I apologise for the delay in meeting Mr. Sutherland. This is a busy time of year for members. I invite Mr. Sutherland to make a brief presentation following which there will be a question and answer session.
Global and EU Migration: Presentation.
Mr. Peter Sutherland
It would do no harm to provide a brief introduction because it may set the parameters in regard to any marginal assistance I may be able to offer members, although I am not sure what interest they may have in what I have to say. I will explain briefly why I am here.
I do not profess to be an expert on migration matters. However, I was asked last November by Secretary General Kofi Annan to be a special representative on migration and development. I believe he was motivated by the fact that there had been virtually no discussion in the United Nations on migration and development. There had been references to it in the past but, ultimately, it appeared that a number of states had great difficulty discussing the issue of migration and development on the basis that it could constitute a debate on matters of sovereign interest, namely, security of borders and so on, and also because it might inevitably become a finger pointing exercise between developing and developed countries. There was, therefore, a reluctance to allow this to proceed.
The Secretary General told me in November that a resolution would be passed in December — as proved to be the case — calling for a high level dialogue in the General Assembly in September 2006. It was in this regard that he requested my involvement. The high level dialogue is due to take place between 13 and 15 September. I understand that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, and his Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, will attend that dialogue.
The resolution passed in December also called on the Secretary General to produce a report on the overall issue of migration and development. The report was to be a comprehensive analysis of everything that is broadly known on the subject. While this seemed an impossible task, the report was produced two weeks ago. I have circulated a copy of it to the committee. It is an interesting document, which sets out all the details on migration.
I was to be involved in producing the report and in preparations for the high level dialogue due to take place in September. Two abstentions on the original resolution, signifying a degree of concern, later transpired to be outright opposition to it. The United States was not positive about the initiative nor was Japan but most other countries were quite happy to engage in a two-day dialogue. One might ask, as I did, what is the point in members of the United Nations engaging in a two-day dialogue on migration and development because everybody will simply attend and read prepared statements, perhaps, as often happens at such events, in an adversarial way, and then return home.
My involvement was twofold, namely, to speak to officials from as many Governments as possible — to date I have spoken with approximately 70 or 80 people — regarding constructive dialogue in terms of the positive contributions that both sides could make to a debate on migration and to explore the possibility that the high level dialogue, sanction for which has taken so long to obtain, should be the beginning rather than the end of a process.
Members might well ask about the nature of the process to which I refer. It is a process of dialogue and no more. A dialogue between interested parties. The result is the publication of the report, which contains a proposal that following the high level dialogue, which has not been universally accepted — although many countries appear to be coming round to it — a rolling forum on migration and development be established whereby countries would host one or two three-day meetings per annum to identify and consider specific issues.
A simple non-contentious issue would be that of remittances. One of the major aspects, as we all know, of development is the value of remittances. Those of us educated a few decades ago in this country remember that remittances formed a core part of our economy. Remittances currently running at a level of $232 billion per annum, compared with the total amount of overseas development aid of $106.5 billion, are much more valuable. However, the average cost of sending remittances ranges between 15% to 20% of the total. This money is kept from very poor families to which it might go. That is the context in which I am involved.
I visited Geneva yesterday to address the UN General Assembly on this issue. Next week, a meeting between the European Union and African countries, at which Ireland will be represented, is being held in Rabat. The topic for discussion is how one can have a more coherent system of migration — including control of irregular migration — and how it links in to development so that we have a win-win situation. This is, of course, an extremely complicated but vitally important issue. The European Union is broadly positive about this initiative, as I learned from my discussions with Mr. Franco Frattini. However, I am not trying to say that it is earth shattering that a dialogue of this nature is taking place at the UN. It is the beginning rather than the end of a process.
The only aspect of globalisation in respect of which there has been no real multilateral input is the movement of people. There is a provision, GATS Mode 4, which, under the Doha and Uruguay rounds, would have allowed for negotiations in respect of migration. However, a number of countries — basically all of the OECD member states — absolutely refused to become involved in that regard. The committee is aware of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families 1990 and a number of other conventions but, for various reasons, often highly justified, these have not been ratified by many of the OECD countries. The question is whether one can create a framework at UN level that will allow for some development of it. Mr. Kofi Annan will retire at the end of the year and my association with the UN is as his special representative, so I assume my term will come to a conclusion at that point.
My first point — to which the committee has already adverted — is that the distressing part of the process has been the complete lack of coherence at national level. I am not making a comment about Ireland because I have had a very positive and constructive engagement with people here. However, there is a difficulty about knowing to whom one should talk because a holistic approach to the issue has not been taken.
