Mr. Peter Sutherland:

I will begin by addressing the points made by Deputy Seán Crowe because they are relevant to the broader debate. The ten point plan and the conclusions of the European Council will not work as they do not go far enough and are not clear enough. They are an attempt to stem the flow of migrants in a way that, in the case of activities such as sinking boats, will require a resolution of the UN Security Council. Libya has made it clear that it will not accept any intervention in its territory. That country is in major political turmoil, but in so far as it is possible to ascertain its Government's position, it is understandably opposed to any such external intervention. I have issued a statement, with the heads of the UNHCR and the IOM, indicating that this is not an adequate response to a very serious problem. I am afraid that is the reality.

With regard to the fact that people are kept in camps for prolonged periods, this is unacceptable. The reason is processing is not carried out at a sufficiently rapid pace and often is focused on particular countries which have to bear the greatest burden without help from others. Front-line states, including Italy, are left to process everybody because the country of first landing is obliged to provide refuge for the asylum seeker. Once processing has been completed and the individual is certified as a refugee, that is, somebody who is avoiding persecution and cannot be sent back, he or she becomes part of the same economic community as the rest of us, with all of the rights of travel, etc., that go with it. Something has to be done about this in terms of the sharing of responsibility. The question arises as to whether we will have that sharing of responsibility instead of people in the north of Europe claiming it is not their problem simply because refugees are landing on Lampedusa rather than Ireland's Eye. I understand the argument that it is easy to say but not as easy to do, but the fact is that others are doing it. Even allowing for population differences with Germany and Sweden, the figures for these countries are telling in comparison to those for Ireland. Last year the Netherlands took in 10,620 refugees. Denmark, with a population comparable to that of Ireland, took in 3,360 refugees. We would not be dealing with hundreds of thousands of refugees, which I recognise would create massive political uproar, if we were to take our fair share of what was required. Even Malta took in 1,610 refugees.

A number of members asked how we could convince people this was necessary or desirable. The only way they can be convinced is by articulating the facts. Britain, where I spend my time, has failed to do this because the subject is virtually taboo among a political class which fears that it will translate into lost votes at the general election. The issue was not explained, even though the British Department of Economic Affairs had clearly established that the net contribution of migrants was significantly positive in economic terms and that much more was paid in tax than what was paid out in benefits. There are also more entrepreneurs and innovators among the immigrant community than among the national community. In this country attention could be drawn to the fact that during the period of severe economic crisis post-2008 we still received large numbers of immigrants, particularly from central and eastern Europe. They found jobs that were available to Irish people but which were not being taken up. They were badly needed. In this and other cities in Ireland one can be served by excellent immigrants who are working in restaurants or our homes. The evidence indicates that, while there was emigration during that period, there was also a significant flow of immigration. Immigrants were generally welcomed. I have never heard negative comments about the immigrant community. Perhaps there are negative comments, but I think immigrants make a great contribution to Irish life.

Germany has a need for migrants. It faces a demographic problem we do not have. Europe will require an additional 60 million workers between now and 2050 to maintain the current worker-retiree balance. To achieve this figure, it will need to attract millions of immigrants annually rather than the relatively paltry numbers currently immigrating. Perhaps it is less than generous to say Germany is motivated more by filling its demographic hole than by doing the right thing. There is a fair amount of doing the right thing in Germany's policies, as well as in what is being done in Sweden, Italy, Spain and France. There are differences in attitude, but some countries are doing the right thing. The issue has been elevated in Germany to a level of political discourse that makes me wonder about what is happening in other countries.

For example, migration was one of the main subjects at this year's annual meeting of all German ambassadors. I was at the meeting. It has been elevated to the highest level. The government responsibility for migration and development, which are inextricably linked, is organised in a way that requires interdepartmental structures. In Germany that is done under the Chancellor. There is a strong argument for the department in charge not to be a silo but an intergovernmental group. In most countries the business of migration is handled by the department of justice, home affairs, homeland security or the interior, as it is described in many European countries. We need some structure which brings together development, foreign affairs and different aspects, including - this is important - homeland security or border control. to get a proper policy mix. I am not saying there is none here, I do not know.

The point is made that part of the problem is of our own making, that is, of some European countries or, one might say, Europe as a whole, the United States or others, in terms of the diabolical situation in some of the north African countries, including Libya and Syria. Who is responsible for that and what role can we play? I am not going to get into an issue about whether Ireland can play any role at all having regard to its traditional positions in matters of foreign affairs on these issues and how it does it through the United Nations or whatever. That is a big issue which would require a debate in itself involving issues such as arms sales etc., which are outside the general questions we have been asked.

In conclusion, the European situation is required to go much further than it has done in the recent conclusions. The Commission is about to have another discussion which it is hoped will bring forward another series of proposals on this issue. The Dublin regulation is inadequate and needs to be reviewed and refined. It has to include explicit responsibilities being shared in the European Union. It may be difficult to do that as the committee has suggested but that is what parliamentarians are for. We have to do it. It is easy to say that I am talking from outside and not dealing with political realities. Maybe I am not but this is a political reality that is not going away.