti-propaganda law. The Russian Federation has also laid the ground for Chechnya and Kadyrov to act in the way they have. We have heard from witnesses from the area about mass graves, torture and killings and about people, and families, being harassed.

      I would also like to mention the situation of the females. They are even more suppressed and even more frightened of the situation. I must applaud all those who are fighting for LGBT rights in the Russian Federation, including the networks that are working to shed light on the situation, to show us all what is going on. Without their brave behaviour, we would not know anything because we are not able to go inside and have oversight, even though the Russian Federation is bound by what it signed when it came into this Assembly.

      Thank you for the report. We need to keep up the fight for the sake of the people in Chechnya and the Russian Federation, for the sake of equal rights no matter who you are. I support the report.

      Ms BAYR (Austria)* – Mr Piet De Bruyn’s excellent report shows clearly that we have irrefutable evidence of longstanding serious human rights violations in Chechnya. There are examples of persecution, torture and even murder of members of the LGBTI community. The Russian Federation, as a member of the Council of Europe, is clearly subject to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, which means that the country is bound to protect all members of its society, regardless of their gender, sexual orientation or gender identity. It is obliged to protect them against discrimination, persecution, incitement to hatred and more serious crimes. The State also has a duty to protect witnesses and family members, as well as a duty to pursue and prosecute those responsible for these acts, taking them to court and ensuring that they are punished. To date, the Russian Federation has not lived up to its responsibility, which is a source of great concern to us all.

      This report, which, I say once again, is excellent, also addresses the fact that all other member States of the Council of Europe are obliged to extend support to people who seek it, in compliance with the Geneva Convention. All too often, these States have not only tolerated persecution on their territories but have encouraged it. This is why the report makes an exemplary stance. It calls for the Russian Federation to be forced to stop persecuting people in this way and for an international inquiry to be authorised, to bring an end to the impunity of the perpetrators. We also have to remind the rest of the international community that they have a duty to provide protection for victims. The report is also exemplary because we have to be able to draw a clear line between disliking somebody and carrying out actions against them and we must find ways of addressing the implications of that. We have to take policy decisions and try to ensure that our education systems really teach young people about equality between different people. Picking up on what was said earlier, I want to say that we really do have to ensure that these values prevail in the 21^st century.

      Mr TROY (Ireland) – I thank Mr De Bruyn for producing the report. Earlier today, I was reading some media coverage of the barbaric treatment of human beings for nothing other than being their natural selves. One young lady in her 20s outlined what her family said to her when she came out: “Either we kill you or we lock you up in a psychiatric ward and throw away the key. The only alternative is that you undergo an exorcism”.

      As well as societal intolerance, last year we had the direct involvement of Chechen law enforcement officials, on the orders of top-level Chechen authorities, abducting, detaining and torturing gay men and women. While the large-scale campaign of persecution has abated, its effects continue. The Russian Federation must launch an independent investigation and the responsible persons held to account and penalised for their barbarity. The Council of Europe should work to ensure that national legislation is amended or revoked or that whatever needs to be done is done. That will help to start the cultural change in people’s mindsets and in attitudes towards the LGBTI community.

      Tonight in Ireland, my party will commemorate the 25^th anniversary of the decriminalisation of homosexuality on our statute books. This was undoubtedly a decisive move in recognising the basic rights of citizens. The change came about following many years of campaigning by many people. I must acknowledge Senator David Norris, who in 1977 began legal proceedings for the decriminalisation of homosexuality, which ended up in the European Court of Human Rights. The Court gave the responsibility to act back to our national parliament, and our parliament acted 25 years ago, beginning the normalisation of homosexuality in my country. People’s minds and attitudes began to change. Discrimination did not stop there, but the country continued to evolve and become a more inclusive, welcoming society, and I have no doubt that we can lead by example in relation to Chechnya. Three years ago, our country voted to change our constitution and allow a same-sex marriage referendum under the banner “Make Grá the Law”, which is Irish for “Make Love the Law”. I have already made contact with the ministers for justice and foreign affairs about the possibility of welcoming some of the LGBTI community to Ireland, and I will follow that up when I go home after this week’s plenary session.

