2008 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-third Sitting

Wednesday 25 June 2008 at 10 a.m.

Link to the voting results

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are summarised.

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

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

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

Mr Mignon, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.02 a.m.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The sitting is open.

1. Minutes of proceedings

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The minutes of proceedings of the Twenty-first Sitting have been distributed. If there are no objections the minutes are agreed to.

The minutes are agreed to.

2. Written declaration

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – In accordance with Rule 53 of the Rules of Procedure a written declaration, No. 410, “Encouragement of the Council of Europe and its member states to support the activities of the Heydar Aliyev Foundation in enhancing the role of women in society”, Document 11657, which has been signed by 22 members, has been printed.

Any Representative or Substitute may add his signature to this written declaration in the Table Office, Room 1083. If any names are added, the declaration will be distributed again two weeks after the end of the part-session, with all the accumulated signatures.

3. Changes in membership of committees

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Our next business is to consider the changes proposed in the membership of committees. These are set out in document Commissions (2008)5 Addendum 3.

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

The changes are agreed to.

4. Democracy in Europe

      THE PRESIDENT said that, last year, an ambitious project had been launched to address the state of democracy and human rights in Europe. This was a difficult task, but was a matter of defending and promoting democracy, human rights and the rule of law. It has been decided this year that debates on democracy and on human rights would be held alternately, to concentrate on specific issues each time. Today, the second annual debate would be held, focusing on the situation of democracy in Europe and more specifically on the problems with the participation of migrants in democratic life. In the afternoon, the focus would be on the functioning of democratic institutions in Europe.

Migration was a subject at the heart of the debate between politicians. The question was clear: how could we be sure to grasp migration as a challenge and not see it as a threat? Today’s debate would, he hoped, focus on common problems and spreading best practice in finding relevant solutions.

A central debate this year was also the participation of civil society in democratic processes. The previous evening, a parliamentary conference had been held between members and representatives of civil society. Its deliberations would enable the Assembly to enrich its debates and the texts to be adopted with helpful ideas and proposals. He thanked all the participants at the conference for their contributions.

For the debate this morning, on the questions of migration, the Assembly would hear Mr Jan Niessen, Director of the Migration Policy Group, one of the most important NGOs which sought to feed into European debate, and influence action, on the subject of migration. Mr Niessen was the author of numerous publications and research projects on the integration of migration and diversity issues into the decision-making processes of national and multilateral political institutions. He had also supervised work on the index of the integration of migrants.

This afternoon, in the debate on the functioning of democratic institutions, the Assembly would also hear Mr Miklos Marschall, the regional director for “l’Europe et l’Asie Centrale de Transparency International”. This was a civil society organisation with global reach, with more than 90 teams throughout the world seeking to encourage changes in laws and practices with a view to eradicating corruption. Its index of corruption, which every year classified the countries according to the perception of the prevalence of corruption, was a respected tool, often used in the Council’s analyses. Mr Marschall had been the founder and executive director of CIVICUS, the worldwide alliance for the participation of citizens a global resource. Between 1991 and 1994, he had been Mayor of Budapest.

      He thanked these speakers for their participation.

      (Translation). – The next business today is the debate on three reports regarding the state of democracy in Europe. A joint debate will take place this morning on the first two reports. The debate on the third report will take place this afternoon and will be followed by the votes on all three reports.

      The first report is from the Political Affairs Committee on “Specific challenges facing European democracies: the case of diversity and migration”, Document 11623, presented by Mr Gross, rapporteur, followed by an opinion from the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, Document 11653, presented by Mrs Memecan, rapporteur.

      The second report is from the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population on “Measures to improve the democratic participation of migrants”, Document 11625, presented by Mr Greenway, rapporteur.

      These presentations will be followed by a statement from Mr Niessen, Director of the Migration Policy Group, and then by a joint debate.

      In order to finish debate on these items by 1 p.m., it will be necessary to interrupt the list of speakers at around 12.45 p.m. to hear the replies from the committees.

      Is that agreed?

It is agreed.

      I remind the Assembly that on Monday it was agreed that speaking time in all debates today be limited to four minutes.

      I call Mr Gross, rapporteur, to present the report from the Political Affairs Committee. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – This is a long story with only a short introduction. First, I stress that the first report is not just about migrants, migration and democracy, but about the state of democracy in our countries. We should focus analysis of democracy in terms of diversity, because diversity is an expression of modern society and migration is only one element of the causes of diversity.

Secondly, we have to see the debate within a framework that began last year. We tried to understand why our democracies are in crisis. It was mutually agreed in our last debates on the subject that declining participation and increasing distance between citizens and institutions in nearly all our member states is the expression of a crisis in democracy. That crisis is especially alarming and thought-provoking because of two paradoxes in the state of democracy today.

      The first paradox is the norm that everybody likes democracy—nobody is against democracy—but when we talk to our citizens in daily life, nobody is satisfied with the state of their democracy. The second paradox is the impression that the potential for living democracy in our society is high; the knowledge of citizens is high and they could do much more than simply choosing between two similar parties of the centre every three, four or five years. That is one of the frustrations: the possibilities in societies are bigger than are allowed by institutions.

One way out of the crisis is to make representative democracy more representative. We could introduce an element of direct democracy by including citizens much more in the daily life of parliaments and decision-making processes, such as law-making and constitutional reform. That would allow people to realise their potential and decrease the distance between citizens and institutions in our democracies.

      The second element in overcoming the crisis is explored in detail in our report. National democracies can no longer deliver the promises that every democracy has made on equality of life chances because global markets can no longer be managed by national democracies. Freedom becomes a privilege. That fact brings us back to the French revolution, whose basic idea was precisely the idea that freedom in the sense of people’s capacity to influence their daily existence should not be only for the privileged, but be the right of every person. To make that possible again, we should develop democracy at trans-national level to achieve legitimacy, enforce the market, to respect nature and the interests of the vulnerable, and represent all the interests that cannot be met merely by market forces.

That is the basic premise of the report, and now I shall be happy to listen to the debate and afterwards to answer some of the critical remarks that I see have already been tabled in the amendments.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. You have precisely eight minutes and 38 seconds in which to answer the debate.

I call Mrs Memecan, the rapporteur, to present the opinion of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men. You have three minutes.

      Mrs MEMECAN (Turkey). – As the moral conscience of Europe, the Council of Europe has addressed a timely and appropriate topic, and the rapporteur, Mr Gross, has done a great job.

      Diversity offers both challenges and opportunities that will eventually give way to more tolerant societies. Citizens of EU member states, as well as citizens from around the world, tend to reside in countries other than their own for various reasons. Traditionally homogenous societies have to prepare themselves for the new dynamism in their communities. Diversity is here to stay.

      Our committee supports the draft resolution and the draft recommendation. However, we would like to propose a number of amendments to ensure that the gender dimension of the challenges is better reflected.

      Women are the driving force in the development of their families and communities, so the inclusion of migrant women in social life is extremely important for the integration of immigrant communities. However, women from various ethnic and religious backgrounds introduce different issues and problems that need to be addressed. Migrant women must be empowered, but with due respect for their values.

Formal and continuing education on general subjects as well as on fundamental human rights and democratic values is the foremost measure in strengthening the status of women. Granting legally dependent immigrant wives the option of being in charge of their immigration status and treating them as independent individuals would be a major encouragement and empowerment for migrant women. They should be made aware of the equal opportunities that are offered to them, and encouraged to benefit from them. Empowered women will be less prone to many forms of domestic violence.

      I hope that the amendments will be supported and that the rights of migrant women will be ensured.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you.

      I call Mr Greenway, the rapporteur, to present the report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom). – Measures to improve the democratic participation of migrants pose two questions. First, do we want to improve the democratic participation of migrants? The conclusion I have reached from studying the subject is that we can improve the participation of migrants in the democratic process but only if we have the political will to do so. If members read my report thoroughly, I think they will come to the same conclusion.

In the Assembly, we have previously passed reports that have led to the adoption of conventions that have not been ratified. If they were to be ratified, we would improve the democratic participation of migrants. That is the stark reality of the challenge before the Assembly today. I hope that, by adopting my report later today, we will send a message to our national governments that we want them to do more.

      The second question is: what discourages participation? I have a list of measures that would help to improve participation, but to understand why they are relevant we have to understand the dynamic behind what actually discourages participation. The list is not exhaustive but I think that it covers most of the real discouragements. First, election rules are too strict. Secondly, there is the profound effect of racism, xenophobia and intolerance in our society and, in addition, the media portrayal of migrants, which is negative when it should be positive. Many migrants lack the proper status for participation. There is a dreadful failure to consult migrant communities about the issues that affect their daily lives – where they live, their housing, where their children are educated and the health provision they enjoy, or do not enjoy. Worst of all, there is a failure to understand the real problems that they have experienced in their home countries. The level of democratic participation generally in many countries of origin of many of the migrants who are in Europe today is poor. We just have to look at the dreadful events in Zimbabwe to see that. How can people in Africa have much confidence in the democratic process? That is the background – the level of their experience before migrating, the level of engagement generally in the host society and the level of individual motivation of the people concerned.

      It is impossible to go through all of my report in such a brief speech, but it seeks to find solutions so that we can facilitate the change that we want to see. In effect, two aspects run through it. The first is the primary role of integration. The second is to facilitate participation and remove the barriers to participation so that migrants feel able to participate and then improve their conditions and lives. I also want to stress that integration and participation is a two-way process. It is not just about host countries here in Europe providing everything. It requires migrants themselves to want to participate and to be involved.

      I want to refer briefly to a couple of things that came up in the excellent conference that we had yesterday evening. We knew that it would be something of an experiment, but I think that it was a very successful one. The first is the problem of new barriers being put up before migrants can even begin to belong in their communities. Traditionally, integration measures have been seen as being for the benefit of migrants in order to tackle disadvantage and allow equal participation. There is, however, a creeping tendency in some states to see integration as the responsibility of migrants and to consider applying penalties to migrants who fail to integrate sufficiently. The phrase “criminalisation of migrants” was used by a number of speakers. A strong plea on this issue was made by our Commissioner, Mr Hammerberg, and by Mr Niessen, who will take the floor in a few moments. We have to listen carefully to what they say. Both the commissioner and Mr Niessen strongly supported my plea that we should see countries ratify and implement the texts of conventions, as they have already promised to do.

