Ladies and gentlemen,

I have the pleasure of welcoming you all to the Seventh International Metropolis Conference here in Oslo, the biggest and most multicultural city in Norway.

Migration is a politically charged issue. Indeed, this is also my own experience, both as a member of parliament in Norway for many years and now as the minister responsible for immigration, refugee and integration policies.

Basically I have a positive view of globalisation. I believe we have a chance in this century to achieve an open global society with unprecedented opportunities for people and business. However, I am well aware that there are a number stumbling blocks ahead. The tragic events almost a year ago made it painfully clear that it is difficult to promote openness when facing extreme violence and terror.

The shape and magnitude of migration, which affect life in almost every corner of the world, have a significant impact on the chances to make us of our opportunities. Increasing migration is a result of globalisation processes, while some forms of irregular migration could make it very difficult to achieve a more open world.

The positive aspects of international migration are obvious, both for individuals and for societies in general. For example, migrants are needed to keep the wheels turning in some of the industries, businesses and public services in many countries. Due to demographic factors this need will probably increase in the years to come.

On the other hand, we should not underestimate the negative aspects. Migration of persons who request asylum although they are not in need of international protection, threaten to undermine the refugee and asylum systems in receiving countries. Internationally well-organized criminals benefit from such movements, while individual migrants suffer.

Migration presents increasingly complex challenges to governments and other actors concerned. The temperature of the debate about migration, integration, diversity, social cohesion, multiculturalism varies in different countries. But the underlying issues – whatever label we choose - are the same in most countries. I am told that this understanding is an important part of the platform for the international Metropolis cooperation.

As a politician I am responsible for selecting workable solutions to dilemmas and challenges. For example, in Norway we are trying to find a balance between curbing the inflow of asylum-seekers who are not in need of international protection on one side, and increasing the recruitment of certain types of labour migrants on the other.

Active promotion of economic development and the respect for basic human rights worldwide is an important aspect of a comprehensive approach to migration. In the long term such measures might reduce strong migration pressure in some countries and make it easier to manage migration flows in an orderly manner. It’s important to discuss how to manage migration and the relation between sending and receiving societies, and I note that it also will be addressed at the Metropolis conference.

It is often difficult to appreciate fully the impact of policies pursued by several states. The need for better international co-operation in complex refugee and migration matters is obvious. The Nordic countries have had regional information and consultative fora since the middle of 1980s. Governments increasingly recognise that migration must be managed at the regional rather than solely at the national or bilateral levels. Regional processes are a sign of recognition that there is a greater need for a multilateral response if the challenges of managing migration are to be met successfully. Such cooperation is increasingly and explicitly called for by governments. In the past ten years, there has been a marked increase in the number of regional consultative processes focussing on migration-related issues. On each continent some type of regional consultative process exists. We support constructive efforts in this respect.

The Schengen agreement, which most of the EU-countries, Iceland and Norway are party to, is a good example of an internationally binding agreement on important aspects of migration control. It has had a significant impact on our immigration policy.

Meanwhile, on the national level we are well aware of that how we regulate and control migration, might have implications for integration and minority policies. Permit me to mention one concrete example of how such implications may influence our policy-making in relation to work-permits:

Some employers face problems in recruiting unskilled labour. Our estimates of the need for labour in the years to come indicate that this situation will persist. On this background the Norwegian government has proposed liberalisation of labour immigration, also of regulations pertaining to unskilled work. In the presentation of this proposal we have underlined that foreigners should only be recruited from third countries for unskilled jobs if recruitment in Norway and within the European Economic Area is impossible.

Immigrant workers from third countries should have equal rights and duties, as other immigrants. In the same way as skilled workers and specialists they should be entitled to permanent residency after working and contributing to the economic development of Norway for three years. We do not intend to establish a guest-worker system, because it might have negative side-effects on the integration processes and on relations between migrants and the society at large.

Current migration to Europe is increasingly female. Female migration is linked to new global economic transformations and the resulting restructuring of the labour force. In Europe many women find employment as domestic workers or in the broader service sector. Some enter the sex industry, at times involuntarily through trafficking in prostitution networks.

Immigrants and refugees are often perceived as homogenous groups in public debates, in policy making as well as in research. Gender or individual traits seem to be of less concern if not irrelevant. Migration and development policies often ignore migrants’ gendered identities and practices and there is little recognition of the gendered nature of refugee groups and the specific needs of female immigrants.