      Ms De SUTTER (Belgium) – Protecting all people from torture, irrespective of their origin or sexual orientation, is one of the founding principles behind the creation of the Council of Europe, so recent news about campaigns of persecution against LGBTI people in the Chechen Republic is particularly disturbing. The campaign is the most recent consequence of a climate encouraging homophobic attitudes that has been promoted in the Russian Federation for several years. At a time when the Russian Federation is trying to enhance its worldwide image, it is the Council of Europe’s duty to emphasise that this unacceptable practice is happening right now. The Russian Federation should understand that such events tarnish its international image, and it should end this discrimination.

      Through hosting the World Cup, the Russian Federation has the international media’s attention. All eyes are on the Russian Federation, and the media spotlight provides the perfect moment to apply international pressure. A country cannot pretend to be modern as long as it discriminates against its people. It is therefore our moral duty to support the report of our colleague Piet De Bruyn and its recommendations. Member States should provide international protection to LGBTI people fleeing persecution in the Chechen Republic, as well as to their families and witnesses. There can be no impunity for the perpetrators of this campaign of persecution. The Parliamentary Assembly should call for an effective and impartial investigation. Let us not forget that it is in times of crisis that minorities are threatened. Let us not take the rights of LGBTI people and all our rights for granted, not in the Chechen Republic, not in other countries, and definitely not in Europe. I thank the Assembly for supporting this seminal report by my colleague and friend Piet De Bruyn.

      Ms DE TEMMERMAN (France)* – I commend the rapporteur on his excellent work. The persecution of LGBTI people in the Chechen Republic is not a page that we can turn. The campaign of persecution seems to have come to an end for now, but its effects endure, and there can be no guarantee that persecution will not resume in Chechnya or elsewhere. The campaign is evidence of the rejection of difference not just against the LGBTI community but against others. Such rejection calls our very humanity into question. In “The Symposium”, Plato described love as a means of accessing truth and as a force that transcends differences, so how can we interpret that in the 21^st century? We should be allowed to live freely according to our heart’s desire, so we cannot ignore atrocities or allow them to take place elsewhere, such as in the Chechen Republic. It is important to ensure that human rights are not denied to anyone.

      The PRESIDENT* – Mr Šešelj is not here, so I call Mr Nissinen.

      Mr NISSINEN (Sweden) – A little over a year ago, in April 2017, I introduced a motion for a resolution, supported by many of my Assembly colleagues, entitled “Alleged extreme discrimination and crimes against homosexuals in the Chechen Republic (Russian Federation)”. The reason behind my motion was that there seemed to be a major officially sanctioned and encouraged campaign under way against sexual minorities. Today, I am heartened to note that, thanks to our rapporteur, Mr Piet De Bruyn of Belgium, and our Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, we have before us a highly complete and persuasive report on that very subject.

      The report’s emphasis lies on throwing light on what precisely has happened in the Republic of Chechnya over the past few years during a sudden outburst of apparent hatred and disdain against LGBTI persons. It comes only a decade or so after a major civil war in the province, which in itself must have had a traumatic effect on the general population. The Russian Federation is a big country of vast distances and pronounced cultural differences between its component parts – a country where the centre cannot always control what goes on in the periphery. However, the federal government must assume responsibility at the international level for abuses that occur anywhere in the country and, above all, ensure that those suspected of wrongdoing are brought to justice and that something similar is not allowed to happen again.

      For its part, the international community, including the Council of Europe, stood up in protest and solidarity against this persecution of LGBTI people, as the rapporteur amply demonstrated, and that seems to have produced results, but there is no reason to let our guard down given the risk of further misdeeds against this or other vulnerable groups, whether in Chechnya or elsewhere. It is in that light that Mr De Bruyn’s excellent report must be read and hopefully approved by us all, coming as it does at a time in European and world history when darker clouds are gathering and when tolerance toward the opinions and orientations of others seems to be in scarce supply.