      My concluding comment to the Assembly is where I began. Where we want to facilitate change, we can do so, but it requires political will. Yesterday, when I gave an interview to one of the French radio stations about our debate, the question was put to me, “But Mr Greenway, aren’t you going against what national governments are saying about immigrants?” I said, “Yes, we are, but we have done that before. We have facilitated change by being the moral conscience of Europe in this Assembly and by saying that the current situation cannot continue. It has to change.” The real advantage of a debate such as today’s is that is gives colleagues across Europe, from all member states here in this Assembly, the opportunity to say that we want to see change and we want to see governments honour the promises that they have made.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Greenway. You have five minutes and 57 seconds in the bank should you wish to reply to the debate later.

      I now invite Mr Niessen, Director of the Migration Policy Group, to make a statement.

      Mr NIESSEN (Director of the Migration Policy Group). – It is an honour and a pleasure to address you today on two excellent reports which you will debate and vote on. It is clear that they are based on thorough research and consultation with stakeholders, including those in civil society. That is extremely important and for me it partially explains why the reports are so good.

      Both reports call for complementary strategies – we cannot do a little bit of this and a little bit of that – which include securing the resident status of immigrants. If that is not secured for them and members of their families, they will not participate socially or politically. Both the Greenway report and the Gross report refer, on a number of occasions, to that comprehensive approach. It is imperative to find quicker ways of allowing migrants to become a citizen of a country. We need to cut down the number of rules and the number of years before someone becomes a citizen. The approach must also find other ways of encouraging and facilitating people’s civic participation. Last but not least, part of this comprehensive approach is a robust anti-discrimination policy. Again, both reports refer to that, as do the draft resolutions.

      Let me say something about the international conventions that are being adopted but unfortunately not being ratified by a significant number of countries. On a critical note, I have to say that I hope that these are the last reports that call for the ratification. To be honest, we have had enough of those appeals. It is time for you, members of parliament, to call your governments to order by saying, “Sign, ratify and implement these instruments.” I understand that the reports call for that ratification, but I really hope that this is the last time that that has to be happen. We now have to call for good mechanisms to be in place so that we can see whether countries make progress in implementing them. My organisation, together with 20 others, has tried to do that by developing 140 policy indicators, which are an elaboration on those conventions. We have to check that those countries have done so. I hope that the Parliamentary Assembly shows a little more of its teeth in calling for strong supervisory mechanisms, based here in Strasbourg. They must be reinforced and we must create new ones that are more specific. We must also call for sanctions against those states that do not ratify. We should stop asking them to ratify. Instead, we should get them to ratify. That is my strong appeal.

      My last comment is again on the reports. I hope that the Assembly will adopt them. Of course, you will make some changes to them, which is only normal. However, I think that they have the potential of becoming landmarks in the discussions across Europe. That is extremely important because many organisations and people working in the field look to the Council of Europe and your Parliamentary Assembly for leadership and guidance, and to take the right steps. This is about mainstreaming integration issues in all the work of societal organisations, but particularly in the work of political organisations and parties. It is about opening things up for immigrants and recruiting them as members, as well as voters. I want to see active recruitment strategies for including immigrants in political parties, political institutions and elsewhere in society. Hopefully, we will begin to report on how we can recruit immigrants into our ranks.

      I hope that the next report will deal with the issue of developing an intercultural competence, because it is not easy to recruit immigrants for participation in mainstream organisations. For that, as I say, the development of an intercultural competence is needed. It will be interesting to hear reports on the progress that mainstream organisations make in including immigrants, developing that competence and changing organisations’ internal culture. I hope that the next report will address that.

      I am fully aware that the work to improve democracy is wide-ranging; it is not just about migration and immigrants. I hope that, in the work that you do on the state of democracy, you will continue to consider issues related to immigrants, integration and the diversity of our societies. I wish the committee and the rapporteurs well with that work. Thank you very much.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Niessen. That brings us to the joint debate. First, I call Mrs Michaela Sburny on behalf of the Socialist Group. You have four minutes.

      Mrs SBURNY (Austria) thanked the rapporteurs of the two reports, and noted that they gave the Assembly the opportunity to assert its own position in the debate on migration and political participation. It was excellent to have reports and debates on these matters on an annual basis, as had been the case in recent years.

      Democratic participation was at a low level across most sections of society, but it was, of course, particularly low among migrants. As Mr Gross had indicated in his report, there were a number of reasons for this, but prime among them were certain short-comings in the way that European democracies functioned. European countries were some way off from achieving all the vital objectives of democracy, and it was true that the short-comings affected not just migrants but populations in their entirety. The absence of opportunities to participate was causing a democratic crisis.

      There were two reasons for this, both of equal significance. First, whereas economies had functioned at a transnational level for quite some time, political institutions and decision making were still primarily located at a national level. An excellent example of this was that all the good recommendations and resolutions passed by the Council of Europe had to be implemented by national parliaments to have any effect at all. If national parliaments did not take on board the recommendations made here, they amounted to nothing more than pleasant talk and admirable ambitions and aspirations. There was a serious need to make better use of transnational institutions and decision-making mechanisms.

      It was vital not to lose contact with the citizen in this process. A significant gap existed between the top and the bottom of society, and those at the bottom often had no influence on decisions made at the top, and were effectively entirely alienated from the processes by which decisions were made. It was important to ensure that migrants, who were often at the bottom of society’s pyramid, became active in the political decision-making process.

      The second cause was that our societies had been poor in dealing with diversity. The way to deal with migration was to accept diversity and treat it as a positive phenomenon by tapping into the wealth of different experience which people from other cultural backgrounds brought to the table.

      The Socialist Group wished to propose one change to the report drafted by Mr Greenway. It did not agree that language proficiency should be a condition for migrants. In this area, the solution depended on the specific circumstances of each individual case.

      So, in summary, the Socialist Group welcomed these two reports and, although there were plenty of reasons to be proud of our democracies, it was essential to ensure that everyone in society, including migrants, were able to participate fully in society.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Christos Pourgourides, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – Dear colleagues, as Mr Gross rightly said, this debate is about a general evaluation of the present state of democracy in Europe. An evaluation implies a comparison. Let us stop for a moment and imagine the child of an immigrant from Africa running for president or prime minister in one of our countries as the chosen candidate of a mainstream party. As you can see from that simple test, we are probably still a long way from abandoning our prejudices, which are at the root of most of the democratic deficits from which our countries still suffer.

      This Assembly has had ample grounds recently to criticise the United States of America, what with renditions, secret detentions, anti-terror blacklists, the death penalty and so on. However, the ongoing presidential campaign shows that the United States is also a strapping example of a functioning democracy. The democratic process, in the form of the primaries held in the two political parties, has already produced surprise results; the outsiders or underdogs won, and not the “unavoidables”. Such surprise results are what democracy – the kind without an adjective – is all about.

      Could we have an Obama phenomenon in our countries – in Europe? I very much doubt it. True democracy requires an open public contest of ideas, with fair access to the media for all political groups, and access to relevant information. True democracy requires that the three branches of government – executive, parliament and judiciary – work hand in hand, complementing each other, towards the goal of good governance that brings happiness to people.

      I should like to conclude by stressing the need for openness, which is crucial for the quality of democratic debate and the acceptability of its outcomes to all, and for holding state executive bodies to account before the judiciary and parliament. The Assembly’s recent reports on renditions and secret detentions, and on fair trial issues in espionage cases, prepared by our friend Dick Marty and myself, have shown that in most of our countries, albeit with different degrees of severity, the notion of state secrecy tends to be abused by the executive. It is used either as a shield to prevent courts and parliaments from holding governments to account for serious human rights abuses committed by their agents, or as a sword to silence critical journalists, academics and other civil society actors. They should be encouraged to blow the whistle on all kinds of problems that a true democracy needs to solve rather than shove under the carpet, and they should not be punished for doing that.

      The reports under discussion should have been the highlight of the year, not only because of their excellence but because they deal with one of our core issues, democracy. I feel duty bound to express my sorrow about the fact that those very important reports are being discussed in a half-empty Chamber. Thank you very much.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Pourgourides. I call Mrs Nakashidzé, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Mrs NAKASHIDZÉ (Georgia). – First, I should like to express my gratitude on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe to both rapporteurs for the quality and thoroughness of the report and to underline the importance of this topic to this very institution, which is the watchdog for human rights and the leading European institution spreading democratic values.

      Today is a very special day in the Council of Europe because the whole day is dedicated to a debate on the state of democracy in Europe. That is such a broad topic that we could dedicate the whole week to it and it would not be enough. One of the topics that we are considering today is migration, diversity and the participation of migrants in democratic processes. But before we consider their participation in democratic processes, which is at a low level even for those who are natural citizens of a country, it would be nice to consider first whether they enjoy other basic rights.

      It is very important first to ensure that migrants have access to human rights – the rights of every human being. Often, migrants are treated as second-class citizens – I do not know why – and they do not enjoy all the privileges and rights that democratic society can offer to its citizens. It is also very important that everybody in a society has the same access to democratic values and privileges. I therefore think that it is very important – I underline this on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe – that we should not use double standards and treat citizens and representatives of various countries differently. We should give them equal access to all human rights and values. If they had that, I am sure that their participation in democratic processes would increase.

      I know that it is very difficult to regulate migration while not restricting migrants’ access to all the goods and services that society can offer, but, by limiting them, we create a very bad precedent in respect of those who are privileged in society and those who are not. So equal treatment is a very important thing, because it will allow migrants to integrate into society, while not losing their diversity, including their culture and language and so on.

      It is very important that we are discussing this issue today in this Chamber, because it is very close to the Council of Europe, which is the institution that promotes democratic values, freedom and respect for human rights across the continent. I am absolutely sure that, by joining our efforts, we can create better conditions not only for migrants but for everyone on this continent, so that they have a better life and to enjoy more democratic values. Thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Madam. I call Mr Wilshire, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – On behalf of the EDG, I would very much like to welcome two thoughtful reports on very important issues for the future of democracy. We are considering the fundamentals of how we take forward into the 21st century the concept of democracy, which we are here to defend and promote. It is absolutely clear and obvious that successful democracy, however we define it, depends upon maximum participation if it is to flourish. The way to lose democracy is to ignore it.

      The EDG therefore supports in principle any realistic effort that will increase participation, but the issues that we are considering in these reports – migration and immigration – are sensitive issues, and I am very conscious of the fact that anyone who chooses to express reservations to try to stimulate a debate about immigration and migration must do so with the greatest possible care. But I make no apology for doing that, because if we are to understand these issues and if we are to find solutions that work, we must debate the matter, because it raises significant issues.

      If we are addressing integration, migration and immigration, we must ensure that we do not tell individual communities that we are demanding that they do something, because that will put their backs up. We have to be careful that we do not seek change that is too fast, because that would pose a threat to society. We need to consider these reports with that in mind.

