I thank the Chairman and members for hearing us today. As we are conscious that their time is limited, we will be as quick as we can. I will start by giving an overview and the overall recommendations, after which Ms Denise Charlton, the chief executive, will talk about more specific issues, and Ms Hilkka Becker will discuss the legislative and legal aspects.
Our position is that labour immigration to Ireland is a permanent reality. It is not a short-term phenomenon but here to stay, owing to several factors, including increasing globalisation, cheap travel, improved communications, demographic and economic issues and the inequality between the northern and southern hemispheres, all of which suggest that continuing flows of migrant workers to all of the more prosperous and developed countries, including Ireland, are likely. Ireland is now a country of ongoing labour immigration.
Despite the economic slowdown of recent months, there are clear indications that we will still enjoy economic growth and stakeholders such as employer representative bodies believe we will continue to attract and retain staff from abroad. We must accept that mass migration from any current EU member state, including Ireland, is effectively over because of better living standards, lower fertility rates and increasing age dependency. We know that immigration will not solve the problems but it is very clear that a managed immigration policy will help EU countries, including Ireland, to meet the problems arising from these factors.
Since 1996, Ireland has received 147,000 foreign immigrants. We have also seen a dramatic increase in the issuing of employment permits, with an increase of 600% since 1999. A very high proportion of labour migrants, 61%, were from central and eastern European states but 25% are from countries which will not be part of EU enlargement. Migrants come from all parts of the world and are employed in every sector, though there are more in certain fields such as horticulture, hotels, catering, medical, paramedic and unskilled work.
Ireland has very quickly moved from being an economy of high emigration to one of very high immigration. We have moved from being a sending to a receiving country. We were not prepared and did not plan for this. The ethical and social issues raised by those changes are new to us. We lack experience, the policy, legislative and supportive structures, and the organisation found in countries with a tradition of immigration. That is a disadvantage but we also have the great advantage that we can learn from the experience, mistakes and positive stories of other countries.
Ireland's immigration system reflects an earlier time when the country attracted few immigrants. It is still largely market-driven and does little to protect migrant workers and their families. Ireland still sees it as a temporary solution to labour problems, with a continued emphasis on prioritising EU countries, ignoring the growing number of non-EU workers. However, the facts clearly show that migration from other EU countries into Ireland is less than migration from outside the European Union.
We need to accept that Ireland has become a destination country for international migration but we also need to recognise that this is positive as it recognises our social and economic development. The rate of inward migration has grown to a level that is one of the highest in Europe and as high, or higher, than that in traditional destination countries such as Canada and the United States but our policy development has lagged way behind this trend and when policy lags behind, there are likely to be many problems.
No one Department has responsibility for immigration and immigrant issues, and there is little co-ordination between the six departments which provide services for immigrants who, with the voluntary sector, are poorly represented at any level. What we have is an ad hoc reactive response designed mainly to keep people out, rather than a coherent comprehensively managed response.
There has been little public debate on immigration. The No Racism committee has shown how frightening the situation is in regard to attitudes towards minority groups and immigrants. For example, it has shown that a high proportion of people believe the number of non-natives in the population is significant and that the proportion of those who work is small. This is not correct. It is also believed those who are working are not making a significant contribution to the economy. There is a perception that many asylum seekers are bogus and that non-working immigrants receive substantial benefits from the State. The committee points to the need to highlight the positive contribution made by immigrants and the need for effective policies to deal with immigration.
The Immigrant Council of Ireland believes Ireland urgently needs an immigration and immigrant policy. They are not the same but inter-related and it is important to distinguish between the two. An immigration policy has to do with who gets into the country while an immigrant policy has to do with how we treat people when they come here.
The Immigrant Council of Ireland respects the Government's right to manage and control Ireland's borders but it is important to remember that immigration policy can impact on immigrant policy. In order words, unless those admitted are seen as a welcome addition to society, this will affect the way we treat them when they come. What the Immigrant Council of Ireland is calling for is not an open door policy on immigration, neither is it an over-restrictive one but one that is effectively managed and comprehensive, one that adopts a strategic and long-term approach. When it comes to immigrant policy - how we treat people when they come here - they should be treated the same as the rest of us, as human beings with human rights and dignity; in order words, our immigrant policy should be rights based and proceed from a fair and transparent immigration and reception system to a comprehensive approach to integration that respects diversity within a framework of shared core values.
If we are to develop good immigration and immigrant policies, we need strong leadership that will build a strong popular consensus on immigration issues, that will involve all the key players in civil society, that will establish a framework of common values and provide clear policies and structures to support the specific needs of migrants and their families. We need strong leadership that will lead a public debate on immigration but we have nothing that remotely resembles real public debate. In fact, there is a deadly silence on the issue. The public debate on immigration must include a debate on diversity and the benefits immigrants bring to the economy. If we fail to do this and acknowledge the contribution of immigrants, we are fuelling resentment, racism and social exclusion. We also need courageous leadership that will introduce and set a clear anti-racism and anti-discrimination agenda which will include general awareness raising measures for the whole of society, paying particular attention to the workplace. We need strong leadership that will ensure we will have a clear, coherent, integrated and robust cross-departmental response to immigrants.
The Government's response is fragmented and uncoordinated and causes great suffering and pain for immigrants, of which there are many examples, the most recent of which has to do with accession state nationals currently in the asylum seeking process and residing in accommodation centres. Last Friday a letter was faxed by the Reception and Integration Agency of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform telling residents that they had to leave the asylum process, vacate the accommodation centre and present to the local community welfare officers for assistance. The community welfare officers in question were not aware of this policy and had been given no direction by the Department of Social and Family Affairs or the health boards. No information was issued by the Department of Social and Family Affairs on the eligibility of former asylum seekers from the accession countries for social welfare or rent allowances. Rent allowance is payable to applicants in rented accommodation. We are aware, as recently stated, that they have to be two years in residence to be eligible for social welfare. What will happen to those who received the letter last Friday when they are told they are out of the asylum seeking process?
This raises a number of issues: the lack of communication between Departments; the lack of co-ordination between Departments; the lack of clarity with regard to former asylum seekers after 1 May; the lack of a human rights based approach to the matter; the lack of understanding of the difficulties former asylum seekers will face in finding accommodation or work, and the lack of clarity with regard to accession state nationals who have been in the asylum process and applied for leave to remain on the basis that they have Irish born children. All of this highlights an uncoordinated and unclear immigration system about which we have real concerns.
