C Explanatory memorandum by Ms Sevinj
Fataliyeva, rapporteur for opinion
1 First of all, allow me to congratulate
Ms Rósa Björk Brynjólfsdóttir (Iceland, UEL) on the excellent and timely
report she has prepared for the Committee on Migrants, Refugees
and Displaced Persons.
2 As the Assembly’s rapporteur on “Ending child poverty in Europe”,
Note “Protecting
children affected by armed conflicts”
Note and
“Preventing the radicalisation of children by fighting the root
causes”,
Note I attach utmost importance to
the protection of children’s rights, and I feel honoured to contribute
to this important text. In all these reports, I gave special attention
to the root causes of situations where children’s rights were not respected.
I therefore appreciate that this was also the starting point of
Ms Brynjólfsdóttir’s report.
3 Indeed, the numbers of unaccompanied minors among the migration
population are growing at an alarming speed. The percentage of 96%
of migrant children arriving unaccompanied in Italy in the first
half of 2017 is shocking. The extremely difficult conditions for
migration of families, on one hand, and either perceived or real
advantage for migrant children, on the other hand, create the context
for this disturbing phenomenon. Some countries are reluctant to
improve the situation of migrant children because of fear of this
becoming a pull-factor. But is it an acceptable solution to this
problem? While it might seem to be an effective deterrent, it has
not prevented thousands of children from ending up in prison-like
conditions on European soil. Leaving aside the human cost of this
approach, it is also likely to fuel violence and conflict within
our societies and growing resentment towards “Fortress Europe” in
many parts of the world.
4 The proposed long-term European Union budget for migration
is €1 135 billion over the period from 2021 to 2027. Substantial
funds are also devoted by individual member States to developing
their responses to migration. Europe has enough resources to ensure
the minimum level of protection to every child. What is needed is
stronger political commitment and priority to children’s well-being.
Ensuring protection of children’s rights, with special attention
to the most vulnerable, allows us to build a “Europe with a human
face” and a safer world.
5 I welcome the rapporteur’s emphasis on creating channels for
safe, legal and regular migration, thereby strengthening safeguards
for children and their family members (paragraph 8.1.1 of the draft
resolution). Indeed, there are no better protection measures than
creating such channels, and family reunification is an essential
part of this process. Mr Nils Muižnieks, former Council of Europe
Commissioner for Human Rights, pointed out that the European Union
Family Reunification Directive’s application is often contested
and that the Dublin Regulation is not effective in guaranteeing
family unity. He cited many barriers, including waiting times, short
deadlines, strict evidential requirements, financial cost barriers
and barriers in the region of origin. Mr Muižnieks made 36 recommendations
on reviewing relevant laws, policies and practices, and highlighted the
importance of abolishing the restrictions in this area.
Note I would like to encourage all of
us to make full use of these recommendations when reviewing relevant
legislation in our countries. Furthermore, increasing the quota
for migrants’ resettlement or the granting of humanitarian visas
are other examples of how safe migration could be supported (
Amendment A).
6 As mentioned by the rapporteur, in the context of migration
many alternative measures are being introduced by different countries
and are showing positive results. This includes foster care, supervised independent
living and reporting obligations. While these measures remain marginal
compared to the mainstream policies, they have enormous potential
for improving the well-being of the children concerned, as well
as of our societies. In Italy, by May 2018, there were 4 110 applications
from citizens offering to be voluntary guardians for unaccompanied
children.
Note Both political commitment
and resources should be geared towards developing such measures,
and relevant policies need to be implemented, as a matter of priority (
Amendment B).
7 When providing legal safeguards for migrant children regarding
their access to asylum procedures, such safeguards need to be supported
by ensuring that children are provided with child-friendly and age-appropriate information
about asylum possibilities and other rights. Too often, such information
is not easily accessible, and children do not know about the existing
possibilities and cannot use them (Amendment
C).
8 I believe that violence against, and exploitation of, migrant
children cannot be effectively addressed in this context without
raising awareness among the public about migration in general and
about the situation of children. Regretfully, too many politicians
are turning towards populist discourse. Statistics are often manipulated,
and the public is misled. At the same time, research shows that
many people are not comfortable with either “open borders” or “closed
borders” concept. What they demand is the government’s ability to manage
migration effectively.
Note Providing reliable facts and figures,
discussing the real “costs” and “benefits” of migration, as well
as the role of Europe in the world are essential. It is important
to show the human tragedy behind migration and to share practical
and cost-effective solutions. This should not take the form of well-intended
“propaganda” but must be part of an open and respectful public debate
(
Amendment D).
9 Furthermore, I would also suggest that the Assembly should
call on the European Parliament to review the European Union’s targeted
support and outsourcing of migration management to third countries,
which has led to inhuman and degrading treatment of migrants in
such countries, with their most basic needs not being met, and with
children being exposed to extreme levels of violence and deprivation.
A recent legal submission to the International Criminal Court (ICC),
which includes an allegation of “crimes against humanity”, is one
of the latest initiatives to draw attention to the horrific situation
of migrants in such countries. The submission targets the European
Union and the member States that played a prominent role in the
refugee crisis: Italy, Germany and France. It states that: “In order
to stem migration flows from Libya at all costs (…) and in lieu
of operating safe rescue and disembarkation as the law commands,
the European Union is orchestrating a policy of forced transfer
to concentration camp-like detention facilities [in Libya] where
atrocious crimes are committed”
Note. Reportedly, children are held with
adults in the same squalid conditions in such facilities.
Note While these children are not located
in Europe, their situation is a consequence of EU policies and it
is a responsibility of EU member States to take necessary action
(hence the proposed
Amendment E).
10 I fully welcome the call on the Council of Europe member States
to ensure “the compliance of national legislation with international
standards for the protection of migrant children, in particular
prohibiting their detention” (draft resolution, paragraph 8.1.2).
However, I am concerned that the call on the Committee of Ministers
to “ask the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) to consider
the possibility of developing standards for reception centres for
migrant children” (draft recommendation, paragraph 6.2) might be misunderstood
as justifying detention in some form. The Assembly has long been
campaigning against detention of children in the context of migration.
This is also the approach of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees and the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the
Child. In my view, it is important to specify that such reception
centres should be non-custodial, open structures (Amendment F).