      We also need to consider these reports to ensure that they are founded on the instinctive nature of human society. Whether we like it or not, we have societies and that is the point from which we start. Traditionally, human society is homogeneous – that is how it happens to be – and we must start from there. We must accept that traditional society is independent of other societies, and we must be very careful if we interfere in that independence. We must remember that human society will be instinctively defensive of its independence and will respond badly if it feels threatened. So we must avoid those problems.

      I also suggest that these reports try to stress a distinction between integration and assimilation. If I understand history correctly, I think that we are probably wasting our time with that distinction. Over a long period, what starts as integration will inevitably, because of the nature of society, end up as assimilation, and we should not criticise that.

I have one particular point to make about Mr Gross’s report: we must be careful that we do not try to challenge the concept of the nation state by suggesting that people who move into a society instinctively and automatically must have the same rights. We must accept that democracy as we know it today is based on the concept of citizenship of an independent nation state. If we want to overturn the rights and privileges of the citizen, we need to tread very carefully indeed.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Keskin on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr KESKIN (Germany) expressed his thanks to the President and his dear colleagues, Mr Greenway and Mr Gross, whose reports he had much appreciated. In his report, Mr Greenway had noted the importance of citizenship in promoting participation in the political process. Mr Keskin agreed that nationality played a central role in enabling people to become fully involved with the democratic process. Only through citizenship and nationality could migrants feel fully integrated into society; without this, migrants continued to remain feeling like, and being treated as, foreigners in their new home and consequently enjoyed fewer and less robust human rights and freedoms.

      He clarified that he was not talking about people who were resident on a temporary basis, or those who had only recently moved into a country. He was concerned about the great number of people who had lived in countries for several decades after immigration but still seemed to benefit less from systems of rights and freedoms than those who were originally born in those countries. Millions of such people had yet to be given full access to the same level of protection of fundamental rights than indigenous people. Germany alone had 7 million people who were still classified as foreigners or aliens; these people where not even allowed to vote in local authority elections if they had not originated in a European Union member state. Countries should not continue to exclude these millions of people as this was, in fact, a form of discrimination.

      The lack of citizenship or the grant of nationality for migrants from their adopted countries stood in the way of integration and meant that migrants could not truly identify with their society or form a full allegiance to that country. Full integration required migrants having the same rights in all sectors of society. He felt that the standards set for acquiring citizenship or nationality could be set too high. For example, some countries required migrants to renounce their original citizenship and it was time for these countries to realise that this was an unreasonable requirement. In contrast, some countries had allowed migrants to adopt dual nationality, and other countries should now follow this example.

      He supported the comments made by Mr Niessen that integration must be the touchstone of the quality of a democracy, and it was now time to implement measures to ensure that migrants could fully integrate into their adopted societies.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you.

      I now ask the rapporteur whether he would like to respond at this stage.

      Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – I thank all who have spoken. They all agreed that participation is a sign of the quality of a democracy. That is important because participation gives you dignity, which is a core element of human rights. That is the link between democracy and human rights: without the right to participate, when you are the object of the decisions of others, you cannot live in a dignified way.

      As Mrs Sburny said, democracy is the right to be different. When all are the same, no one is anything. Identity comes through our differences. Democracy is the art of enabling different people to solve conflicts without violence, which is the antithesis of a quality democracy.

      In thinking about that, I would like to challenge what Mr Wilshire said. He made the point very softly but we must be careful to see the difference there. In England perhaps the nation state was the beginning of democracy, but in other parts of Europe democracy started in the town and then came the regions. The nation state came afterwards. No one said that the nation state is the last level of democracy. Democracy must be on the same level, like the market and the economy. Today, there is a huge gap, which is weakening, if not undermining, democracy.

      In Switzerland, for example, from the beginning we had a diverse society and it is challenging to integrate diversity through democracy but when you think about towns they are by definition a diverse society, so the homogeneity was an illusion or a product of violence. Before the revolution, France was very homogenous. It is one of the negative aspects of the making of nation states – they promoted the destruction of differences. I think that we would acknowledge that today. We must be more open and in that way we can cope better because the future of all our societies will be diverse and we do not want to lose democracy. We must think about how to organise it on a transnational or supranational basis, even though until now it has been constituted on the basis of the nation state.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you.

      I see Mr Greenway does not wish to respond at this stage. I call Mr Davis.

      Mr DAVIS (Secretary General of the Council of Europe). – I thank Mr Gross, Mr Greenway and Mrs Memecan for the papers that we have before us. They deserve our consideration and reflection after the debate.

      Migrants are special people - as a matter of fact, all Europeans are descendants of migrants - because they made a deliberate decision to move and to live in a country, rather than being born there as descendants of previous migrants. They do not have as many rights as the people who are born there but, as Mr Gross said, migrants are part of society. Therefore, I want to follow his example in describing the overarching problems that affect democracy.

      In 1863, the 16th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, delivered his famous speech in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, and referred to government of the people, by the people, for the people. For the past 145 years, politicians across the world have struggled to grasp the concept – or to accept it. Some still struggle.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Council of Europe has more than doubled in membership to include all European countries except Belarus. That is because Belarus is often described as the last dictatorship in Europe, but it does not mean that there are no other countries with problems when it comes to compliance with Council of Europe standards on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The fact is that membership of the Council of Europe, whether it is recent or going back for decades, is not a certificate of irrefutable and irreversible democratic credentials.

There are several issues, and they are not exclusive to one part of Europe. Properly conducted elections are one of those issues. Recently, we have had a succession of elections in our member states, and the observers appointed by the Parliamentary Assembly have reported that some of those elections have failed to meet the standards of the Council of Europe. Problems vary from old-fashioned ballot stuffing to more sophisticated methods of influencing the outcome, but they nearly all have one thing in common – the incumbents have profited as a result. Democracy is a question of attitude – not attitude to victory alone, but attitude to defeat and the prospect of defeat. To win is easy. To lose is difficult. Believe me, I speak from personal experience. I lost a few elections myself, and my reaction was always the same – accept the defeat, but make up my mind to win next time. Some people seem to be too impatient to bother. They are ready to accept the will of the people, but only if it is in their favour.

      If I may paraphrase William Shakespeare: in a democracy, if you lose an election the fault lies not in the stars, or your opponent, or the electorate, but in yourself. The elitist approach to politics, in which politicians know best and feel entitled to take the liberty of rigging or ignoring election results because voters elected – or wanted to elect – their opponent or to vote down their pet project, is deeply undemocratic. Yet it still occurs.

      Freedom of expression, or rather the lack of it, is a matter of serious concern. Methods vary from place to place, but again, the result is the same. Whether it is money, brute force or state control over the media which is used to silence dissenting voices, it is democracy which suffers. Often we say that all this can be attributed to the lack of a democratic culture which takes years, if not decades, to take hold. This claim may be true, but it does not justify half-hearted attempts at democracy, designed more to satisfy international observers than to allow voters to make their own choice.

      Over the past decades, the Council of Europe precedent has created a comprehensive body of democratic and human rights standards. We have designed and made available the necessary programmes to assist our member states in the implementation of these standards. However, we still sometimes face situations when democratic laws have been adopted, democratic institutions have been created, and politicians have made all the right democratic noises, but the end result resembles a poorly executed rehearsal in a theatre instead of a genuine exercise in democracy.

      In fact, very often, the problem is not so much the lack of democratic culture, but the lack of democratic will. Agreed, some things take time, but that time will never come if the democratic process is at a standstill or worse. You cannot have a democracy without democrats. Thank you.

(Mr de Puig, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Mignon.)

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much, Mr Secretary General. Mrs Keleş, you have the floor.

      Mrs KELEŞ (Turkey). – Mr President and distinguished members of the Assembly, this is an important report, which includes interesting statistical data and provides a comprehensive picture of diversity and migration in Europe. Diversity is defined as a permanent feature of contemporary democratic society and an inevitable result of modernisation, globalisation and the liberalisation of economies and changing demography. The report also says that political changes in eastern Europe have increased the diversity of European countries.

      Mr Gross refers in his report to the British professor, Colin Crouch. There is a great truth in Professor Crouch’s view that active supranational co-operation can play governments off against one another and steer the world economy without government co-operation. The economic elite have great political power. I have to point out that that power does not only come from playing governments off against one another. The economic elite usually have power over each and every government, and influence economic and social policies. They influence the allocation of resources, privatisation, foreign trade policy and other matters. Together with the private sector in the country, they monitor the formulation and implementation of economic and social policy.

      That is one of the weakest points of democracy, as the majority who choose the government cannot express their problems and make the government accept policies that might solve those problems, so there is no effective implementation of those policies. As the report says, that weakens and erodes democracy, and increases people’s dissatisfaction. The results are more serious in developing countries than in developed countries, because those countries have more problems with employment, pay and public services such as education, health and social security. People in those countries expect more from government, and arrangements for universal co-operation and the private sector do not usually make the solution of those problems a priority. We should therefore consider that point when we assess democracy in different countries, because it weakens people’s belief in democracy, and thus weakens democracy and has a negative effect on it.

      The report makes an important observation that determining the border between respect for diversity and the need for integration is a controversial matter. That is a realistic evaluation. It is also the case that knowing the country’s language, respecting the values and principles in its constitution, and feeling oneself a member of society are also important factors in integration, as the report says. Diversity is important, but it does not always stem from immigration and globalisation. Sometimes, it arises from the activities of foreign countries and international organisations, which create minorities according to religion and ethnic origin. For the sake of diversity and democracy, that should not be encouraged, especially if those people have been full citizens for years. Trying to bring together two different states to form one state with two communities while trying at the same time to create minorities according to people’s religion and ethnic origin reveals a double standard, but it is done.

      Diversity is important and it contributes to the community’s richness, but it should not be created artificially. Activities to create diversity should not dissolve integration; they should not harm the sense of belonging. It is true that developed countries and international companies can better manipulate small states with weak economies, but cultivating segregation and separation and trying to divide well-established states by weakening integration should not be encouraged by the Council of Europe. We should give that contradiction serious consideration, because there is a narrow line between supporting democracy and weakening integration. One could easily harm integration as a result of certain measures and recommendations that are considered a contribution to democracy.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you Mrs Keleş. I call Mr Vareikis.

      Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania). – We are discussing the challenges facing European democracies. Diversity and migration are extremely important issues, but I want to speak about the status of our democracies in general. If we have no democracy, everything else is obsolete. It is natural that democracy is a basic tenet of the world order. The end of the Cold War clearly showed that democracy, the rule of law and human rights have won over totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. Democracy finally brings us to a state of freedom and prosperity. Many of us are convinced that there is no alternative: sooner or later, democracy will win everywhere.