Some countries are doing more than others. The Spanish are doing a great deal on this issue because Spain is the entrepôt to Europe from Africa. That is why the Spanish are the major sponsors of the meeting in Rabat next week. There is a flow of people across the Straits of Gibraltar and Spain is also taking in significant numbers of migrants from Latin America, who have automatic rights of access under the Spanish constitution.
A great deal more needs to be done in respect of this matter, on which the committee has reflected. I have been visiting ministers in different countries to generate attendance at the high level dialogue meeting to which I refer. One minister in a prominent country explained that the battle between different sectors because it is relates to the areas of foreign affairs, home affairs, justice, social welfare, education and labour.
The same problem exists at the United Nations. There is no section that deals exclusively with migration but different bodies — the Commission on Human Rights, the ILO, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR, and the Commission on Population and Development — claim partial responsibility in respect of it. The International Organisation for Migration, IOM, has many members but it is outside the UN and, therefore, not part of the global system. There is nowhere to discuss, let alone reach accommodation on, this issue.
There is a growing interregional debate, of which the meeting in Rabat is an example. Within our region an interesting debate is taking place on the migration from the new states of the enlarged European Union to the older member states. I am sure members read the report on the impact of free movement of workers from central and eastern Europe on the UK labour market, which was produced by the Department for Work and Pensions in Britain. This very interesting recent study reaches the broad conclusion that migration from the newly enlarged states into Britain has not had a negative effect, either on wages or in respect of reducing employment opportunities. Although one cannot generalise, two very authoritative economic reports in the United States on this subject argue that migration has not been proven, even in places where it is overwhelming, to have had a negative effect on employment or wages. I do not know how one can be absolutely certain on that. One must accept that it can and will sometimes give rise to issues.
If one examines migration relative to population in the period between 1870 and 1914, there was greater level of migration then than there is now. The figures for that period show that migration was largely from Europe to the United States. Significant numbers of Irish people were part of that migration. In the hundred-year period between 1814 and 1914, there was a constant migration of more than 30% of the Irish workforce. The experience is different now because it is also cross-cultural. One must draw a distinction in respect of migration into migrant communities, such as those that exist in the United States. The latter is a migrant state because virtually everybody in the US can trace his or her roots to someone who migrated there in the past. In Europe, societies are more homogeneous and migration give rise to different issues. The major issues with which we must inevitably deal are migration and the environment. Leaving aside political conflicts, a combination of factors make these the major topics of this century.
The income per capita in high income countries is 65 times that which obtains in the lowest income countries and 15 times that which obtains in middle income countries. Those statistics, the extent of communication globally and the consequential knowledge of what others have, and the communication and transport capacities people have today, combine to create an interesting dynamic. Inevitably it leads to what we are now seeing.
Talking about countries is the wrong analytical framework. Often it is cities about which we are talking. Migrants generally move to cities. It is interesting to note that in 2000 23% of Parisians, 28% of Londoners and 30% in Abuja in Nigeria were foreign born. Cities are becoming multicultural places. This will inevitably continue, not least because of the demographic situation in the world in which we live. Within ten years in the industrialised countries as a whole 87 young people will join the labour force as against 100 leaving it each year. In developing countries 342 people will join for every 100 leaving. The figures are even more dramatic when applied to north Africa, an area of huge population growth. The conclusion that must be drawn is that this is an inevitability, a reality, something we must elevate to a level of policy-making of the most serious and important kind. It cannot be dealt with without policies. I am not suggesting there are no policies — I do not know the exact policy position here as well as I should. Integrated policies are needed to deal with this. We need a clear idea of where we are going. To take a more frivolous example, 100% of the Côte d'Ivoire soccer team live abroad, 87% of the Brazilian soccer team live abroad and 75% of the Polish soccer team live abroad. Migration is very important.
Let me make a comment or two about development. The issue I am concerned with for this year is the linkage between migration and development. The issue of migration and development is very important from a range of different perspectives. In some countries the economic and social policy promotes and develops emigration. I do not mean this in a critical sense. In the Philippines nurses are trained to emigrate. That ties back into the remittances issue which is crucially important in the Philippines. Huge numbers of migrant workers also move between developing countries, often to temporary work situations — 68% of the workers in the United Arab Emirates and 49% of workers in Kuwait are guest workers. These are societies where, in effect, the majority of the population are guest workers on temporary visas.
