(Strasbourg, 26-28 November 1997)

drawn up by Han Entzinger (Consultant) and adopted by the participants

The term 'immigrants' is often too narrow to cover those members of the population and those ethnic, national or minority communities for whom special consultative arrangements may be developed. There are significant differences within Europe in the way immigrant and minority issues are perceived and defined, and these differences are reflected in the consultation structures and mechanisms. The Seminar discussed such differences and realised that special consultative arrangements may be justified not only on the basis of immigrant status or immigrant origin, but also on the basis of national or ethnic origin, religion, culture, language, race, foreign citizenship, refugee status or any combination of these.

The Seminar noted that all European societies are becoming increasingly intercultural. In the light of this it has been welcomed that virtually all countries of Europe now practice certain forms of consultation of this type, which is seen as an element in the democratic process.

A distinction has been made between individual and group participation of immigrants. The former includes naturalisation as well as the granting of voting rights to non-citizens. In situations where the immigrant share in the population is increasing, the debate on naturalisation and voting rights tends to be intensified. The divisions, however, on these matters are quite strong. Most participants in the Seminar felt that the granting of local voting rights as well as of voting rights for the European Parliament in the EU-member states was particularly urgent. The same holds for better facilties for dual citizenship, which also facilitate political participation of individual immigrants. Consultation is typically seen as a form of group participation. It may take place in a formalised and well-structured manner, although informal consultation can also be quite effective. Both forms do not exclude each other, but they can be complementary. Similarly, consultation should never serve as a substitute for granting to immigrants the same rights that the majority population enjoys.

It was generally agreed that consultation mechanisms should not be set up in times of crisis, but at a much earlier stage, precisely to help avoid such crises. It was also agreed that consultative bodies should have a formal basis, and that there should be agreement on their tasks and aims. Consultative bodies should be equipped with sufficient staff and funding, so as to enable them to be professional and serious partners in the debate. Consultative bodies have a practical as well as a symbolic value: they can be an important signal that immigrants and minorities are taken seriously. This is particularly so if such bodies have direct access to high level politicians and to the media. The need for consultation at an early stage of the decision making process was equally stressed. This will make consultative bodies into real participants in such processes, and it will reduce the chance that they serve as a legitimation for decisions already taken, or simply as an alibi. There was agreement that consultation mechanisms for immigrants and minorities should primarily express themselves on issues that are of direct relevance for the people and the communities involved. It was recognised, however, that this will still include a broad range of policy areas.

Views differed among the participants as to the set-up and membership of consultative bodies. A majority felt that consultative bodies would be most effective if their membership would include not only immigrants, but also representatives of political or administrative bodies and other relevant institutions (e.g. trade unions), who could then cooerate within that body. A smaller number of the participants, however, felt that the membership should be reserved for immigrants and/or their associations, who could then engage in a dialogue as equal partners with the authorities. The effectiveness of either approach seems to be largely dependent on national habits and traditions. No matter what approach is preferred, consultative bodies for immigrants should always be seen as supplementary to normal parliamentary procedures, and never as an alternative. Significant differences exist between the European countries regarding membership and recruitment practices for consultative bodies. In some cases immigrant members of these bodies are 'well connected' individuals who only represent themselves. In other cases the immigrant members may be representatives of one particular (national) group, in again other cases immigrant members may represent the entire immigrant community. In the latter two cases immigrant members are sometimes elected, e.g. from among immigrant associations. There are other situations where immigrant members of consultative bodies are appointed, usually by the government. The Seminar did not express a preference for one form or another, but emphasised that it should be very important for members of consultative bodies to act as bridges between immigrant communities and the authorities, and, therefore, to have the confidence of both sides. This implies that the members should have a good knowledge of the specificities of immigrant situations. Furthermore, the diversity between as well as within immigrant groups should be sufficiently reflected in their representation. The Seminar also discussed the risk that immigrant representatives tend to be drawn into the 'majority' system rather easily. When this happens, they may easily lose touch with the group(s) they are supposed to represent.

The Seminar acknowledged the delicate balance betwen difference and similarity in immigrant societies. Putting too much emphasis on what separates immigrants and minorities from the other members of a society may limit the possibilities for a full participation of all and for a better mutual understanding. Too little emphasis, however, on the special nature of the situation of immigrants and minorities, may force them to participate in 'mainstream' institutions that may offer insufficient opportunities to deploy and to develop their talents. All participants agreed on the continuing need to promote immigrant and minority participation in all sectors of society, irrespective of the existence of consultative bodies and of their impact. At the same time, immigrants and minorities should also be enabled to set up their own institutions if they wish to do so, and, more particularly, to set up their own associations without any restrictions.