      The PRESIDENT* – That concludes the list of speakers. I call the rapporteur to reply. You have three minutes.

      Mr De BRUYN (Belgium) – Unfortunately, I do not have time to respond to all colleagues individually, but I will try to wrap things up with four points. First, I fully agree with those who feel that we should do more than just produce documents and present reports about protecting the human rights of vulnerable people. The added value of this report lies in its concrete call to action, which is in both the resolution and the recommendation. We recommend that the Committee of Ministers condemns the persecution of LGBTI people in the strongest terms and ensures that the atrocities against the LGBTI community of Chechnya do not go unpunished.

      Secondly, I urge the Committee of Ministers both to call on the Russian Federation to comply with the recommendations laid down in the resolution and not to hesitate in launching a Council of Europe investigation if the Russian authorities fail to conduct their own along the lines of our resolution.

      Thirdly, some individual States might consider, based on the report and on other information available in the public domain or collected by human rights organisations, using appropriate universal jurisdiction legislation or exploring the opportunities provided by other existing international mechanisms to bring justice to the victims of this anti-gay purge in Chechnya.

      Fourthly, I remind the Assembly that, following work by the Russian LGBT Network, close to 100 people have been accepted by some countries to enter specific asylum procedures. Some countries have communicated that, but others have not. I understand both policies, but I remind all member States that people who have left Chechnya due to their true or perceived sexual orientation are very vulnerable and that threats against them from the Chechen diaspora can be dangerous.

      In conclusion, as rapporteur for this report and as your general rapporteur on the rights of LGBTI people, I ask you to reaffirm together with me that the rights of LGBTI people are not special rights, but human rights. Protecting all people, irrespective of their origin, skin colour, age, gender or sexual orientation, from torture, degrading treatment, forced disappearances, arbitrary detention and, ultimately, extra-judicial killings is one of the founding principles behind the creation of our Council of Europe.

      We cannot turn a blind eye to what has happened, and might still be happening, in one of our member States. We cannot accept that people are persecuted for who they are, or for the perpetrators of such crimes, together with those who instructed them, not to be held responsible. I therefore ask you to vote in favour of this resolution and the recommendation.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr De Bruyn.

      Does the chairperson of the committee wish to respond? You have two minutes.

      Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – Dear colleagues, after years of systematic and widespread discrimination against LGBTI people in the Chechen Republic, in 2017 a campaign of persecution was targeted against them, as we have heard. Our rapporteur, Mr De Bruyn, heard testimonies from victims, and documented cases of torture, arbitrary detention, inhuman and degrading treatment, and enforced disappearances. The public authorities in the Chechen Republic have denied the very existence of LGBTI people. In so doing, they do not merely express their contempt, but it is a form of dehumanisation. LGBTI people have been deliberately attacked for who they are in a Council of Europe member State.

      We held several discussions in our committee, as well as a joint hearing with the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. We heard testimonies from human rights defenders who had provided support to victims fleeing persecution. We understood the scale of that persecution, and that a strong reaction from the Assembly was needed. The Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination unanimously adopted the preliminary draft resolution and draft recommendation, and it fully supports the rapporteur, and thanks him for his work on this important matter. I sincerely hope that the entire Assembly will support this text today, and show that there can be no impunity for these human rights violations. We must call on the Russian authorities to conduct an impartial and effective investigation. We must also raise awareness in our countries about this persecution, and call for the provision of international protection for victims, witnesses and their families by Council of Europe member States. We have the opportunity not only to show solidarity with all victims of this serious human rights violation, but to adopt a text that will require a follow-up at the Council of Europe and in national parliaments.

      The PRESIDENT* – The Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination has presented a draft resolution to which nine amendments have been tabled, and a draft recommendation to which no amendments have been tabled.

      I understand that the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 1, 6, 8 and 9 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly. The amendments concern only the French version of the draft resolution. If there are no objections we can proceed, and the amendments will apply as they appear in the documents.

      Does anyone object?

      As there is no objection, I declare that these amendments to the draft resolution have been adopted.