There are massively differing approaches to migration. What is increasingly clear is the vital importance of recognising that we have certain responsibilities in regard to migration. Let me take the example of brain drain from developing countries. A total of 40% of all university educated adults from Turkey and Morocco are in OECD countries, half of all graduates graduating from the Caribbean in the past 30 years are in the United States, 90% of Chinese PhDs who go abroad for education stay abroad, and 23% of all health workers in the UK come from outside the UK. During the 1990s 60% of the growth in the number of US PhD scientists and engineers came from outside the US. There are other statistics. I have heard there are more doctors from Mali in Manchester than there are in Mali, but I do not know if that is true. I am sorry, I have gone on far too long.
I made Mr. Sutherland wait long enough.
Mr. Sutherland
I am getting my revenge. There is a huge number of issues, all of which require one thing that I do not think exists here, and that is adequate information. We cannot develop policies until we have statistics, and we do not have statistics. We are not unique in that. We do not have knowledge of what is happening.
It might be useful if I gave an overview of what we have been doing in the past year. It is about a year since we hit on this subject and we have been dealing with it, not intermittently, but with some concentration in the past year. Having listened to Mr. Sutherland, it is good but not surprising that we have touch on many of the same points. Our findings were the same as his in regard to not having proper statistics or an integrated policy. I am aware that Mr. Sutherland has concentrated on and has written articles concerning the negativity that generally surrounds migration. I cannot say that is the case with regard to Ireland. We tried to be clear on that point. We felt the decision made a number of years ago with regard to the new accession countries to allow free movement for work was a very good decision for the country. It has been astoundingly positive. One could probably use Ireland as an example of how positive migration can be not just economically but also socially beneficial. However, there are problems. I am aware Mr. Sutherland was on RTE recently with Marian Finucane. We were pleasantly surprised to hear him make the point that it is sometimes very difficult to find the person who deals with this in Government, whether there is a Department with specific jurisdiction over the area or a particular individual. That is a finding we made, having listened to many different agencies and groups dealing with migrant communities. We found in some cases — Mr. Sutherland may correct me if I am wrong — that there was a lack of co-ordination between the different Departments. In some cases when we asked witnesses appearing before the committee which was the lead Department, they were unable to tell us. Over all, it is surprising there have not been more problems, given the number of migrants we have received in the past couple of years. We generally try to send out a positive message, but the lack of co-ordination between Departments was the key finding.
I will start with that and ask whether Mr. Sutherland has spoken to anyone in Ireland on that issue. Has he pressed home that issue, is it being pursued within Government, and will it be addressed?
Mr. Sutherland
I have had meetings with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, and the Minister of State, Deputy Lenihan. As somebody who lives outside the country and comes home regularly, I agree with the Chairman. If one looks at the rate of migration into Ireland and the level it has reached — 8% of the working population — one will see that it has been an amazingly constructive experience, one which reflects extremely well on the people. In so far as one can judge from talking to people, reading papers or listening to the radio, the experience has been amazingly positive. On talking to the Government about the issues the Chairman has flagged, there is a recognition that this is an issue on which we must move too. If we do not have a serious holistic policy of integrating people into communities, small ghetto-like communities — I do not like using that term because it is pejorative — will develop. There are different approaches. The French approach involves full integration, where as the British approach is quite different. However, there must be a clear line.
It is not an earth shattering finding. It is pretty obvious. It is something that needs to be done, or at least examined.
I am fascinated by what I have learned today. It had not dawned on me that people went to cities until Mr. Sutherland mentioned it. I remember emigrants' remittances in the 1950s. I am not sure how we ever knew exactly how much they came to because they were made in dollar notes into post office accounts.
Mr. Sutherland
Invisible exports.
I am also fascinated by the history of migration between 1870 and 1914. It is a reminder.
I was impressed by what had happened in the British House of Commons yesterday. A British Labour Party MP, Mr. Tony Wright, made a case that was rejected by the Prime Minister for an independent commission to handle the question of the future ideal size of the British population. That is exactly the talking point here.
There is another point on which I would like a view. Mr. Sutherland spoke about information. There is talk about biometric passports, visas and information. In general, would he be in favour of a direction that would give us more such information, or does it almost sound like a right-wing attitude to control matters rather than encouraging integration?
Mr. Sutherland
On demographics, for immigration to stabilise the population ratio through to 2050, 32% of the French population would have to be foreign born. I do not have figures for every country. In France 1.7 million migrants per annum would be required to deal with the demographic issues. I have heard that approximately 30 million are coming into the European Union from outside each year, a figure way beyond comprehension or, I imagine, acceptability. There are huge problems in France because of its ageing population and so on. There are other aspects which are complicated such as that people are working and living longer. There is no doubt that there is a huge demographic problem. That is another reason, apart from all aspects of moral and proper conduct, there is an issue in regard to migration.
