Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State and this debate. What has happened has partly been the result of making Ireland one of the most attractive countries in the EU in which to do business through, for example, corporation tax policies. That, along with having an open regime for the ten accession countries, has worked out extremely well from our perspective. It enables us to meet needs and because we have such a wide pool from which to draw, most sectors, particularly in the productive economy do not experience labour shortages.

Last week, as a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service, I attended a conference called the Munich Economic Summit, which devoted itself entirely to the question of migration, offshoring, outsourcing, etc. Even before anyone from Ireland spoke, it was referred to many times by speakers from both North America and especially from continental Europe as a country which had got its migration policy broadly right. There was much criticism of German and Austrian decisions on the subject and of German ones in particular. One might imagine that their policy was understandable, given their high rate of unemployment of approximately 11%, as well as their geographical proximity. Nonetheless, even with that rate of unemployment, they experience acute shortages in certain areas of industry, notably in engineering and so on.

Naturally, if it is extremely difficult to enter Germany from somewhere like Poland, it is understandable that Poles would bypass Germany and come to somewhere like Ireland where, in principle, they can enter without problems and, if they are well-trained, get a job. The overwhelming consensus, both in the EU Commission report and among the economic views I heard at the aforementioned conference, is that the decision to open up was correct and that those countries which had opened up had done better.

I am glad that three or four other countries have decided to open up from 1 May 2006 as this means that people from the ten accession countries now have a wider choice of country to which to travel. While people may be worried about the risks we have taken, within another three or four years all countries will be obliged to open up. Hence, the pressure on countries like Ireland, which opened up when others did not will not be so great. Nonetheless, I agree with Senator McDowell that we would be wise to be cautious about Romania and Bulgaria for a variety of social reasons. Apart from anything else, they are considerably more heavily populated countries than were most of the ten accession countries, with the exception of Poland.

I am glad that the employment inspectorate is to be beefed up. This is important and will be essential to maintain employment standards. I hope the social partnership agreement, whenever it is concluded, will adequately cover that point. Nevertheless, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs is correct to suggest that some kind of basic safety net must be put in place. I refer to the provision of drop-in centres, etc., rather than the full panoply of social welfare.

Some reference has already been made in this debate to some limited resentments. However, at a constituency level, I cannot remember when I last had a serious complaint about immigrants, with the exception of the manner in which they drive and similar matters. However, some in our society, particularly outside the cities, have fewer employment opportunities. Hence, it is important that initiatives such as community employment schemes, which have worked well in the past, are fully utilised or even restored in order that people are not laid off while simultaneously witnessing immigrants getting jobs. This small measure would not involve high costs.

It is also good that we have finally eased restrictions on those in receipt of various forms of social assistance, to enable them to earn up to €100 per week. Everyone else, including teenage children and students had means of supplementing their income and the only people who were not allowed to so do were those in receipt of social assistance.

I am somewhat sceptical about what might be described as departmental juggling. I have watched the relabelling or shifting around of Departments at close quarters. It may not be well understood that this is often done to tailor Departments to individual Ministers on their inclusion in the Cabinet. It is not a panacea for problems.

I wish to make two brief points. The first mainly relates to those immigrants from outside the EU. It is quite difficult for public representatives to get any answer in reasonable time in respect of people whose employment is clearly valued in local communities, but who have been served with orders to depart. I have encountered a case involving a South African chef who attended an employment session organised in South Africa in 2000 by the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, in which we tried to recruit people from abroad. Nevertheless, the person in question finds it extremely difficult to remain in this country.

My final point is that we should be pragmatic and should not adopt overly-rigid theoretical models of multiculturalism or assimilation. The attendance of children at school and learning Irish constitutes an element of assimilation, which is good. Many countries which have experienced major problems had significant colonial empires and so on. Their problems have different roots to ours. Hence, we should note that while we must reflect on this issue, we should remain pragmatic.