      There are dangerous trends in the development of democracy, however. Post-Cold War optimism that all the world would quickly become democratic has already vanished. Institutions following the development of democracy all over the world are issuing less and less optimistic reports. An even more dangerous trend is the idea that prosperity and welfare can be created without democracy and human rights, and that those things are not a necessary part of human life.

      An alternative world order without democracy is emerging, and I shall give a few examples. The Chinese authorities say openly that industry and production are replacing the need for democracy. It is predicted that China will soon be the world’s biggest producer, and it is certain that European democracies will compromise on China. They will never boycott the Olympics or disrupt trade ties because of Tibet or human rights.

      Some leaders in Latin America such as Hugo Chavez think that oil and gas, but not freedom, will make their countries happy. He has more and more supporters, even in Europe. Yesterday, we discussed Azerbaijan. The authorities in that country also think that oil and gas are of primary value while democracy is secondary. Soon we shall be in a minority as politicians, as other politicians advocate so-called pragmatism, which de facto creates double or even triple standards.

      The habits of democracy create many problems for us, one of which is migration. People want to consume democracy – to live in a democratic society – but our capacity to integrate them is not as strong as their wish to enter democratic society. Diversity may not be natural, but we are all good consumers of democracy so it is important to preserve it. In general, we are proud of our societies, but is that really a reason for satisfaction?

      In congratulating the rapporteurs on a job well done, I conclude with a warning. We are more interested in consuming democracy than in creating it.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Mr Jakavonis is not here, so I call Mr Iwiński.

      Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland). – First, I congratulate both rapporteurs on their excellent texts. They are complementary and as a long-standing member of both the Political Affairs Committee and the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, I very much emphasise that fact.

      Mr Gross’s report was an interesting essay, of a political and philosophical character. It covered many different issues, such as the situation of so-called non-citizens in Latvia and the barriers to better representation and participation in particular countries. Mr Greenway’s report focuses on the necessity of removing impediments to democratic participation by migrants and proposes a set of various measures – for example, by reducing restrictions on dual nationality.

      The added value is that, yesterday, a special conference on the whole subject was organised here. It proved how versatile and important the problems of diversity and migration in Europe are. Migration, in addition to population growth, is increasingly a dominant factor. Europe’s share of the world population continues to decline from about 25% at the beginning of the previous century to 11% at present, with the prospect that it will be only 7% in 2050. That decrease in population, as Mrs Hajiyeva’s recent motion shows, will increase dependence on immigration, not least to ensure a functioning economy and the maintenance of the social structure.

      That is yet one more element that enhances the importance of our debate. By and large, globalisation and demographic change have made cultural diversity a permanent feature of contemporary society, to a great extent as a result of migration. Today, almost 10% of our continent’s total population are migrants and that figure will increase.

      I agree with the rapporteurs that European democracies are too slow to seize the opportunities of more diverse participation, and that leaves some parts of our societies feeling excluded. Exclusion is probably the best word for some of our contemporary phenomenums. That is one reason why, as Mr Gross bluntly writes, democracy no longer means anything for many people.

      Mr Greenway’s report is particularly valuable in making us aware that democratic participation cannot be confined to purely political elements, but should be seen in the context of access to services such as health, education and housing. We should always keep in mind the fact that democratic participation across our continent still remains low, not only for migrants but for the “ordinary” population. However, as colleagues have shown, for migrants the democratic deficit is greater, particularly for migrant women.

      In conclusion, I support Mr Gross’s idea that national parliaments should continue our debate. We should continue it either in plenary session or in particular committees. Whether that is possible is another question, but today’s and last year’s debates should be followed up in our national parliaments.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Mota Amaral.

      Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal). – I congratulate and thank our rapporteurs, Andreas Gross and John Greenway, on producing interesting and valuable reports on the quality of democracy in Europe and the challenges that it faces from the changes in the demography of our societies. For the past few decades, European societies have been evolving from a high level of homogeneity, as a result of good and bad things, to a situation in which they are pluri-ethnic and multicultural. People from many different geographic origins have settled among us. A realistic perspective tells us that the need for immigration to Europe will be constant in the years to come. These new Europeans must be integrated into our democratic societies. It would be unfair and, indeed, impossible to keep a growing part of the population out of the mechanisms of power. Domestic laws should be generous in granting full citizenship to those who want it and who qualify for it. However, significant political rights should be extended even to new citizens who are legally permanent residents. If migrants are expected to pay taxes, it is reasonable to invoke, on their behalf, the old fundamental principle of no taxation without representation.

      Some member states of the Council of Europe discuss the possibility of immigrants voting and even standing as candidates in local elections. That discussion is reasonable and, as it is desirable, it will be successful. Some solutions to these problems are indeed enshrined in the conventions of the Council of Europe which have not been ratified by member countries of our Organisation. Europe should always be a friendly, caring and confident society. As we open our doors to other people so that they can share the advantages and opportunities from which we have benefited, it is reasonable for us to ask them to respect and practise our values as we respect their cultural identities. Indeed, we are entitled to do so.

      Multiculturalism has been a sound instrument for integration in some countries, such as Canada, which is a case study in this regard, as our rapporteurs rightly point out. This Assembly does not need to accept the priority given by some European institutions to building a fortress Europe, surrounded by a naval force with instructions to prevent the desperate, who are hungry and in misery, from arriving even when they have risked their lives to do so, or to chase them, put them in detention camps and expel them – there are millions of candidates for that treatment – in special aircraft or trains, which reminds us of some dark pages of our recent history.

This is a clear and direct critical position on the directive on returning migrants, recently approved by the European Union. Instead of repression as the immediate priority, positive policies for integration of migrants are of paramount importance for increasing the quality of democracy in Europe.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you.

5. Change to the agenda

      THE PRESIDENT informed the Assembly that the President of Serbia, Mr Boris Tadić had just told him that he would be unable to address the Assembly as planned tomorrow morning. The negotiations to form a new government in Serbia were still ongoing, and it was therefore understandable that Mr Tadić was unable to leave the country. To fill in the time allocated to Mr Tadić, he suggested that the debate on China tomorrow morning be prolonged so as to allow speakers five, rather than four, minutes of speaking time each in the debate.

He called Mr Hancock to make a point of order.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – If we are talking about reorganising the agenda, the issue that is of the most fundamental importance to this Assembly is Turkey. Although China is important, it is not in Europe, but Turkey undoubtedly is. If there is more time for debate tomorrow, may I urge the Assembly to consider using that time to debate Turkey and the issues that that democracy is facing?

Today we are talking about threats to democracy. If anything is going to undermine the democratic process in Turkey, it is what is going on at the moment. If you are going to give more time, Mr President, let us have it for Turkey, a member state of the Council of Europe. Let us give China what it deserves, which is the time already allocated. Let us talk about issues in Europe first and those outside Europe later. I urge you to reconsider that decision.

      THE PRESIDENT thanked Mr Hancock for his suggestions, and said that it would be necessary to have a look at the list of speakers for the debate on China. It might be possible to add a few speakers to that list, and then begin the debate on Turkey as soon as possible afterwards.

      He called Mr Hancock on a point of order.

      Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – With the greatest respect, Mr President, I want to insist that what is important here is the member states of the Council of Europe and the issues that they face. If we are going to have an extra hour and add to the list of speakers on China, people will simply extend the time that they take to speak, as we have seen this morning. We gain no time for Turkey, which is an important subject. Nothing could be more important for the fabric of democracy in Europe than us getting our position on Turkey straight. If we cannot do that for our own member states, what on earth are we doing talking about China?

      THE PRESIDENT said that it was up to members of the Assembly to decide. There was now a proposal from Mr Hancock to start the debate on Turkey early. Was there general agreement to go with that proposal?

      The change to the agenda was agreed to.

6. Democracy in Europe (resumed debate)

      THE PRESIDENT. – I call next in the debate Mr Lintner.

      Mr LINTNER (Germany) said that the reports before the Assembly were both most valuable and helpful. They contained a wealth of useful information and advice – in a sense they provided a “mirror on the wall” in which governments could look to see how well they were doing in terms of complying with conventions and agreements.

      First, he had two general comments to make. The monitoring process had revealed no significant differences between the East and the West – between old and new Council of Europe countries in terms of the important issues covered in these two reports.

      Another point that became clear when reading the two reports was that, given the number of monitoring missions carried out, the Council of Europe resources in this area of activity were stretched, and it was important to avoid duplication and to ensure efficient collaboration between monitoring teams for them to be effective.

      He also had two comments of a more critical nature. The proposals concerning the right to participate in elections were certainly going to pose problems in Germany where some of those proposals would fail to comply with the basic law, the German constitution. Giving migrants the right to vote and participate directly in democratic processes was not a simple matter. In Germany, nationality was a condition for such participation, and residency would not be sufficient. Integration was important and it was also vital that migrants were able to aspire to gain citizenship, at which point they would gain full democratic rights. Participation in local elections required a degree of common identity, of having a stake in the local community. The principle of reciprocity was extremely important in this context, and a long period of residence was required before this could be achieved.

      (Mr Biberaj, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr de Puig.)

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Lintner. I call Mr Hancock.

      Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – Thank you Mr President. I congratulate Mr Greenway on the presentation of his report and its content. To Mr Gross I would say that his report is an excellent thesis; it would probably get him an honours pass if it were a masters dissertation. However, it really does not address the most important component of any democracy, which is the will of the people and understanding that people are what make democracies flourish. He was right when he said that diversity was very much a part of the nature of our democracies now. I like to see it as a very rich cocktail. To survive, any democracy has to have that rich cocktail, that mix of differences. We should recognise the uniqueness of the individual, but also the differences in communities. If the cocktail is mixed properly – if we address the issues faced by every part of that mix, rather than individual preferences – democracy will flourish.

      The one thing that undermines democratic processes more than anything else is the failure of the political system and political parties to adapt and change their way of thinking when it comes to diversity. How often do political parties put obstacles in the way of bringing parts of the diverse community into their fold? How often is it that they will not support, for one reason or another, someone with a different coloured face, or someone of a different gender? That is the problem that we face. We need to address the failure of the political system. Most democracies are based on very strong foundations, but no part of Mr Gross’s report addresses the failure of the body politic – those of us in this Chamber who represent political parties.

      Where is the criticism in that document of the failure of the political system, and of the fact that some countries are teetering on the brink of an abyss? Turkey is a classic example. I am delighted that the Assembly is to give that subject more time tomorrow. There, a constitutional court is teetering on the brink of turning into a kangaroo court, against the wishes of the people of Turkey, who have twice elected, by a substantial majority, a political party. For reasons best known to themselves, there are some who want to undermine the very fabric of that democracy, not just by closing down a political party, but by removing from office the president, the prime minister and 70 party officials, and by preventing them from actively participating in politics for five years. If anything threatens democracy, it is the way in which courts can be used to undermine it.