On the issue of identity cards and so on, I do not hold a knowledgeable position on it. I have no objection to them but I do not know whether it is the only way information can be obtained. We need information and having a census every so often is not enough to discover what is really going on. I have no expertise in the subject but I know that everywhere there is a problem with information. It is the key to policies.
On integration, the challenge we face on this committee is that we all know of immigrants who integrate easily and readily in Ireland and become, like the Normans before them, more Irish than the Irish themselves. However, we also see those, mainly at the bottom of the pile, who stay with their own colleagues and end up going home not having learned our language or traditions. Is there any country which has faced up to this in a manner from which we could learn?
Mr. Sutherland
I believe Spain is doing a lot but I do not know enough about it to answer the question. Apart from remittances, there is also much investment. The United Nations states 70% of total investment in equities and so on in China — $50 billion a year — is made by the Chinese diaspora. It is not made by Microsoft or DaimlerChrysler but by the 30 million Chinese around the world who send money home all the time.
I thank Mr. Sutherland for a very interesting and pragmatic presentation. The point he made at the outset is valid. We talk about the global economy but there is nothing as global as migration. There are movements of people throughout the world. With modern communications, these can only grow rather than diminish. Our experience of migration has been good. It was good when we received remittances in the past. It is also good for the economy at present because it provides that extra dimension that allows it to develop. That said, the overall impression abroad is negativity. This impression is being created by the issue of asylum seekers. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has said they should all be stopped at the airports and not let into the country. Certain institutions of the State have developed a fortress mentality, when they would normally be expected to promote dialogue and awareness. We have also had problems with the social directive. Workers' hard won rights have been threatened during the years. All of this creates an aura of negativity. While I welcome what Mr. Sutherland said, we must move away from the fortress mentality and develop an awareness of the good side of the combination between migration and development. We found ourselves in the same situation on the Nice treaty and set up the National Forum on Europe to disseminate information and increase awareness that essentially the European project was a good one. Are there grounds for establishing such a national forum on this issue? Is the UN forum practical? Will Mr. Kofi Annan kickstart it before he steps down from office?
Mr. Sutherland
Taking the latter point first, it is unclear how we will end up. There seems to be a buy-in to the idea of continuing dialogue. The question is whether one is talking to the right people. We will not know until people decide in September. I am reasonably confident, however, that matters are moving the right way. In this regard, I am in receipt of much support from the Irish diplomatic corps and so on. Nevertheless, as I noted at the outset, I am under no illusions that this will change the world — it will not. However, it will constitute the beginning of a dialogue between North and South.
The possibility of having a forum on migration in Ireland brings us back to the question of knowledge and analysis of the facts. Until this is done, it will be difficult to ascertain how such a forum might work. Deputy Costello is correct to state there is anxiety everywhere in respect of societal change. This is not an Irish phenomenon and is inevitable if one finds that an old part of Dublin or Cork is occupied by people from elsewhere or encounters people from a visibly different cultural background, given the manner in which they are dressed and so on. Moreover, the level of such anxiety would be much worse if Ireland did not have such a very low rate of unemployment. If it was running at double the current figure, one would then have an automatic assumption that it was as a result of migration, although this might not be true. Hence, we have a positive environment. We must learn how to disseminate facts, details and information because if the environment was to become less positive as a result of the movement of some major inward investments elsewhere, one might experience a backlash. Everyone is susceptible to such anxiety and as members are aware, people feel comfortable with their own kind. However, my answer to the member's basic question is that we do not yet have the basis on which to establish a forum.
I welcome Mr. Sutherland. I have one question on how one develops policy in the context of international law. It is very difficult, in that some countries are unwilling to accede to conventions or enforce rules. Senator Quinn raised the issue of identity cards. While I know that Mr. Sutherland did not consider the issue in terms of restrictions, such cards could constitute an important measurement to enable us to frame sensible policies. Although the Tampere Convention tried to kick-start a European-wide policy, it never got anywhere. Hence, like this committee, other member states are now trying to think of ways to ensure immigration turns into integration. From Mr. Sutherland's UN perspective, how does one surmount the problem of the enforceability of international law to come up with a coherent policy?
