It seems that instead of offering any evidence to support his contention that immigration into Ireland is causing displacement in our labour market or admitting that he was wrong, Pat Rabbitte has decided to brazen it out, writes Noel Whelan
Last January, in this newspaper, the Labour Party leader, while hinting that Ireland might need to introduce work permits for people from the newer EU member states, claimed that immigration was causing a displacement effect in many industries. In order, apparently, to emphasise the risk which this displacement presented to Irish workers, Rabbitte spoke about how there are "40 million Poles after all".
Pressed later on whether he was actually calling for work permits to be introduced, Rabbitte deflected saying that the displacement issue needed further examination.
The issue has been extensively examined since, and the conclusions of almost all of those who have studied it is that displacement is not occurring. Unhappy with these conclusions, and offering only anecdotes in response, Rabbitte has sought to dismiss the purpose and nature of these studies.
Addressing Labour's national conference in April, he complained of how "former EU commissioners, archbishops and academics [ had] been recruited to argue that there is no displacement". He disparaged reports which he claimed were "commissioned with the clear intention of finding that there is no displacement". This month at the Parnell Summer School, he was again dismissive of those who dared to prove him wrong, claiming that reports showing that there was little evidence of displacement had been "hurriedly commissioned".
In neither instance did he specify the reports about which he was talking or who he feels is commissioning them to disprove him or recruiting such a cross-section of voices to disagree with him.
The tone of his rhetoric in response to those who have questioned the accuracy or wisdom of his remarks last January owes something to the fact that much of the criticism has come from sources close to home. Both Labour's European election candidate, Ivana Bacik, and the party's foreign affairs spokesman Michael D Higgins, for example, have publicly distanced themselves, describing the language Rabbitte used as "disappointing" and "unfortunate".
Apart from the criticism of his political opponents and various documents published by voluntary groups working in the immigration area, there have been a number of studies which weigh heavily on the scales against Rabbitte's contention that there has been a displacement effect.
The most significant of these, to date, was a report published jointly by our own Economic and Social Research Institute and the Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies last May. This report looked at the impact which the freedom of movement of workers from central and eastern Europe has had on the two countries since enlargement.
The report was commissioned and paid for by the Swedish institute, who presumably have no particular gripe with the Irish Labour leader. I think we can also safely assume that neither of these institutes are likely to have rushed their work, or embarked upon their task specifically to disprove Rabbitte's displacement assertion.
The joint study concludes that "to date the enlargement of the EU has not resulted in any disturbances in the Swedish or Irish labour market. There has been no evidence of welfare tourism or displacement of native workers".
The study says that the evidence suggests that foreign workers are either taking up jobs beside Irish workers or filling gaps at lower levels as Irish workers take advantage of the growing labour market to move into higher paying jobs.
Whereas there may have been some "substitution" of migrant workers for Irish workers in production industries and in the hotel and restaurant sectors, the study points out that in all other sectors employment of both Irish workers and foreign workers has increased, and even in those sectors where the substitution has occurred, earnings levels have still risen.
The ESRI argues that if there had been displacement of native workers in the Irish labour market it would have been reflected in a fall in the numbers of vacancies, or an increase in unemployment, neither of which has occurred. There are actually more jobs available for Irish workers since enlargement not less. The proportion of firms reporting vacancies has increased and unemployment has remained consistently very low.
In an article published on this page in the days after Rabbitte's original interview, the head of research at Siptu, Manus O'Riordan, argued that since earnings growth fell in the manufacturing sector from March to September 2005 and the number of foreign workers in the sector rose while the number of Irish workers fell, then unregulated immigration and unscrupulous hiring practices were undermining wages and conditions. This ESRI study, however, suggests that the O'Riordan analysis was circumstantial and that studies of the March to September period in the two years before enlargement had shown similar trends of a slowing in earning growth in the same sectors.
Rabbitte has, on all the occasions when he has made the suggestion of a displacement effect, made a related point about the exploitation of foreign workers and the need for improved policing of compliance with labour laws. In fact, it is striking and cynical how frequently he juxtaposes the two issues in one sentence.
These are related issues but they are distinct. The fact that we know of incidents of exploitation of foreign workers does not prove that displacement has occurred. Exploitation of foreign workers can occur irrespective of whether they are working in new jobs or in jobs where Irish people once worked.
All the political parties, the social partners and all the studies are in agreement that more needs to be done to address exploitation, but most of them disagree with Rabbitte on the displacement suggestion.
In repeatedly juxtaposing these two issues Rabbitte could be said to be engaging in a subtle stoking of fears about job security and immigration, while appearing to argue from the moral high ground for a protection of workers' rights. This is not a constructive approach to either challenge.