      A lot of what is in both reports is obviously grist to the mill for those of us who want to support the democratic process, but we have to be very wary of what is wearing people down. It is a distrust of politicians; it is politicians saying one thing to get elected, and then not delivering, and instead finding excuses or blaming the people in power before them. We have a Labour government in Britain that is still blaming the Tories, 11 years after it came to power. That cannot be right, can it? I am not a Tory, and I am not defending the Tories, for goodness’ sake. They were appalling, and heaven forbid that they should ever come back, because they would spend the next 10 years blaming the Blair-Brown government for its mistakes. That is what politics has degenerated to; the attitude is “Blame everyone except yourself, and include everyone but do not let them have a share of the power.”

      We should not just talk about the multicultural nature of our societies, but really live the dream and believe in what we are saying. Look around this Chamber; is there anyone here of genuine black African descent, or with a genuine Chinese ethnic background? Yet when we read the report, we see that there are 50 million of those people in Europe. Where are they? Why are they not involved in the democratic process? What is it that has excluded them? It is politicians and political parties.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Hancock. I call Mr Vera Jardim.

      Mr VERA JARDIM (Portugal) thanked the rapporteurs, who were to be congratulated on these two complementary reports. Given current trends towards more stringent regulations with regard to migrants, it was more important than ever to have this debate. Entry regulations as well as regulations on participation in civil society were being tightened across Europe. The language often used was that of exclusion rather than integration. It was vital to provide greater access to citizenship, to increase participation of migrants in political parties and social groups enabling them to integrate into the decision-making process. The debates in European cosmopolitan society on this subject were endless, but they was often characterised by a fear of the “other”. The level of tolerance and respect for others needed to be increased, and this needed to be reflected in constitutions and legislation across Europe. Conditions needed to be improved for legal as well as irregular migrants. The role of the Council of Europe was more important than ever in achieving this, as the European Union was developing policies that were frankly unworthy of civilised modern society.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Federov.

      Mr FEDEROV (Russian Federation) noted that it was not the first time that the Assembly had discussed the issue of migrants and the integration of migrants. It was certainly true that no society could develop without migrants, but a multi-dimensional approach to dealing with the issues around migration was needed. Mr Greenway’s report was very balanced; it was correct that migration needed to be accepted as a necessity but there was also a need to reduce some of the negative aspects sometimes associated with migration. It was imperative to implement a fair and balanced policy on the integration of migrants based on the fundamental principles of human rights. Many of the draft recommendations were sensible but he had doubts on a few of them which in his view were not in line with democratic values and norms. The notion that faster, or more, was necessarily “better” did not apply to the issue of granting nationality and democratic rights to migrants in the way proposed in the reports. While it was important actively to integrate migrants, the Russian Constitution would not allow him to support some of the measures on nationality and electoral rights proposed here. It was also very difficult to understand the recommendations proposed with regard to irregular migrants.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Federov. I call Mr Haibach.

      Mr HAIBACH (Germany) thanked the President and his colleagues and began by noting that, irrespective of the result of the semi-final of the European football cup, the traffic would stop in Berlin tonight. This was because not only around 2.5 or 3 million Germans lived in Berlin, but also there were a large number of Turkish residents – and there were many in other parts of Germany. It was therefore a very timely occasion to consider integration.

      He welcomed the report and acknowledged that it was very important to look at the voting rights and citizenship of migrants. It was also important to look deeper at a number of the other points raised in the report. Integration and migration matters were not just relevant to the migrants themselves but they also affected those already resident in the country. For example, in Germany many of the football stars today were not of German origin, and this was a sign that society had profoundly changed. It was important to ensure that migrants fully integrated into society, and there was a weighty responsibility on parliamentarians to ensure that measures were implemented to allow this.

      Migration was a twofold process. Firstly, at state level, legislation should be developed to allow integration, and Germany had already taken some steps towards this since the 1970s. Secondly, at the grass roots level, basic components of civil society, such as football clubs, also had to take the lead in ensuring that migrants were able to participate in community events. It was also vital that immigrants could vote in local elections. Dual citizenship had been allowed in some countries but not others. He acknowledged that some of the complexities of voting needed to be resolved, but it was vital that other countries soon addressed this and allowed more migrants to take dual citizenship.

      It was also important for migrants themselves to make an effort to integrate into society. Politicians should assist them in doing this and should put in place policies to allow and welcome seamless integration. Returning to his opening comment, he hoped that, if Turkey won the football tonight, people in Germany would be celebrating just as much as they would have done if Germany had won. Whichever team was the victor, he hoped that the celebrations would be peaceful as this would be a victory for full integration.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Haibach. I call Mr Kyprianou.

      Mr KYPRIANOU (Cyprus). – Mr President, dear colleagues, diversity has always constituted a major challenge for democratic societies, irrespective of its origins and irrespective of whether it involved cultural, religious, sexual or ethnic elements. Diversity undoubtedly constitutes a major feature in contemporary societies and therefore should be given the utmost importance, especially as it becomes decisive to the well-being of people on many occasions.

      Migration undoubtedly influences the internal socio-economic structures of many countries around the globe and has become an increased trend of our times given increased globalisation. Globalisation is a process that creates favourable conditions for increased mobility and therefore the increased diversification of migration flows.

      Economic and demographic imbalances, wars and/or conflicts, political instability, social disparities and human rights abuses are the main factors behind migration flows. Therefore, we all have a duty in reconciling respect for diversity in society and in ensuring that the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all the people who live in a host country are fully respected – irrespective of whether those people are its own nationals, nationals of other European countries or nationals of third countries.

      At this point, I would like to agree with the rapporteur that migrants from European countries and migrants from third countries should not be treated differently, as they are all human beings in search of a better future. Therefore, they should all be treated equally and with respect and given equal opportunities in order to integrate as best as possible into the societies that they live in and not to become outcasts.

My country, Cyprus, is a recipient of large migratory flows, both legal and illegal ones, mainly from Asia and Africa. Furthermore, according to statistics from the European Union, Cyprus has the most applications from asylum seekers given its population – it holds first place in that respect. Therefore, the Cypriot Government has been continually revising its migration policies for many years now so that it can adequately handle this growing challenge and take into account the country’s best interests while protecting the migrants’ best interests. That is certainly not an easy job.

Cyprus suddenly had to cope with huge migratory flows, both legal and illegal ones, especially after the country’s accession to the European Union. For those reasons, the Government of Cyprus is working on a new migration policy that will focus on taking specific measures to achieve the maximum and smoother integration of legal migrants into Cypriot society. That policy will also convey to Cypriots the crystal-clear message that the integration of migrants into our society does not take away any rights from the indigenous population of the country.

Dear colleagues, I strongly believe that the philosophy governing this issue should be based on full respect of human life and dignity. We have a non-negotiable duty to respect the human rights and fundamental freedom of both legal and illegal immigrants for as long as they remain in the country concerned. After all, let us not forget that true democracy means, among other things, full respect for human rights and all forms of diversity.

Last but not least, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs most warmly on their excellent reports on such an important issue. Thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Tilson.

      Mr TILSON (Observer from Canada). – Thank you, Mr President. I want to join previous speakers in congratulating the rapporteurs on two very good reports on issues that Canadians have long grappled with. Together, the reports make an important contribution by demonstrating the need to simultaneously address the importance of democracy for migrants and the impact of migration on democratic development.

      We appreciate the discussion of Canada as a case study in Mr Gross’s report. Our experiences with immigration and integration have been the focus of a growing number of discussions and exchanges with European partners, at the Council of Europe, at the European Union, and in several European countries.

      Immigration has of course been a central part of Canada’s history. The challenge that diversity can pose for democracy has therefore always been at the centre of discussions of nation building, social cohesion and identity. That was as much true for the time of confederation, when our founders were seeking to create political institutions to integrate French and English Canadians, as it is today in a society composed of people of every conceivable cultural and ethnic background.

      The challenges that high levels of immigration from diverse cultural backgrounds pose for democracy and for the political integration of migrants are compounded by the fact that the vast majority of immigrants settle in the largest urban areas in Canada, with about 40% in Toronto alone. Our largest cities are changing much more profoundly and quickly than rural areas, and that can lead to tensions in the political system.

      For historical and geographic reasons, Canada’s experience is different from that of most European countries. At the same time, there are lessons to be learned for Europe. I will focus on two that offer particular insights.

      First, in trying to address the challenges that migration and diversity bring to established and emerging economies, political will and leadership are essential. That is to say, the ability of institutions and civil society to facilitate integration while recognising diversity as a positive feature of the social fabric requires sustained political leadership, not only to put in place the necessary programmes and policies but to develop an appropriate democratic political discourse. That is not an easy process; it has not been easy or inevitable for Canada to develop an inclusive, multicultural model.

      The second issue is the importance of giving immigrants access to citizenship and facilitating integration before immigrants become citizens. Canada has a unique legislative framework that provides many rights and entitlements to everyone on Canadian territory, regardless of citizenship status. That helps to shape civic practice and identity. The process of obtaining citizenship, which requires three years of residence in Canada, is itself not complicated and is an important element of the integration process.

      In preparing for the citizenship test, applicants are asked to learn about Canada. They are given a booklet prepared by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, which contains detailed information about Canada. Its preface explains: “To become a Canadian citizen, you must be able to speak English or French. You must also learn about voting procedures and Canada’s history and geography, and know the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.” Immigrants are offered basic language instruction as well as enhanced, occupation-specific language training.

      In other words, becoming a citizen is seen as a learning process, where new Canadians demonstrate a basic command of one of our official languages and a knowledge of their new country of citizenship. It is an opportunity for us to welcome newcomers and an opportunity for them not only to share the rights and obligations of citizenship but to share our diverse history, an awareness of our Aboriginal cultures, our economy, geography and environment, as well as the democratic political system in which they are expected to participate fully.

      For example, our citizenship test includes questions on the right to vote in elections, on the right to run for elected office, on voting procedures and voter registration, so applicants must demonstrate, among other things, that they understand how they can participate in the political process. That sends a strong message encouraging integration and political participation.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Brincat.

      Mr BRINCAT (Malta). – Malta will never renounce its humanitarian obligations on illegal immigration. I support most of the proposals in the reports where they are practical and in a local context, but note must also be taken of the fact that, since 2003, asylum applications submitted in Malta have increased by two and a half times, and almost all the immigrants who arrive in Malta illegally tend to apply for asylum. Given that, under the current rules under the Dublin II regime, asylum applications must be dealt with by the member state where the first application is placed, the existing rules continue to place a disproportionate burden on such peripheral member states as Malta, particularly since our insistence that a burden-sharing mechanism should be found so that responsibility for applicants is shared by all EU member states has continued to receive a lukewarm response on a practical level, although the authorities in Brussels have gone on record stating that our suggestions make sense.