Mr. Sutherland
That is a very good question. There is not the slightest sign of a sea change in reaction to, for example, adopting the convention to which I referred. If anything, movement is in the contrary direction. During the 1990s, immediately following the collapse of the Iron Curtain, there was a brief period during which we had a single world. For the first time everyone professed to be playing to more or less the same rules. Moreover, the process of globalisation was growing and there was a certain buoyancy attached to it. However, there has been a change. The French referendum result was as much, if not more, a vote against globalisation, the Polish plumber, Turkey's accession, etc. as against anything else. I am sure it sent political signals to this House, just as it did to all other European legislatures, on the obligation to be careful. It is a question of balance.
In reply to the Deputy's question, rightly or wrongly, the United Nations has tried to stimulate a positive debate on the minor initiative to which I have referred by not demanding that everyone sign up to the convention as its focal point. Instead, its approach has been to take the win-win situations and the economic arguments as the basis for the development of such dialogue. I have some sympathy for the argument which some developing countries could make, namely, that starting with ratification of the convention and so on would only lead to many parties staying away or sending junior diplomats. This is because such ratification will not happen. Hence, it is a question of realpolitik.
The correct way to make progress in this debate is by developing correctly and explaining simply the arguments for and against migration, not by distorting them. This is where one must begin, as it will not take place otherwise. Moreover, simply stating others are morally wrong and to be condemned for not adopting the convention will not be successful, as no OECD country wants to do so. There are reasons for this reluctance. I suspect that the people of such countries believe very strongly that this issue is solely one for national sovereignty, although the members and I may take a different view. They believe countries should make their own rules in respect of borders, nationality, who should be allowed to stay in a country and so on. Hence, a more nuanced debate is required.
As for Deputy Andrews's question, if Mr. Sutherland meets a senior Minister of a country in which there is a high rate of unemployment, what examples does he use? What economic models does he cite?
Mr. Sutherland
I have been using this country as an example. The fact that Ireland has experienced one of the most startling growth rates in the OECD is not unrelated to having taken a positive view in this regard. The committee's report also made this point. All one can do is to cite examples and Ireland is a good one.
Are there any others?
Mr. Sutherland
Within the European Union, the other countries which kept their borders open such as the United Kingdom and Sweden have had similar broadly positive experiences. Moreover, this growth has been delivered, notwithstanding the fact that our main markets, namely, France, Germany and Italy, have been in the doldrums. While I cannot present the arguments, it could be argued that if growth rates in the central European economies had been running at 6% or 7%, or even at 3%, it would have had an even greater effect and Ireland would have taken in even more migrants. Hence, it would be a social problem pertaining to integration rather than an economic one.
I thank Mr. Sutherland for his presentation which greatly encouraged me. I hope the important views he has expressed will find a resonance within the United Nations. He made a critically important point about how the presence of competition for jobs makes it easy to point the finger at those who have arrived in the country and to assert that it is their fault. People in Ireland are already familiar with this phenomenon, given the experiences of the Irish in the United States and the United Kingdom. They probably felt they had experienced exclusion because they had competed for jobs. This is an important aspect of the debate.
My first query is related to Deputy Andrews's question and pertains to trafficking and the seedier side of migration. Senator Lydon and I attended a Crans Montana Forum conference in Monaco, at which one academic presentation was extremely critical of the international legal instruments dealing with trafficking, organised crime and so on. What does Mr. Sutherland believe can be achieved in this regard? I note that in his report he refers to the protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, of 2000, as well as to one pertaining to the smuggling of migrants. Approximately half have signed up to them. I want Mr. Sutherland to tease out this matter a little.
I recall the period when invisible exports from emigrants' remittances constituted a category in Ireland's national economic statistics. However, I refer to the opposite side of the coin, or the brain drain aspect from the perspective of the country of origin. I gained an insight into this issue in Estonia. Although its economy is developing rapidly, it has a need for labour, even though Polish people are coming to work. However, the Estonians believe they are losing some of their better people who are coming to Ireland, among other places. While the Estonians have no criticisms of how people are being treated here, they worry that while people may state they will return, they will not. I am sure that many of the Irish who went to America said they would return. Once they leave, they settle, put down roots and rear children. What is the effect on the country of origin if it needs to develop but is losing some of its better people?
Mr. Sutherland
The effects can be both negative and positive. They are negative because the population declines. In this regard, I have provided statistics which indicate how many have left the Caribbean and elsewhere. The corresponding percentages for health workers in the United Kingdom, for example, are very significant. The positive effects include the remittances and the training emigrants receive when abroad. Many migrants do not want to remain permanently in their host country. One assumes that immigrants will never leave but this is not true. The evidence suggests the vast majority want to return home. On doing so, they sometimes bring skills with them. However, there is no doubt that the brain drain is a real problem.