      I understand that Ms De Temmerman wishes to withdraw Amendment 4. Does anyone else wish to move it? That is not the case.

      Amendment 4 is withdrawn.

      I understand that Ms De Temmerman wishes to withdraw Amendment 5. Does anyone else wish to move it? That is not the case.

      Amendment 5 is withdrawn.

      I now call Ms De Temmerman to support Amendment 2.

      Ms De TEMMERMAN* (France) – I think that the independent investigation should not be an option. It should take place in parallel to ensure that the findings of any investigation undertaken by the Russian Federation can be complemented.

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

      Mr De BRUYN (Belgium) – We debated this issue in committee, and I fully understand your concerns. However, I feel that the first obligation is for the Russian Federation to launch a full investigation into this anti-gay purge, and I therefore think we should keep the words in the resolution.

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

      Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – The committee was against, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 2 is rejected.

      I understand that Ms De Temmerman wishes to withdraw Amendment 7. Does anyone else wish to move it? That is not the case.

      Amendment 7 is withdrawn.

      I call Ms De Temmerman to support Amendment 3.

      Ms De TEMMERMAN (France) – Electoral mandates call for any elected representative to show an example, and so anyone in such a position who makes homophobic statements should be held to account. They should not be able to call on the immunity of their position.

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

      Mr De BRUYN (Belgium) – I understand those concerns, but in my opinion it is up to national parliaments to decide exactly how to implement paragraph 8.6. We ask them firmly to condemn homophobic statements, but the way they do that, and whether or not it is by lifting impunity and so on, is up to those national parliaments. I am against the amendment.

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

      Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – The committee was against, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 3 is rejected.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 14572, as amended. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      As no amendments have been tabled to the draft recommendation, we will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 14572.

      The vote is open.

4. Next public business

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

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 8.30 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1.        Changes in the membership of committees

2.        Joint debate: Extra-territorial processing of asylum claims and the creation of safe refugee shelters abroad/Human rights impact of the “external dimension” of European Union asylum and migration policy: out of sight, out of rights?/International obligations of Council of Europe member States: to protect life at sea (Urgent debate)

Presentation by Mr Hajduković of the report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, Document 14571

Presentation by Mr Vareikis of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 14585

Presentation by Ms Strik of the report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, Document 14575

Presentation by Ms De Sutter of the report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, Document 14586

Statement by Mr Dimitrios Vitsas, Minister of Immigration Policy of Greece

Speakers: Mr Divina, Mr Varvitsiotis, Ms Ævarsdóttir, Mr Goodwill, Ms Lundgren, Ms Christodoulopoulou, Mr Vallini, Ms Christoffersen, Ms Ohlsson, Mr Stellini, Mr Melkumyan, Mr Kern, Mr Howell, Ms Duranton, Mr Csenger-Zalán, Mr Marques, Ms Anttila, Mr Gavan, Mr Coaker, Ms Günay, Mr Grech, Mr Troy, Ms Puppato, Mr Amoruso, Mr Maire, Mr Amraoui, Mr Overbeek, Mr Kleinwaechter, Ms Kavvadia, Ms Dumery, Ms Anagnostopoulou, Mr Cazeau

Draft resolution in Document 14571, as amended, adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 14571, as amended, adopted

Draft resolution in Document 14575, as amended, adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 14575 adopted

Draft resolution in Document 14586, as amended, adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 14586 adopted

3.        Persecution of LGBTI people in the Chechen Republic (Russian Federation)

Presentation by Mr De Bruyn of the report of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, Document 14572.

Speakers: Mr Zingeris, Mr Gunnarsson, Mr Evans, Mr Comte, Mr Gavan, Ms Åberg, Ms Blondin, Mr Tornare, Mr Thiéry, Ms Pelkonen, Mr Hajduković, Ms Jansson, Ms Lundgren, Ms Bayr, Mr Troy, Ms De Sutter, Ms De Temmerman, Mr Nissinen

Draft resolution in Document 14572, as amended, adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 14572 adopted

4.        Next public business

Appendix / Annexe

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

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

ÅBERG, Boriana [Ms]

ÆVARSDÓTTIR, Thorhildur Sunna [Ms]

AMON, Werner [Mr]

AMORUSO, Francesco Maria [Mr] (BERNINI, Anna Maria [Ms])

ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, Athanasia [Ms]

ANTTILA, Sirkka-Liisa [Ms]

APOSTOL, Ion [Mr] (GHIMPU, Mihai [Mr])

BADIA, José [M.]