      Mitigating the problem is not enough. We need a holistic approach from our friends and neighbours that will help us to address that concern, particularly since it is fuelling a dangerous new streak of racism and xenophobia that risks undermining the social fabric of Maltese society.

      The majority of irregular immigrants did not want to land in Malta but were forced to do so because of extraneous circumstances. As things stand, even when some irregular immigrants are saved outside Malta’s search and rescue area, very little help is received. We support the Maltese proposal that the Libyan and Italian Foreign Ministers should meet in Malta to discuss irregular migration without any further undue delay. We have no intention of criminalising irregular immigrants but Malta is still finding it hard to adapt to a yearly intake of irregular immigrants which is almost half the number of its live birth rate.

      Let me say a word on overseas development. It is of utmost importance not only to retain present levels but to avoid reducing such aid to Africa, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, as certain OECD countries are seriously thinking of doing, and as some of them have already done in the past year according to OECD statistics. It is equally important that we all ask ourselves what we are doing for Africa. That issue can be effectively addressed by monitoring commitments made by the EU and G8 countries regarding development aid policies. Slowing down such a process can have only a negative humanitarian impact when we are all committed to creating a balance between giving illegal immigrants more rights while safeguarding the security of our nationals. Ultimately, it boils down to creating more balance between human rights, diversity and security, as well as integration, participation and effective burden sharing.

      Our naturalisation laws are less rigid than those of many member states, but I undertake to do my utmost to ensure that all conventions relating to this issue under debate today are not only adopted but ratified by our national parliaments and implemented.

      Today’s debate is on a core issue that needs to be addressed with frankness, openness and sensitivity and from a practical angle without succumbing to long-entrenched prejudices and bigotry.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Badré.

      Mr BADRÉ (France) said that Mr Gross’s report was excellent. The participation in democracy of migrants needed to be debated. He also congratulated Mr Greenway on his report, with which he largely agreed. The efforts towards integration would amount to nothing if they were not mutual. He had two reservations. Despite the increase in migratory participation, it did not include voting rights. The report omitted the question of local elections. In his town, for instance, there was a UK citizen and French citizens of Portuguese and Moroccan origin working in the local authority, and this was a good thing for the team.

      With its forthcoming presidency of the European Union, France was drawing up measures including measures to combat illegal immigration. Democratic participation of migrants had improved in France, particularly with housing for immigrants, and they were working on contracts. There was training and the contracts were signed by the prefect, and these contracts worked in support of the Council’s recommendation. In France, the National Association for Equal Opportunities worked so that, for instance, television programmes had to reflect diversity. The examples he had given showed his support for Mr Greenway. Things had to change, and this needed a huge political will.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Seyidov. He is not here so I call Mr Rouquet.

Mr ROUQUET (France) said that to exercise citizenship was important, and this was even more true for migrants. The report was an important stage in the strengthening of democracy. Mr Greenway’s draft resolution was a major step towards this end, particularly in relation to voting rights. More was being heard about political recognition for immigrants. But it was time to move forward, and voting rights, together with teaching fundamental rights, were a way to avoid exclusion. As Spinoza had said, one was not born, but became, a citizen. Migrants had even laid down their lives in defence of freedom and liberty in their adopted countries, but there was still too much discrimination against them despite the length of time of residence and the contributions they made. The issue of voting rights and eligibility in local elections could be a driving force for positive change. In 2006, at the Helsinki meeting, part of the Helsinki process on globalisation and democracy, it had been stressed that the access by migrants to fundamental rights depended on their not being discriminated against. In France, they did not have rights in local elections; there was a distinction between residents and migrants. In the European Union, 17 states had advanced systems for participation in local elections. France should take the decision to give voting rights to all residents. The right to vote was not sufficient for, but it was necessary to, integration. It was particularly unfair that migrant residents did not have the right.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Rafael Huseynov. He is not here so I call Mrs Strik.

Mrs STRIK (Netherlands). – I thank Mr Gross and Mr Greenway for their excellent and well-balanced reports. In the past eight years, integration has increasingly become a condition for the participation of migrants, rather than a goal to be reached by participation rights. I underline the concern expressed by Mr Greenway about viewing integration as the sole responsibility of the migrant. Sometimes an obstacle to participation is even created by, for example, raising integration requirements for naturalisation or requiring the acquirement of a permanent residence permit.

The most striking example, however, is the creation of integration requirements for migrants even before they arrive in Europe. They must learn the new language in their own country, before they can join their family members in Europe. The way in which they acquire that knowledge is their sole responsibility. More and more countries apply that requirement, including the Netherlands and Germany, and we have seen such developments in France and Denmark. What was perhaps meant to be a support has proved to be an obstacle to family life. It delays family reunion, which is unnecessary and undesirable, and it harms integration. For illiterate, poor, old and poorly educated migrants, it is hard, or even impossible, to join their family.

That is discriminatory in two respects. First, not all nationalities have to meet the standard. It is not imposed on Japanese or South Korean migrants, for example, but it is imposed on Chinese and Peruvian migrants and many migrants from member countries of the Council such as Turkey and most eastern European countries. Secondly, it discriminates against people who speak a minority language, because family members are tested on the official majority language.

Dear members, it is important that the Council of Europe stand for the right to family life. We should make it clear that integration requirements are possible only if migrants are already living in societies where the authorities support them in meeting those requirements. Only then will we have a non-discriminatory two-way process, as Mr Greenway recommends, with no danger of violating human rights. Integration is a common goal that requires openness, instead of being used as the instrument of a restrictive immigration policy.        That is why I warmly recommend the amendment to paragraph 9.1.2, which would add the provision that requirements for language skills may not constitute obstacles to the exercise of the right to family life.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Zacchera.

      Mr ZACCHERA (Italy) said that progress in the topic under debate was being closely followed by the Italian people, and had given rise to some controversy among them. He wondered why parts of Europe were looking at Italy with some reservations. The facts should be examined. This week, 3 000 immigrants had landed on the island of Lampedusa, which was surrounded by the Mediterranean Sea. There had been no co-operation from other countries except for Malta. There had been none from the Mediterranean rim countries, from Spain on round; despite the problem that, with the island being close to the Libyan border, there were illegal markets which Gadaffi was encouraging.

Italy had over 2 million foreign residents – 2.6 million foreigners – being progressively integrated. There were difficulties. There were no religious difficulties or problems with schooling. All children, including those of illegal immigrants, had the right to education. Nor were there problems with health care, which was free for all, even for illegal immigrants, who did not even have to give their names if they attended hospitals in emergencies. It was not that the doors of Italy were to close, it was a question of quantity. Europe could not turn a deaf ear to this. Italy could not grant residence to everyone. It was not just a problem for Italy, although Italy was on the front line in the south. It was necessary to come up with a specific response. European integration of non-Europeans was a problem for all.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mrs Lundgren.

      Mrs LUNDGREN (Sweden). – I am a member of the local authority in the town of Södertälje, where about 39% of the population are foreign migrants. The town has taken more refugees from Iraq than the United States and Canada together. Therefore, the subject of today’s debate is of great interest to me, and it is also interesting to take part in the debate. It is obvious that integration is not a question for just one state; it is a question for all of us, including those of us who have lived in our country for a long time, because it takes two to tango.

      We have all faced special challenges in our societies. In Södertälje, we see those challenges in schools, in day care, in housing and other aspects of daily life, particularly in reception centres.

      The key question is not where people come from, who they are or what is their religion or name; the key question is what can everyone contribute to our society. We are looking for skills and for ways to match migrants with jobs. We are trying to give migrants equal opportunities and equal responsibilities. We have been trying for a long time to take care of people but now we have to change. We have to find them jobs, because jobs are the key to integration.

      All our societies need to look into our structures to see whether there are barriers in our systems – glass ceilings that we cannot see because we are used to them. We must do things step by step. In my town, we recently looked into the local electoral system as a means of promoting democracy. We supported the participation of migrants in elections by providing information in their own languages. However, we have also found that elected representatives did not want to take all the responsibility for migrants. They stepped down saying, “I want to represent myself and not all the people living in the town”.

      We have found that where people stand for election on different party lists and where there is competition between them, with opportunities for personal voting, there is higher participation. That is good. It has been possible for people in Sweden to take part in local and regional elections for a long time, but now we are coming up to a change.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mrs Hurskainen.

Mrs HURSKAINEN (Finland). – The report sets out different measures to improve the democratic participation of migrants in Europe – social, cultural and communal – as well as legal and policy measures. I thank the rapporteur for his extensive and thorough work.

      I want to highlight the importance of learning the language of the host society. Just as integration is a key for the democratic participation of migrants, language is the key for integration. It is not the only key, but a very important one. By learning the language, it is possible to break down many of the barriers that stand in the way of democratic participation. This applies to my country, Finland, but there are similar challenges in most other countries as well.

In a small country such as Finland, which has a language that is not widely spoken, it is clear that knowing how to speak the language is essential and significant in finding a job, in being able to go to school and in building ties with the general population. Our objective on immigrant education is to provide opportunities for people who move to Finland to function as equal members of Finnish society and to guarantee immigrants the same educational opportunities as other citizens.

A young immigrant of compulsory school age who permanently lives in Finland has the right to the same basic education as Finns. The objective is to ensure that adult immigrants learn the language, receive the education that is needed for their working life and maintain their existing vocational skills, and that foreign qualifications, study and work experience can act as the basis for how they design and complete their education in Finland.

In Finland, instruction in the Finnish or Swedish language is organised for immigrants of all ages. At the same time, they are also encouraged to maintain their mother tongue and cultural identity. Many educational institutions organise language courses – for example, adult education centres, folk high schools, language centres within higher education institutions and summer universities. Courses are offered at many levels and in many time frames.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mrs Kiuru.

Mrs KIURU (Finland). – I strongly support both reports. The number of immigrants is rising in Europe. For many of us, immigration appears to be the best answer to the dual problem of an ageing population and labour force decline. To avoid excluding newcomers, we must not forget that integration is a two-way process. Although it depends on immigrants’ efforts – for example, their willingness to participate in society and to learn the language – it also requires an understanding of the personal and historical backgrounds and the value of cultural diversity in the welcoming society. Civil society participation by all members of society not only strengthens civil society and democracy, but contributes to economic development.

Although the participation of all members in the decision-making process is fundamental to democracy, it is still only one part of it. Exercising full civil and political rights, including the freedom of association, are also crucial for democracy and open to the citizens of the host country. They should also be open to immigrants, the new members of the host country.

