Pat Rabbitte's call for a debate on immigration may have been launched a little clumsily, but there are some real issues that need to be discussed. However, while some sensible points were made in the discussion on Questions & Answers last Monday, it became clear that there is much confusion about facts which needs to be cleared up, as far as this may be possible., writes Garret FitzGerald
And there is also some danger that such a debate might be hijacked for ideological reasons or by vested interests, and also that it could be distorted by emotions.
Let us start with the Irish Ferries controversy. The displacement of Irish workers by that company was a function of a special international legal regime for the employment of seamen, which has no application to, and is indeed quite irrelevant to, other forms of employment. However, it may raise some issues on the stance adopted by our Government in past negotiations on this matter within the EU.
Although irrelevant to the rest of the work-force, that controversy nevertheless contributed to the initiation of the current debate. And it helped to ensure some improvement in the pay and conditions of the foreign workers now being taken on by Irish Ferries.
A key question is, of course, whether there has been significant "displacement" of Irish workers in other employments by lower- paid immigrants. Manus O'Riordan's well-researched article on this page yesterday, based on the latest Central Statistics Office (CSO) data for earnings in industry and the banking, insurance, and building society sector, as well as on a sharp fall in the proportion of construction workers classified as "employees", provides the first solid statistical evidence for such a phenomenon. Hitherto, the evidence for displacement has rightly been described as "anecdotal".
Manus O'Riordan does not, however, address the fact that, since our employment market was opened to workers from central and eastern Europe, the unemployment rate has actually fallen, by 4 per cent to 5 per cent. Moreover, this reduced level of unemployment was maintained right up to December, despite a considerable increase in the inflow from new member states during 2005.
So, if there has been significant displacement of Irish workers by immigrants in some sectors, the unemployment data suggest that they must have been re-employed elsewhere. And, in so far as there is a difference in pay rates between Irish and immigrant workers, part at least of this phenomenon could be accounted for by Irish workers moving to better-paid jobs, and being replaced by lower-paid immigrants in their old positions.
It is also important to dispel the belief that there are now more than 160,000 immigrants from new EU countries working here. That figure represents only the number who have at one time or another registered for work here, and there is some evidence that even three months after registration 30 per cent had not in fact taken up employment - in the "white" economy at any rate.
Moreover, many of these immigrants - perhaps a half - work here only temporarily. A large number in sectors such as horticulture and catering are in fact seasonal workers. Consequently, of the 160,000-plus who have registered for work here since April 2004, it is doubtful that more than 65,000-75,000 are currently employed. Such a figure would be broadly consistent with the CSO's estimates of net immigration, derived from its quarterly national household inquiry.
The scale of the overall increase in employment that has taken place since May 2004 suggests that a high proportion of immigrants may have created new jobs for themselves, rather than replacing upward-moving Irish workers. The increases in employment that took place in the three 12-month periods ended respectively in March-May 2003, 2004 and 2005, were as follows: 30,000, 43,000 and 95,000.
Moreover, the figures for employment increases in the construction sector in these three successive 12-month periods were 9,000, 15,000, and 37,000.
But as employment in private construction firms rose by only 4 per cent between April 2004 and April 2005, many of these immigrants may have gone into business on their own. And if they accepted lower levels of payment for their work, this did not prevent the hourly wages of building workers from rising by almost 8 per cent in that period - although Manus O'Riordan suggests that this figure "totally lacks credibility".
He backs this view with evidence suggesting that many employees have been improperly reclassified by unscrupulous employers as "self-employed".
What these data suggest is that after April 2004 the availability of immigrant workers generated some 50,000 jobs that would not otherwise have come into existence. This is a significant once-off boost to our economy, which in many cases must also have benefited consumers considerably by making it possible for them to have work done, eg on house repairs, that would otherwise have been impossible either because of cost, or because of a labour shortage, or both.
Moreover, insofar as many of these workers are in the construction sector, they offer a kind of cushion to Irish building workers, for, if and when the current construction boom ends, much of the brunt of disemployment will be borne by immigrant building workers.
Although there may be a positive as well as negative side to the picture drawn by Manus O'Riordan, his data suggest the urgent need for increased supervision of the construction sector in particular. The persistent failure of the Government to appoint a sufficient number of labour inspectors has been a grave dereliction of duty that the unions have been right to attack.
Its slowness in acting in this matter recalls its failure some years ago to respond in time to a rapid rise in asylum-seekers, which allowed a huge backlog to develop that took years to clear. In any event, we need to face the fact that our capacity to absorb immigrant labour is not infinite. And we need to be vigilant about future trends.
If Bulgaria and Romania - countries with a combined population of 30 million people and living standards almost one-third lower than the poorest northeastern European countries to which we opened our borders 20 months ago - are admitted to the EU next year, the Government should be cautious about extending similar treatment to their populations.
Meanwhile, we need to improve radically our statistical data on immigrants.
The last census in 2002 provided for the first time data, including age, on people who are not Irish nationals. But there is as yet no reliable data whatsoever on the level of employment of non-nationals: the detailed employment data published from the quarterly household inquiry does not distinguish Irish nationals from other nationalities. Filling this lacuna in our employment statistics should now be a high priority.