BARDELL, Hannah [Ms]

BAYR, Petra [Ms] (BURES, Doris [Ms])

BERGAMINI, Deborah [Ms]

BEUS RICHEMBERGH, Goran [Mr]

BİLGEHAN, Gülsün [Mme]

BLONDIN, Maryvonne [Mme]

BRUYN, Piet De [Mr]

CAZEAU, Bernard [M.]

CHRISTODOULOPOULOU, Anastasia [Ms]

CHRISTOFFERSEN, Lise [Ms]

CIMBRO, Eleonora [Ms] (SANTERINI, Milena [Mme])

COAKER, Vernon [Mr] (PRESCOTT, John [Mr])

COMTE, Raphaël [M.] (FIALA, Doris [Mme])

CORSINI, Paolo [Mr]

COURSON, Yolaine de [Mme] (SORRE, Bertrand [M.])

CRUCHTEN, Yves [M.]

CSENGER-ZALÁN, Zsolt [Mr]

CSÖBÖR, Katalin [Mme]

D’AMBROSIO, Vanessa [Ms]

DAMYANOVA, Milena [Mme]

DE PIETRO, Cristina [Ms] (CATALFO, Nunzia [Ms])

DE TEMMERMAN, Jennifer [Mme]

DIVINA, Sergio [Mr]

DONCHEV, Andon [Mr] (HRISTOV, Plamen [Mr])

DUMERY, Daphné [Ms]

DURANTON, Nicole [Mme]

EBERLE-STRUB, Susanne [Ms]

EIDE, Petter [Mr] (SCHOU, Ingjerd [Ms])

ESSL, Franz Leonhard [Mr]

ESTRELA, Edite [Mme]

EVANS, Nigel [Mr]

FOURNIER, Bernard [M.]

FRESKO-ROLFO, Béatrice [Mme]

GALATI, Giuseppe [Mr] (SANTANGELO, Vincenzo [Mr])

GAMBARO, Adele [Ms]

GAVAN, Paul [Mr]

GERASHCHENKO, Iryna [Mme]

GERMANN, Hannes [Mr] (HEER, Alfred [Mr])

GHILETCHI, Valeriu [Mr]

GILLAN, Cheryl [Dame]

GIRO, Francesco Maria [Mr]

GOODWILL, Robert [Mr] (GALE, Roger [Sir])

GRECH, Etienne [Mr] (CUTAJAR, Rosianne [Ms])

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

GROZDANOVA, Dzhema [Ms]

GÜNAY, Emine Nur [Ms]

GUNNARSSON, Jonas [Mr]

HAJDUKOVIĆ, Domagoj [Mr]

HEINRICH, Gabriela [Ms]

HOPKINS, Maura [Ms]

HOWELL, John [Mr]

IONOVA, Mariia [Ms] (BEREZA, Boryslav [Mr])

JANSSON, Eva-Lena [Ms] (KARLSSON, Niklas [Mr])

JONES, Susan Elan [Ms]

JUHÁSZ, Hajnalka [Ms] (VEJKEY, Imre [Mr])

KALMARI, Anne [Ms]

KAPUR, Mudassar [Mr] (EIDE, Espen Barth [Mr])

KAVVADIA, Ioanneta [Ms]

KERN, Claude [M.] (WASERMAN, Sylvain [M.])

KILIÇ, Akif Çağatay [Mr]

KLEINWAECHTER, Norbert [Mr]

KOPŘIVA, František [Mr]

KYRIAKIDES, Stella [Ms]

LEITE RAMOS, Luís [M.]

