Sarah’s talk focussed on how Turkey has coped with the huge numbers of mainly Syrian refugees, who have moved north across the border into Turkey. The loss of life due to the Syrian civil war, and the migration from Syria and Iraq has been described as the largest humanitarian crisis since the Second World War. Her discussion also asked us to think about whether the UK response was the most effective contribution that Britain could be making. Could the UK learn anything from a country such as Turkey that has taken significant numbers of refugees?

Sarah showed us photos of what it is like inside the 22 Turkish camps for Syrian refugees, where there is water, sanitation, health care and food. Of course, the Turkish government has more control over people in the camps and camp residents are also the recipients of the majority of aid. However, these camps accommodate only 10% of the estimated three million Syrians in Turkey. Those outside the camps live in public buildings or private housing in poor areas of large cities. For the local Turkish population, this has meant rent increases for poorer Turks and this has caused resentment.

Local authorities all over Turkey are dealing as best they can with a number of other challenges, for example, education. UNICEF estimate that 400,000 out of 900,000 Syrian children in Turkey are not enrolled in school. And for the Turkish education system there are dilemmas: which language should be the medium for teaching and what should the curriculum be? There are many Syrian refugee teachers but there is no comprehensive system for using them.

Employment is another challenge. In theory, when Syrians register under the ‘temporary protection’ classification in Turkey they get free health care, education etc. but until 2016 they could not work legally. Many have therefore gone into the informal economy, with low pay and poor conditions. In Gaziantep, where Sarah had just visited, women workers in the industrial zones outside the city work in plastics, leather goods, white goods manufacturing and textiles, undercutting local wages. Although the Turkish government is now issuing work permits relatively few of these are taken up – refugees must get their employers to sponsor them and there is little incentive for employers to do this. Why legalise a worker if it means paying that worker double what they pay them as ‘informal’ workers?

Is there any possibility of going back to Syria? It has been seven years since the conflict started and settlement seems a long way off. Assad is still in power, supported by Iran and Russia. Many say they will not go back to Syria if he is still in power. But what would be the reality of going back? There has been massive destruction of property and all types of services, IEDs and landmines make many areas lethal. Even now, the UN estimates that 5.1m people are living in highly contaminated areas. Accessing what was theirs requires title deeds and many will have no proof of ownership; only 4% of women had title deeds for their property anyway. For these practical reasons many realise it will be some years before they can return.

The talk ended with questions about the UK response. The UK has taken the decision to bury the issue by paying Turkey to keep Syrians there. Sarah suggested a more comprehensive approach could have been used but was not. For example, joining with positive countries (like Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Canada, Norway) to develop a joint plan would have enabled countries to come together and show they take their international obligations seriously. This wouldn’t necessarily have meant the UK taking thousands of Syrians as refugees, rather sharing out responsibilities. What we have done is to agree to accept a pitifully (Jane’s description) small number (20,000 by 2020) and even this target looks unlikely to be met. The UK has clout with other donor countries because of the size of its aid programme, but it has not used this to help develop a comprehensive strategic response to the Syria crisis. (Summary: Jane Maxim)