On smuggling and the irregularities associated with migration, the conventions and legal instruments are important in expressing the willingness of countries of origin and destination to have a rule-based system under which people may travel. However, practical co-operation is ultimately the solution.
In the next few weeks I will be attending two conferences sponsored by the Spanish who are tying to co-operate with Morocco, for example. When one considers the plight of the unfortunate people who travel 1,000 km by water from north Africa to the Canaries, one realises what is really happening. The problem can only be dealt with through a balanced policy that not only protects borders but also recognises the need for dialogue and support for the developing countries involved. One cannot have a border policy alone and simply rely on conventions. There must be real dialogue which is beginning to occur. The meeting to be held in Rabat next week will serve as an attempt to further it. An Ibero-Latin American conference, with the same objective, will take place the following week. Those at the coalface such as the Spanish are addressing the issue. Italy is trying to proceed in the same manner because the problem is very real. We must engage on the development side of the equation, as well as on the other side. There is no easy answer. That is the best response I can give to the Deputy.
On remittances and banking, there is obviously capacity to lose a fair proportion of what is being remitted through currency exchange, etc. Is there much evidence of this happening?
Mr. Sutherland
There are 200 million migrants in the world today. Last year $232 billion in declared remittances was transferred. This compares to a figure of $106 billion in overseas development aid and is only the tip of an iceberg. The figure for the unrecorded transfer of remittances is probably double that amount. Therefore, great sums of money are involved. The remittances are often sent through inefficient and costly transfer mechanisms. In effect, this represents a form of indirect taxation on hard earned money which is being sent to the poorest people in the world. Not very much can be done about this. In this regard, the World Bank has undertaken a detailed study of the subject. One of the arguments for the forum I have mentioned is that the issue could be explored in greater detail, in which process bankers and others could be involved.
Senator Dardis mentioned the brain drain and Mr. Sutherland responded by referring to its positive and negative aspects. One positive aspect we have noted, having spoken to certain politicians from Romania and Latvia in particular, is that there is almost a reverse effect. The brain drain is very pronounced in Latvia and the country's politicians have made it a political issue. They understand that the only way to attract some of the emigrants back is to increase wages. There is pressure, therefore, on politicians to make the economy work in order that emigrants can return in the knowledge that they will receive a reasonable percentage of the wage they earn in Ireland. This applies to two or three countries.
Mr. Sutherland
The ultimate conundrum is that everyone accepts, as a matter of human rights, that people have the right to move, yet they do not accept they have the right to move somewhere else. We all condemned the Iron Curtain of the Soviet Union because it locked people in but it also locked people out.
In some countries it is almost regarded as unpatriotic to emigrate. However, when one speaks to politicians, unofficially they accept one's point that people must migrate. In former communist countries there was an even greater desire to move abroad to sample what was available. This is also understandable.
The Government will have to deliberate on Romania and Bulgaria and a decision must be made thereon soon. In this regard, we have asked for a very detailed analysis of the needs of the economy in ten years. Current statistics suggest 5,000 or 6,000 migrants come from eastern Europe every month. This should satisfy our workforce demands for the foreseeable future. If I were to put Mr. Sutherland on the spot, would he accept this? What would he say if I asked him about the free movement of workers from Romania and Bulgaria?
Mr. Sutherland
I would probably avoid the question if I were asked it and would do so on the following premise. Anyone who argues for a simple open door migration policy is living in cloud-cuckoo-land because it would destroy the very course of action one believes is morally and economically correct, that is, bringing in and integrating as many people as possible in the most humane way. It will always be a question of striking a balance. I would tend towards the more liberal response to the question rather than the more negative or restrictive one but I hesitate to reply to it because I genuinely do not know the answer. There are major issues to be addressed in this regard. I assume Bulgaria and Romania will join the European Union at the end of next year, as seems evident, but I do not know for certain. I would prefer not to try to answer the Chairman's question.
Fair enough. On Mr. Sutherland's analysis of the level of positivity in Ireland, it is worth pointing out that the perception of immigration was not very positive. There has been a complete flip in this regard since the issue of asylum seeking was to the fore. Mr. Sutherland has explained why inward migration has become so positive. I thank him for attending and apologise for making him wait so long. We really appreciate his great contribution.
The joint committee adjourned at 1.40 p.m. sine die.