I think we are making a huge mistake when failing to consider these facts because they may be crucial. In my opinion this becomes obvious when we are talking about gender-based persecution and how the 1951 Geneva Convention should be applied. There is increasing evidence that refugee women may be unable to benefit equitably from protection and assistance efforts. As we know UNHCR supports a gender sensitive interpretation of all the convention grounds. Some countries have begun to take these facts into consideration and appropriate measures are taken to ensure women’s access to protection and material assistance. My government is taking steps in what I believe is the right direction, but more need to be done. In this respect I believe Metropolis may contribute to putting the topic on the agenda and stimulate debate and research that may create a foundation for policy making.

Of no less importance is the need to consider the gender issue in integration policies. Measures taken to deal with different problems have to be targeted which require consideration of aspects as gender, educational level, personal skills, family background and so on. One of the challenges we meet in a modern western society with expressed ideals of gender equality is the immigration of people from countries with totally different views on these matters. One may argue that a country or society does not have opinions and again migrants are individuals that should not be chained to stereotype pictures of their country of origin. I totally agree, and still we do this all the time because we tend to focus on the group and not at the individual.

This is a core issue in my opinion, and I welcome the debate on multiculturalism we will have tomorrow. We need to address the difficult questions as how we are going to enforce an ideal of gender equality in a multicultural society. How can we ensure the individual woman’s human rights when she is captured by ideas of culture and tradition that places her in a subordinate position within a group? How should we understand a commitment to equality in a world of multiple differences, hierarchies of power and division of life circumstances? We need to reflect on the practical prospects of the idea of human equality and our understanding of both feminism and multiculturalism.

Every day women are being harassed, abused, beaten, mutilated and forced into marriage. They are discriminated against, deprived of education, kept indoors and denied basic human rights - all in the name of some culture, tradition and some times even religion. The share of minority women in shelters in Norway is high and increasing. We will not tolerate the abuse and violence many women are submitted to.

In this context a relevant question to pose is how far it is possible and desirable for governments to attempt to control the private sphere. Where should we draw the line between showing restraint due to pluralism and, on the other side, uncompromising enforcement of equal opportunities and rights for men and women? Our goal must be both to ensure diversity in every aspect and the individual’s human rights. The Norwegian Gender Equality Act is violated every day and some critical voices argue that little is done about it because we are afraid of showing disrespect for minority communities. We shall take legal actions when women are threatened. We have an obligation to interfere when we witness actions that obviously contradict our ideas of democracy and the right to participation in society on the individual’s own terms.

In a multicultural society it must be accepted that there are different ways of organising things; that lives may be lived in various ways. But I like to stress that everyone must have a choice. This means that we also have to know what our options are. To be able to make such choices everyone needs basic language skills. Norway offers extended language courses free of charge to all immigrants, but not everyone attends these courses for different reasons. Structured introduction programmes for newcomers will now be made available. We are currently debating if Norwegian language skills should be a requirement for obtaining Norwegian citizenship and maybe even for permanent settlement permits.

Crucial factors are access to general education and to the labour market. Due to various reasons, one of them being restrictions on free movement in the public sphere, a number of immigrant women are deprived of the possibilities our society offers. I am very concerned about children growing up in our society not knowing Norwegian, many of them are even born in Norway. They get a rough start when they enter the school system at the age of six. Many of these children do not have the necessary support in their home environments. Obviously it is quite a challenge to bring up children in our society if one does not have knowledge of how it works. It has been said that when you educate a man you educate one person, but when you educate a woman you educate a whole nation. I believe that it is of utmost importance that women have access to education for their own sake but also to enable their children to succeed in our society.

I think this reflects the problems of the ongoing debate of what we mean by integration and how we can achieve an integrated society or social cohesion for that matter. We are not even sure that we all have the same understanding of the concept, and probably we do not. It is a political question as well as a personal one. Integration is a process that requires an effort from everyone and it is impossible to integrate people who are reluctant. And how do we know when someone is integrated and what are the criteria? To hold a job implies that one is integrated on an economic level but the person may have no social contacts with the majority population.

We hear many critical voices these days. “Integration has failed” they claim, but how can we state this as a fact if we do not even have a shared definition on what we actually mean by integration? It is very hard to reach an agreement on these questions because there are different views on what the problems actually are and how they should be addressed. We need an adequate legislative framework. We also need quick actions in acute situations. But most important, we need time and a long term and persistent policy based on research and the important competence that many of you possess from practical experience. I am confident of the ability of Metropolis to bring the debate forward. The fact that this forum brings together policy makers, NGOs and researchers from more than 25 countries gives us a unique opportunity.

I wish you good luck with the conference!