Rabbitte must spell out where he stands on immigrant work permits

IT appears that immigration and its impact on the Irish labour market is set to be as big an issue in the first months of 2006 as it was in the last months of 2005.

For this the Labour leader Pat Rabbitte is in large part responsible.

In new year interviews he suggested that Ireland might have to introduce work permits for workers from the newer EU member countries. He talked, in concerned tones, about how Ireland was one of only three of the existing member states to allow workers from new member countries unlimited access to our labour market, and he used phrases like “there are 40 million people in Poland after all”.

Rabbitte has come, somewhat belatedly, to the view that the significant inflow of non-nationals into this country, where we have no tradition of immigration, requires further debate about the potential social implications.

In particular, he says that the Irish Ferries dispute seems to have triggered insecurity among many elements of the Irish workforce that they may also suffer displacement by immigrant workers.

Rabbitte argues that just because the Irish Ferries dispute has been settled, the issues it raised should not be confined to history because the displacement that happened before our eyes there is happening, less obviously but on a larger scale, in construction, hospitality, meat packing and other industries.

Of course, what Rabbitte has had to say is not new - although it is new from him. In the past he has been very quick to denounce anyone who raises concerns about immigration as ‘playing the race card’.

The very point the Labour leader made in recent days was, in fact, raised more than three years ago in the debate on the second Nice referendum. Then No campaigners Justin Barrett and Anthony Coughlan raised similar concerns that the granting of unhindered access to workers from the then applicant countries could cause problems here.

At the time Barrett and Coughlan were roundly attacked by, among others, several leading Labour Party politicians who depicted them as scaremongers and even as xenophobes. Now, three years later, Rabbitte is making the same points - although with more skill and sophistication, choosing his words more carefully. He has the advantage of doing so from the perspective of hindsight and his call for a debate on this issue should be welcomed. However, having called for a debate, Rabbitte needs to tells us where he stands on the issue.

On Morning Ireland last week he was pressed repeatedly about why he was saying it “may” be necessary to introduce these work permits. He was asked whether, in his view, the introduction of work permits or other restrictions would be justified in the short or medium term. In response, Rabbitte repeatedly prevaricated. All he was saying was that the issue should be “examined”. When pressed further he argued that it was a matter that should be dealt with in the context of the forthcoming social partnership talks. “I imagine it will be looked at there,” he said. Rabbitte cannot be left to enjoy the luxury of simply calling for a debate. That’s a comfort zone in which commentators or columnists can dwell.

However, more is required of those who engage in politics and seek public office. Rabbitte leads the second largest opposition party and aspires to be the next Tánaiste.

If the electorate accepts the alternative offering advanced by Labour and Fine Gael, Rabbitte will be finance minister or in charge of some other significant economic department after the next election. In that position he will exercise real power on the issue of immigration controls.

He and his colleagues will get to decide whether work permits or other restrictions will be introduced. It is not enough, therefore, for him to say the issue should be examined and then leave it to the Government and unions to sort it out in social partnership while having no view on it himself.

For as long as he calls for a debate and then is silent within that debate, Rabbitte leaves himself open to the accusation that he is merely engaged in a cynical new year’s political manoeuvre.

HE can be accused of making comforting noises to reassure Irish workers fearful of displacement (many of them in Labour-friendly trade unionised industries) while at the same time not stating whether or not he favours restrictions thereby avoiding the alienation of the more liberal or politically correct end of his party’s support base.

It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall at internal Labour party debates on this topic. Some enterprising journalist should do a ring-around of the likes of Michael D Higgins, Prionnsias de Rossa or Ivana Bacik to hear what they have to say about their party leader’s recent utterances.

Let’s hear now where the Labour party stands on the issue - is it calling for the introduction of such work permits or is it ruling them out? Will they be arguing for or against such restrictions in their election manifesto or in post-election negotiations with Fine Gael? My own view is that, as of now, we do not need to restrict access to our labour market because we are enjoying an employment boom.

More than 100,000 jobs were created last year, and about a half of them were filled by immigrant workers. Most of the credible evidence suggests that immigrants are getting jobs here beside Irish workers rather than instead of them.

The reason Ireland has allowed open access is that not only is this country’s labour market capable of absorbing labour flows from those countries, but Ireland’s economy needs from 30,000 to 50,000 of these new workers a year to sustain its growth.

When Rabbitte and trade union leaders talk of the need to avoid what they call ‘cheap labour’, they are in some respects arguing for the unfettered wage inflation that would flow from a lack of flexible and affordable labour. This would of itself undermine growth, which would undermine employment and reduce jobs here for the native and the immigrant alike.

The other important moral and political point is that the freedom of movement and work which Ireland has now extended to central and eastern Europeans is consistent with the whole purpose and premise of the EU and extends to them the opportunities which we have enjoyed from this larger European marketplace.

The day may come if, for example, our economy were to suffer a downturn when we might have to exercise the right we have reserved to restrict access. This scenario is unlikely to arise, and certainly doesn’t arise now. In any case the economic trajectory which many of these countries, including Poland, are on means that, like the Irish experience, their economies will improve dramatically and the flow of workers from there will abate.

In hindsight, the No to Nice campaigners in 2002 can be seen to have done public debate some service by raising the issue during the campaign not least because it means that when endorsing EU enlargement by their overwhelming support for the Nice Treaty (albeit on the second asking), the Irish electorate knew that the prospect of labour flows from these countries was real, and it can be said also to have endorsed the granting of open access to them on accession.