LOGVYNSKYI, Georgii [Mr]

LOUCAIDES, George [Mr]

LOUIS, Alexandra [Mme]

LUNDGREN, Kerstin [Ms] (SVENSSON, Michael [Mr])

MAHMOOD, Shabana [Ms] (WILSON, Phil [Mr])

MAIRE, Jacques [M.]

MALLIA, Emanuel [Mr]

MAROSZ, Ján [Mr]

MARQUES, Duarte [Mr]

McGINN, Conor [Mr] (SMITH, Angela [Ms])

MEHL, Emilie Enger [Ms]

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

MENDES, Ana Catarina [Mme]

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

MURRAY, Ian [Mr]

NENUTIL, Miroslav [Mr]

NICOLETTI, Michele [Mr]

NISSINEN, Johan [Mr]

OEHME, Ulrich [Mr] (BERNHARD, Marc [Mr])

OHLSSON, Carina [Ms]

OOMEN-RUIJTEN, Ria [Ms]

O’REILLY, Joseph [Mr]

OVERBEEK, Henk [Mr] (STIENEN, Petra [Ms])

PACKALÉN, Tom [Mr]

PARVIAINEN, Olli-Poika [Mr] (GUZENINA, Maria [Ms])

PELKONEN, Jaana Maarit [Ms]

POCIEJ, Aleksander [M.] (KLICH, Bogdan [Mr])

PSYCHOGIOS, Georgios [Mr] (KASIMATI, Nina [Ms])

PUPPATO, Laura [Ms] (BERTUZZI, Maria Teresa [Ms])

RIBERAYGUA, Patrícia [Mme]

RIGONI, Andrea [Mr]

RUSTAMYAN, Armen [M.]

SCHENNACH, Stefan [Mr]

SCHNEIDER-SCHNEITER, Elisabeth [Mme] (LOMBARDI, Filippo [M.])

SCHWABE, Frank [Mr]

SOBOLEV, Serhiy [Mr]

SOLEIM, Vetle Wang [Mr] (WOLD, Morten [Mr])

SOTNYK, Olena [Ms]

STELLINI, David [Mr]

ŞUPAC, Inna [Ms]

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

THIÉRY, Damien [M.]

THÓRARINSSON, Birgir [Mr] (ÓLASON, Bergþór [Mr])

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

TRISSE, Nicole [Mme]

TROY, Robert [Mr] (COWEN, Barry [Mr])

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

VALLINI, André [M.] (LAMBERT, Jérôme [M.])

VAREIKIS, Egidijus [Mr]

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

VEN, Mart van de [Mr]

VERDIER-JOUCLAS, Marie-Christine [Mme] (GOUTTEFARDE, Fabien [M.])

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

VOGT, Ute [Ms] (BARNETT, Doris [Ms])

WENAWESER, Christoph [Mr]

WHITFIELD, Martin [Mr] (McCARTHY, Kerry [Ms])

YAŞAR, Serap [Mme]

ZINGERIS, Emanuelis [Mr]

Also signed the register / Ont également signé le registre

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

BOCCONE-PAGES, Brigitte [Mme]

CANNEY, Seán [Mr]

CORREIA, Telmo [M.]

COWEN, Barry [Mr]

CREASY, Stella [Ms]

MAELEN, Dirk Van der [Mr]

MASIULIS, Kęstutis [Mr]

PALLARÉS, Judith [Ms]

SHEPPARD, Tommy [Mr]

WASERMAN, Sylvain [M.]

Observers / Observateurs

---

Partners for democracy / Partenaires pour la démocratie

ALAZZAM, Riad [Mr]

ALQAWASMI, Sahar [Ms]

AMRAOUI, Allal [M.]

BENAZZOUZ, Abdelaziz [M.]

BOUANOU, Abdellah [M.]

LABLAK, Aicha [Mme]

LEBBAR, Abdesselam [M.]

SABELLA, Bernard [Mr]

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

the Parliamentary Assembly)/ Représentants de la communauté chypriote turque

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

CANDAN Armağan

SANER Hamza Ersan