Integration is also a great facilitator of democratic participation. In a well-functioning civil society, citizens are active at a grass-roots level. In that way, they contribute and give support to the political level. While the participation rate of the majority population is decreasing, we should see immigrants as crucial contributors to a lively, democratic civil society.

As one of the rapporteurs states, the host society should aim to create social bridges between communities as well as links to services and communities in order to avoid discrimination. Providing access to different services such as health, education and housing is important to every member of society, but it is particularly important for immigrant children, elderly immigrants and migrants facing social exclusion. Also, the responsibility of the media should be studied carefully. It has the power to create stereotypes and influence public understanding and opinion. Therefore, it is vital that the stereotypes are understood and discussed openly.

Special attention should be paid to some groups of immigrants. First, immigrant women rarely have the full opportunity of participating in society and of being integrated into it. Another vulnerable group, often forgotten, is that of young immigrants. Lately, there have been many examples of the unsuccessful integration of young immigrants. Exclusion at a young age creates enormous problems for societies which are difficult or even impossible to handle afterwards. Therefore, it is crucial to create special services, including language training, schools and job-seeking support, to respond to the needs of the immigrant youth and to encourage them to participate.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Del Roio.

Mr DEL ROIO (Italy) said that it seemed as though politics in Europe had fallen victim to schizophrenia. The two reports under consideration today represented a valuable attempt to deal with the problems of the lack of integration of migrants into civic society in Europe. But he could not help to reflect on the fact that, just one week ago, and less than 100 metres from here, the European Parliament had voted to adopt a directive on the repatriation of migrants. This directive would only serve to force migrants into the hands of criminal gangs and human traffickers. It would legalise the detention of minors; sometimes without their parents. Another directive that had been passed by the European Parliament would make it legal to work up to 62 hours per week. There was just no coherence between these sorts of decisions and the considerations under examination here, in the home of European democracy.

      There were already 8 million irregular migrants in Europe and it was simply not possible to reduce the numbers through such draconian measures. There was a widening gulf between Europe, on the one hand, and Africa and developing nations in other parts of the world. Recent events in Latin America were a good illustration of this.

      Given these circumstances, what credibility would the discussions of the Assembly on the rights of migrants and the desirability of integration and political participation of migrants have?

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Panteleev.

      Mr PANTELEEV (Russian Federation) thanked the rapporteurs and noted that, just two weeks ago, on the occasion of the Russian national day, he had attended a festival in Siberia. This was a festival to celebrate the many different cultures and ethnic groups in the region, and it was a demonstration of the respect for diversity and different cultures in his home country.

      In the past, there had been conflicts and wars between different ethnic and cultural groups in his country, but sound policies to ensure that the more than 160 different cultural groups could live happily side by side were now in place. They were able to follow their own traditions and speak their own languages, while also integrating into the local community. His country had not gone about things in the manner of the United States where the native population had been virtually extinguished and where a real wall was now being erected to keep out migration from Mexico. In the European Union, similar measures were being taken, but restrictions on legal immigration only served to increase illegal immigration. Such policies were in stark contrast to his own country, where migrants were free to enter.

      It was important that all measures in relation to migrants were in strict compliance with the fundamental principles of human rights. Most of these principles were reflected in the two reports being discussed today. The role of the Assembly of the Council of Europe, like other such assemblies, was very important and needed to be emphasised. The work of the rapporteurs had a very good chance of contributing to the more humane treatment of migrants across Europe, even in situations where it became necessary to repatriate someone.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Vrettos, who is the last speaker on the list.

      Mr VRETTOS (Greece). – Thank you, Mr President. We must congratulate the two rapporteurs on the excellent job that they have done. Mr President, our experience as a country has made us realise that it is important to aim at effective citizenship, with inclusiveness and participation, and to promote the political and civic participation of migrants and citizens with a migrant background. Only in that way can common values and beliefs be understood, both by groups of migrants and by the majority of the population. The aim should be to develop a common culture that shares elements of both the dominant culture and the migrant culture.

      It is crucial to mention once more that migrants as a group are a rather heterogeneous community: that should be taken into consideration in all the measures that are taken. Experience from projects in European cities and urban areas shows that the participation and involvement of civil society has proved quite successful in eliminating discriminatory social behaviour. Turning social integration into a common goal and project in the community has a positive effect, not only on attitudes and behaviour towards migrants and ethnic minorities in local urban areas but, more generally, with respect to social cohesion and social relations.

      It is important for migrants to understand that their culture and their system of values are respected. That goes beyond the necessity of social cohesion and social inclusion; it creates a social environment that does at least give equal rights and opportunities to all its citizens. Through that process, the ultimate goal of democratic participation will be achieved. All authorities – at national, regional and local level – have a crucial role in that process. In our country, all measures taken so far are positively evaluated. They aim at developing a legal framework that will allow migrants to participate in the education system and have social insurance and social protection; those are all parts of the democratic participation process.

      With your permission, Mr Gross, I cannot but mention one point in your report that I believe should, for the sake of accuracy, be rectified. Education at all levels in Greece is provided, by law, free of charge to all inhabitants of Greece, be they nationals, refugees or migrants, irrespective of whether they intend to seek Greek nationality. Last but not least, the core of democracy is granting all citizens the right to participate equally in the decision-making processes related to their lives. Thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. That concludes the list of speakers. Mr Niessen, would you like to respond briefly to the debate?

      Mr NIESSEN. – Thank you. Time permitting, I should like to make some observations, the first of which is about a problem that I could not help but see: political parties and political institutions are at the same time part of the solution and part of the problem. Only a few delegates have referred to this, but there is an issue around representation within political parties – how much and to what extent political parties and political institutions really reflect the diversity of the population. I say that not to make an accusation, but perhaps to state the obvious. Mr Gross referred to that in paragraph 150 of his report, and I thought that that was very helpful. Early in his report, he develops a theme and talks about the openness of power structures. I think that I made a couple of comments to that effect earlier this morning, when I talked about effective recruitment strategies, the development of intercultural competence and changing the culture of political institutions, including political parties. I hope that that theme is further elaborated along those lines in the next report. That is my first observation.

      On the contents of the report, I strongly hope that, when you vote later this afternoon, you really endorse what is written in the Gross report in paragraph 17 and in the Greenway report in paragraph 9, both of which are about facilitating access to nationality. Do not put more obstacles in the way of the acquisition of citizenship. Think in more creative terms about dual nationality. A couple of comments have been made to that effect. Also secure residence rights of people – those who are legal but become illegal or irregular. Think about family rights, which should not be tampered with. So I hope that, when you vote on this later this afternoon, you will not really change those strong messages. I hope that you would like to keep those messages.

      My last observation is about whether the proposal has teeth. With reference to draft recommendation 4 in the Greenway report, I hope that you will indeed do this and structure another report around instructing your committees to do real work to ask why such conventions have not been ratified, what are the obstacles to doing that and what we can do to remove them. I hope that the next report is uniquely devoted to that, so that we have a better understanding of why what is adopted is not necessarily implemented. I am extremely curious about what comes out of that piece of soul-searching.

I know that this is a daunting task, and I do not envy the committees. I also do not envy you in instructing them and in seeing whether they produce good reports. If you need any help, I know that lots of academics and civil society organisations within Europe are willing to help you and the committees with that and with setting up meetings with immigrants and immigrants’ associations – those for men and for women, as there is a difference, which has been noted today – to listen to them to find out what they see as the obstacles to full participation. You and the committees can consider why such standards are not being lifted up, and you can talk to academics to do so. Everyone here has noticed that Mr Gross is an academic, so he should be able to organise that. I would also suggest consulting social partners, employers and trade unions alike, churches and religious organisations. There is a mass of people out there who are working hard on a day-to-day basis on those issues. Please use their expertise and go out and find them to get answers to the questions that you have posed or are going to pose to those committees to find out why we are not living up to our own standards. Thank you very much.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Niessen. I now call the rapporteur, Mr Gross, to reply. You have six minutes.

      Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – Thank you very much Mr President. I would like to take up one of Mr Niessen’s last comments. There is a very nice confusion between the words “academic” and “intellectual”. There are many academics who think that they are not intellectuals. Someone can have gone through university without being an intellectual. You can be a worker and be an intellectual. That is why I would prefer to be an intellectual rather than an academic. The word “academic” excludes others; the word “intellectual” includes them.

      Political engagement in civic society or in a parliament is just another side of an intellectual life. The nicest thing is to combine thinking, working and acting. That is the complete circle of intellectual life. Academics are often frustrated because they think only without acting. They forget that the nicest results of thinking come from taking action. That is why I would prefer to be labelled as an intellectual. Although some people and some cultures downgrade intellectuals, we must defend that notion. With respect, I hope that you do not think that that was an excuse.

      I would like to focus my attention on four encouraging elements. The more I listened, the more I thought that Mrs Sburny was totally right when she said that the discourse on migrants just mirrors the discourse on all citizens. How we treat migrants and how we discuss their problems mirrors our own problems. Let us take Mr Greenway’s two key questions. Do you want participation? That question relates to migrants and citizens. Do you want to improve participation? That is a question for both communities. Whatever we think about migration increasing in the community, we can apply to our own citizens. In a democracy, migrants have a right to express their differences; they have a right to be different. However, when a democracy is well designed, those differences cause no problem for integration and the unity of the society.

I would like to thank the Secretary General for reminding us about Lincoln, who said in his famous address, “not only for the people, but with and by the people”. Let us not forget that he said that in 1863 – some 10 years before most European people went to school and could use their information resources and capabilities. The point is that today it is easy to realise what Lincoln wanted to do, but we do not do it, perhaps because the will to do so is lacking.

I liked very much what Mr Vareikis said about too many people only being able to consume democracy without creating democracy. There is a basic misunderstanding. People should not think that they can consume in that way. If people do not take action, they do not care about democracy. You cannot be free if you are passive. You have to be active to support democracy. Therefore, consuming democracy is a contradiction in itself. It is totally right to ask the people to take more care of democracy and to use it, and the best protection is to use democracy.

My last point is that our Portuguese colleague, Mr Vera Jardim, made an interesting point about the other side of the problem when he asked why so many people fear one another. They not only fear migrants – again, there is a mirror – but other citizens. They are so fearful because they are so lonesome, but when we participate and act together with others, we lose that fear and begin to trust. That is why the fearfulness of many of our citizens is just another expression of how few of them participate. The more you participate, the more you lose your fears and the more you begin to trust others. That is absolutely essential because you can only make a change in politics by acting with others. In politics, if you are alone, you can only despair. That is greatly different from economic logic. Alone, you can become rich, but to change something in society, you must be able to act together with others. When you are trustful and confident, you can change society, and by doing so, you gain even more trust.

