Derek McDowell (Labour)

This country has changed enormously in the two years since 2004, but there is difficulty in assessing the nature and extent of the change. The Minister's speech, while healthy, has somewhat confused the issue. Information that has come into the public domain shows that approximately 200,000 PPS numbers have been issued to nationals of the new member states since 2004. The Minister said today that Revenue reckoned that about 135,000 had worked here at some time or other since May 2004, although it does not know how many are still here. The Minister also gave us a figure of 62,000 workers, approximately 3% of our workforce, as an estimate of those currently working here.

The lack of information is hardly surprising as none of us anticipated this rush. I remember participating in debates in 2003 and 2004, before and during the course of the Nice treaty referenda, when most of us were confident we would not see a tide of immigrants remotely like the one we have following the accession of the new states. Some people gave the example of the enlargement that brought Spain and Portugal into the Union when there was little or no immigration into Ireland.

It is worth looking at today's figures in some detail. They confirm what we knew instinctively, that the propensity of people to emigrate is directly related to their prospects at home. There is only slight immigration from countries such as Cyprus or Slovenia, which are doing quite well, whereas where countries are poor and have poor employment prospects, for example the Baltic states, emigration is at a high level.

While we have poor information on what is happening, we have even less of a basis on which to make a sensible prediction as to what will happen in the immediate future. It is essential that we try to get a handle on the issue. In particular, we must get some idea of how many of our new immigrants we can reasonably expect to stay. In other words, we must discover how many are immigrants and how many are transient workers. It is reasonable to presume many of them may not know when they arrive whether they will stay. They may even end up remaining when they had intended to only stay a short while.

If we are to make any sense with our planning, we must get some idea of the numbers in order to form a basis. It is reasonable to assume that from 10% to 20% will stay, at least for a period, and that they will bring their families and have children here. We need to cater for them on that basis. The report focuses exclusively on immigration from EU states and does not deal with those from elsewhere who want to stay, such as asylum seekers and refugees.

I have some sympathy with the view expressed by Senator Dardis that having a Minister to deal exclusively with immigration matters may not be the most sensible idea. When we discussed this in committee, the view was that this was an acknowledgment that it was not purely an employment issue but also related to housing, social welfare, education and the health needs of new immigrants. The committee felt that in order to reflect that it was such a diverse issue, there should be a Minister with sole responsibility for immigrant affairs.

Having reflected on this in the meantime, I believe Senator Dardis has a good case. While there may be a case for a Minister who will co-ordinate and have primary responsibility for dealing with these issues, to remove them from their Departments would not make much sense and could have a negative effect and pigeonhole immigrants in a way we do not want.

Perhaps the most useful function fulfilled by the process of producing the report is to start a debate on the nature of assimilation or integration or exclusionism — an awful word used in the report — we might consider adopting. We should take the assimilation route for those who want to stay for a long period. If people just come here for six or nine months to make some money to take back to Poland or the Baltic states, issues about assimilation do not arise. However, if people want to remain and bring up their children here, we must have a firm view on how this will proceed. We must offer them, as best we can, a means to assimilate and integrate into Irish society. This is in Ireland's interest, as well as in the interest of those who come to stay.

There is a real danger that we could end up, as have many countries in Europe that have traditionally welcomed immigrants, with a situation like that in banlieues in Paris or various boroughs in London or the north of England or in Turkish ghettoes in Berlin. This is something we do not want to see happen. Immigrant communities here typically do not form a full community. They mainly consist of young males who do not of themselves constitute a Polish or Latvian community in Ireland. I do not need to spell out the obvious difficulties that can arise when a community is dominated by people who are mostly males of the same age with a few bob in their pockets who are away from home and the roots of their society.

I endorse the caution exhibited by the Minister and articulated by the Taoiseach on the issue of Romania and Bulgaria. Ultimately, we should open our labour markets to these two countries. However, we need to carry out a more intelligent assessment this time of the likely impact on Ireland of doing so. In so far as we can divine, there is little indication there will be significant immigration from Bulgaria into Ireland if we open our labour market.

The position could be different with regard to Romania. The Romanian ambassador attended a meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs a few weeks ago where she was asked how many Romanians were currently in Ireland. She spoke frankly and replied that she did not know, nor did the Irish authorities, but they estimated the number was approximately 20,000, of whom possibly half were illegal. That figure could be wildly wrong. She was, more importantly, asked how many she thought would seek to leave Romania in the event of labour markets opening up to Romanian nationals. She said the estimate — guesstimate might be a better word — was in the region of 300,000 to 400,000. Her view was that many of those would chose to go to southern Europe.

This is a relatively benign scenario from the Romanian point of view and in terms of the capacity of European labour markets to absorb them. We must be cautious and acknowledge that there is a risk, however high it may be, that there will be a significant exodus from Romania and that Ireland will end up welcoming many of them, without a serious effort on our part to assess whether we have the capacity to absorb them. To put it bluntly, the Taoiseach is right to be cautious. Having made an intelligent assessment of the likely outcome, it would be sensible to open our labour market, preferably in the context of other countries doing the same.

Some people mentioned the issue of racism. This is something we must not sweep under the carpet but acknowledge. People react differently to difference. Some people embrace difference and like the fact that people speak a different language, eat different food, behave differently, have different cultural backgrounds and deal with the arts in a different way. I suspect this is true for the majority in this country. There are, however, a significant minority who do not. They are conservative in their outlook and find difference difficult to tolerate and more difficult to understand.

There is not a great deal we can do about some of these people, but there are some things we should do. We must challenge stereotyping and the myths which abound. We must ensure people know the facts about the impact of migrant workers on the economy. We must say clearly, explicitly and often that immigration is positive and point out that the notion that immigrants from Poland are taking Irish jobs is wrong. There is no evidence to support that, bar a few isolated cases.

It is also important that we challenge the myths about social welfare. Anybody who knows the facts is aware that it is almost impossible for anybody from eastern Europe to claim social welfare in Ireland, certainly within the first two years. One will hear regularly on the doorsteps myths from people who suggest that immigrants are treated better than Irish citizens. That is simply untrue and all of us in this House and in positions of leadership have a responsibility to ensure that the facts are made available, that people are made aware of what is happening and that the myths, many of which are dangerous and insidious, are challenged.

The most important aspect of the report is that it makes the point powerfully that this is not just an employment issue and that there are other issues with which we must deal. As I understand it, the immigrant supports in this country have been put together largely by immigrants themselves working voluntarily or with a relatively small amount of grant aid or subsidy from Ireland. We need to move from that. We must acknowledge that there is a significant number of people who are in Ireland for the first time and it is important that we provide whatever supports they need to integrate into Irish society. That is in our interest and in theirs also.

It is in our mutual interests also that immigrants have as much information about Ireland as possible before they come here. I am not sure we have done enough to ensure that people in Poland, who may believe that the roads in Ireland are lined with gold, get all the information and realise that while they might be paid a good deal, they also have to pay higher prices for rent, food or whatever. Getting information into the public domain is not something we should leave to the voluntary bodies or immigrant groups; it is something in which we should be actively involved. The Minister's Department has a role in that too. The report is quite limited in its extent. It is not ambitious in what it seeks to do and should be just one part of what is an important debate in terms of future years.