I therefore thank you very much that we have agreed to increase the participation of all of us. Migrants need more support, but many non-migrant citizens also need support. We should pass the two reports as they have been tabled, without amendments that downgrade them. If we do that, the Council of Europe will have fulfilled a good task today. Thank you very much.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Gross. I call Mrs Memecan.

      Mrs MEMECAN (Turkey). – I thank members for all their comments. I suppose that those comments referred to both men and women but I wish that I had heard more emphasis on the needs of migrant women, especially as their needs are different to those of men. We have had few references to them in the report and in this debate, so we would like to emphasise more the needs of migrant women, their values and the importance of accommodating their needs. In that regard, the committee’s amendments become even more important.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Does the Chairperson of the Political Affairs Committee wish to speak? You have two minutes.

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – This debate has been important. We need to have more vitality when it comes to political parties. Mr Niessen talked about having teeth. As I told everyone yesterday at the meeting after the conference, being a dentist, I believe that everyone should have teeth. Politicians and parliamentarians should have teeth. There is a problem in many of our democracies in Europe with governments being too controlling of parliament. It should be the other way around. In some countries, it has to do with the electoral system, in others there are other reasons, but we must empower parliamentarians because if we have parliamentarians with power to whom voters can go directly and whom they can hold responsible, it is a completely different thing and we can engage people much more in politics, which is important.

      The political parties are dying of natural causes. We have a demographic problem in the parties. I told the conference yesterday that the average age among members in my party is 67 years. That is not vitality. We need young people. If I attend a meeting, I lower the average age. It should not be that way. There is nothing wrong with older people, but we need vitality to keep people interested in politics.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Greenway. You have six minutes.

      Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom). – My colleague in the EDG, Mr Fedorov, said that no country can live without migrants and that migration is inevitable, and he is right. In an excellent speech that I was not expecting, our Secretary General said that we were all migrants once. We know that 10% of the people living in Europe today are migrants. If we want greater participation in the democratic process, we must engage them as part of that.

Many of the people who are migrants have been migrants for a long time – more than a generation. In this debate, we are not dealing simply with the usual problem that we confront in this Assembly of irregular migrants or failed asylum seekers. We are dealing with migrants, many of whom are first or second-generation migrants, and we need to bear that in mind.

Of course we acknowledge that immigration causes tensions and problems in communities, but migration is a fact of life and the key questions are how to manage it better, how to ensure that rights are respected, how to ensure that migrants make a full and fair contribution and that society is strengthened by diversity, not undermined by it, as Mrs Lundgren said. Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, said in this Assembly but 12 weeks ago that diversity is Europe’s greatest strength, so how do we ensure that we harness that diversity for the good of all?

It is not the intention in my report to address or solve all the issues about migration. The intention is to focus on how we can help to ensure that we gain from migration through participation by migrants in the democratic process.

Of course, as several members have said, including my colleague Mr Wilshire and Mr Lintner, we must treat national identities and long-standing national electoral practices and structures with sensitivity. However, the clear majority view from the debate is that taking positive measures to allow migrants to participate in the electoral process brings significant benefits as regards the integration of migrants, from which society generally also substantially gains. That is especially true at the local level, as Mr Tilson reminded us.

The difficulty of the issue was thrown into sharp focus by the comments of Mr Badré and Mr Rouquet, both members of the Socialist Group, who seem to have a different view about the five-year rule. In my judgment, we should apply the rule across Europe, not just the EU. Indeed, why limit it to Europe when it comes to the origin of migrants? As Mrs Nakashidzé said, we should have no second-class citizens. As Mr Mota Amaral pointed out, people pay taxes, including local taxes, so why should we deny them the right to vote and to stand in local elections? How else can we ensure that local government reflects the ethnic make-up of the local community? That is why we should reject amendment No. 2 to delete paragraph 9.2.4 of the report.

      On irregular migrants, as the report that we agreed last October says, where irregular migrants cannot be returned, we should regularise them and that should lead to residency, not necessarily always citizenship. That would give them the right of engagement and participation in local elections. That is especially important for women, as Mrs Memecan has reminded us. Although there was little comment on women, we have tabled a number of amendments to my report to reflect the interests of women.

      Elections at national level are an aspect that is not in my report but, within the EU, there are now many people who have lost the franchise to vote in a national election. My wife is one of them. She has lived in the United Kingdom for 30 years, she is a Dutch citizen and she votes neither in the British parliamentary election nor in the Dutch election. She is not allowed to. Those who say that we should cast aside any thought of looking again at the issue of dual nationality are wrong. We should therefore resist Amendment No. 1 to delete paragraph 9.2.1.3. The issue is where people are resident and where they pay their taxes. I cannot believe that we cannot solve this problem.

My colleague Mr Hancock questioned whether membership of this Assembly reflects the societies and communities that we represent. Clearly it does not. Paragraph 13 of my report, which some have questioned, does not offer a solution or blueprint. It simply asks that the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, which I chair, looks at that issue. We did that on gender equality and we found a practical solution that was on a voluntary basis. We could do the same in respect of ethnic backgrounds, although it would take time.

      The role of political parties and trade unions is covered in Amendments Nos. 11 and 12, which are in my name. Last evening’s conference has resulted in a number of other amendments standing in my name, which I hope the Assembly will support. I thank the Secretariat of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population and in particular Mr Mark Neville for his tremendous work in helping to draft the report and, more important, to arrange last night’s wonderful conference.

When the Secretary General referred to Abraham Lincoln, I recalled my comments to one or two colleagues who think that, for a Conservative with the reputation of being a right-winger, I am very liberal in my attitude to all this. I will tell you where my inspiration comes from. My inspiration comes not from Abraham Lincoln but from the reforming Conservative prime ministers of the 19th century. Their motivation was to improve the condition of mankind. I believe very strongly and passionately that the real challenge for the Assembly, and for politics throughout Europe, is to improve the condition of migrant communities.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Greenway. I am not sure if Mr Lindblad agrees with your conservative views.

      Does the Chairperson of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, Mrs Jonker, wish to speak? You have two minutes.

      Mrs JONKER (Netherlands). – Listening to the speakers, the names of two secretaries of state in the Netherlands came to mind – Nebahat Albayrak and Ahmed Aboutaleb. Mrs Albayrak is of Turkish origin and Mr Aboutaleb was born in Morocco. When they were chosen by the prime minister to be part of the government, discussion in the Netherlands exploded. Could secretaries of state born elsewhere be sufficiently involved in the country that they had to represent? Would it not be the case that when Turkey or Morocco were discussed, they would lose their responsibilities towards Dutch society? The discussion was embarrassing and they both had to endure many personal attacks, even though they both had many wonderful qualities. Just like the first women in parliament and government, they were the best of the best. Otherwise, they would never have been able to overcome all the hurdles to achieve their position. The Netherlands is certainly not the only country in Europe to have had such a discussion, and I am glad that those who started it off survived it. They both do a wonderful job.

      Three weeks ago, Mr Aboutaleb went with our Secretary of State for Economic Affairs to Morocco on a trade mission. In his sandals, and without a scarf, he spoke Moroccan and persuaded more Moroccan entrepreneurs to invest in the Netherlands than the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs would ever have done on his own. In September, Mrs Albayrak, Secretary of State for Justice, will speak for the second time in favour of migration and against intolerance at a conference organised by the Council of Europe in a way that people of Dutch origin would never be able to do. If we really believe in multicultural society and diversity, we must facilitate such initiatives. We can do so on the one hand with policy and legal instruments, including, as Mr Niessen said, complementary strategies, the ratification of treaties, and recruitment strategies. On the other hand, we can also do so by influencing our often closed culture and changing the stereotypical way of responding to people from a foreign background or indeed people whose parents are of a foreign background.

      Every citizen has a responsibility to contribute to a tolerant country, but if they lose track of where they are going – that is perhaps understandable if they no longer recognise the neighbourhood in which they have lived for 40 years – parliamentarians have a responsibility to bring them back on track. We are parliamentarians and so are our colleagues. Policy, legal instruments and positive changes to the culture must go hand in hand.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you Mrs Jonker. I thank Mr Niessen for addressing the Assembly, and I also very much thank the rapporteurs and the chairpersons of the committees, and all our colleagues who participated in this important debate.

      The debate is closed.

      We will vote on the draft resolutions, draft recommendations and amendments following the debate on the report from the Monitoring Committee this afternoon.

7. Date, time and orders of the day of the next sitting

      THE PRESIDENT. – I propose that the Assembly holds its next public sitting this afternoon at 3 p.m. with the agenda which was approved on Monday 23 June.

      Are there any objections? That is not the case.

      The orders of the day of the next sitting are agreed.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 1.04 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1.       Minutes of proceedings

2.       Written declaration

3.       Changes in membership of committees

4.       Democracy in Europe

      Presentation by Mr Gross of report of Political Affairs Committee, Doc.11623

Presentation by Mrs Memecan of opinion of Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, Doc. 11653

Presentation by Mr Greenway of report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography, Doc. 11625

Statement by Mr Niessen, Director of the Migration Policy Group

Speakers:

Mrs Sburny (Austria)

Mr Pourgourides (Cyprus)

Mrs Nakashidzé (Georgia)

Mr Wilshire (United Kingdom)

Mr Keskin (Germany

Reply:

Mr Gross (Switzerland)

Statement by Mr Davis, Secretary General of the Council of Europe

Speakers:

Mrs Keleş (Turkey

Mr Vareikis (Lithuania)

Mr Iwiński (Poland)

Mr Mota Amaral ({Portugal)

5.       Change to the agenda

6.       Democracy in Europe (resumed debate)

      Speakers:

      Mr Lintner (Germany)

Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

Mr Vera Jardim (Portugal)

Mr Federov (Russian Federation)

Mr Haibach (Germany)

Mr Kyprianou (Cyprus)

Mr Tilson (Canada)

Mr Brincat (Malta)

Mr Badré (France)

Mr Rouquet (France)

Mrs Strik (Netherlands)

Mr Zacchera (Italy)

Mrs Lundgren (Sweden)

Mrs Hurksainen (Finland)

Mrs Kiuru (Fnland)

Mr Del Roio (Italy)

Mr Panteleev (Russian Federation)

Mr Vrettos (Greece)

Replies:

Mr Niessen, Director of the Migration Policy Group

Mr Gross (Switzerland)

Mrs Memecan (Turkey)

Mr Lindblad (Sweden)

Mr Greenway (United Kingdom)

Mrs Jonker (Netherlands)

7.        Date, time and orders of the day of the next sitting