Vol. 309 No. 10
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to a statement by Rev. P.J. O'Herlihy, director of Irish Chaplains in Britain, that an estimated 15,000 young persons emigrated to England last year and a sizeable percentage of them did not fare well; and, if so, the action, if any, which was taken by the Government to help these people.
7.
andMr. Deasy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the financial aid, if any, which the Government intend to make available to the Irish Centre, Camden Square, London.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to reply to Questions Nos. 6 and 7 together. The official figures available here suggest that the net outflow to Britain for all age groups last year was about 7,000.
In my reply to a question on 14 June 1978 I referred to the financial assistance available from Government sources to Irish organisations in Britain who look after the welfare of Irish emigrants. The position has not altered since then. The Government have under consideration what further financial aid could appropriately be extended to such organisations, including the Irish Centre in Camden Town.
Do I take it that the figure of 7,000 is not being substituted for one of 11,000 given earlier this year? Is the Minister saying that the priest who gave the figure of 15,000 is not stating the facts? Is it right that what has been described as an alarming number of young Irish people with leaving certificate honours should be left destitute in London? Is this the way Fianna Fáil are going to honour their promise to give all school leavers jobs here?
The Deputy is bringing in extraneous matter into the question.
That was the object of the exercise.
There is no such implication against the reverend gentleman. I have not been able to get any confirmation, through the sources available to us, of what that figure is. I should like to state that the emigration statistics derived from passenger inflow and outflow from Britain and Ireland and the 1977 figures, the latest available, show that the net excess of outflow to Britain was 7,000. The matter is under active consideration by the Government. I am sure the Deputy is aware that this matter was left in abeyance for a considerable time during his period in office.
We added a Labour attaché to the Embassy in London.
I hope we will not be blamed for trying to make progress from that rather low base.
Is the Minister aware that net passenger movement figures are established as having no validity for periods in the year later than February and before October because of the distorting effects of tourism movements? When he gives us the latest figures he means distorted figures. The figures to February show a net passenger movement of 13,000 and, allowing for the Taoiseach's correct suggestion that they exaggerate by a certain proportion, that indicates a net emigration of 9,000 for the latest period for which there are valid figures.
Is the Deputy's final figure 9,000?
Yes.
That is rather different from the 15,000, even if I accept the Deputy's figure.
The Minister has fallen into my trap, and I should like to thank him for that. The figure is 15,000. Is the Minister aware that on the last occasion when Fianna Fáil were in Government figures became available as to gross emigration from here, and that the figures that emerged in the census of 1971 showed that 25,000 people on the date of the census had been elsewhere a period of 12 months earlier? Is he aware that in that period net emigration had been 4,000 from which it is arithmetically evident that a gross figure of 29,000 people emigrated as against 4,000 net, and that, therefore, the figure of 15,000 is, if anything, inclined to be an underestimate? Is the Minister aware of those census figures and of the fact that those figures show that gross emigration can be seven times net emigration?
Whatever responsibility I have now in respect of the condition of our young people in England or elsewhere I have no responsibility for the emigration figures issued in 1971. That may be a matter of importance for those who draw up statistics, but what happened in 1971 is not a matter over which I had responsibility.
The question we are concerned with is the number of people who go to Britain, not the net flow for the purpose of this question.
Is it a fact that in The Irish Press of 25 October the figure of 15,000 was published as being a figure given by Fr. O'Herlihy and that this was not contradicted or challenged by anybody? Is the Minister aware that there was no such criticism during the period of office of the last Government because there was a net inflow, rather than emigration to Britain?
If the implication is that the Government should repudiate every statement in a newspaper which they find unacceptable or imprecise then we are moving into a whole new area in which we will have a series of Government statements. The fact that the Government did not reply to a particular matter does not mean what the Deputy is trying to imply.
I cannot understand the inconsistency of the Chair in this matter. The Chair got my name eventually even though I have a question tabled. I should like to ask the Minister to outline the amount of financial aid he is giving towards the building of the new Irish Centre in London. Is the Minister aware of the amount of good work being done by the organisation in London for people who cannot find employment here? Is the Minister further aware of the list of promises made by Irish politicians from both sides of the House, but more so by Fianna Fáil, of financial aid towards the cost of erecting a new Irish Centre in London? Is he aware that the people who perform these good deeds on behalf of the Irish community are completely frustrated by the lack of thought and attention being given to their cause by the Government?
I am calling the next question.
Is the Minister aware that we have a moral obligation to provide financial aid?
The Deputy is not asking a question; he is making a speech.
May I get an answer from the Minister?
I am calling Deputy O'Leary, who wishes to ask a question.
Can the Minister guarantee me that he will give an answer to my supplementaries?
I have no objection to answering the Deputy's question but I am in the Chair's hands. The Government and I are aware of the good work being done in the Irish Centre and we appreciate it. It is for that reason that the Government are actively considering ways and means of providing assistance, apart from the other areas of social assistance the Government are proposing to apply. It is not a simple matter of just transferring funds, because other problems arise in that context. I want to assure the Deputy and all concerned that this matter is under active examination. I welcome the Deputy's concern, because it gets us back to the young people as distinct from statistics.
When does the Minister intend making a decision on this?
The Minister made the point that the Government would not be responsible for press reports, but in his acknowledgment that net emigration may be above 9,000 this year will he ensure that the text of his own speeches acknowledges this fact? In the text, so thoughtfully provided for Deputies in the bulletin issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs, of his address to Los Angeles Institute of World Affairs he gave the remarkable news that emigration ceased with the advent of the new Government here.
The impression which the people of Los Angeles and elsewhere have of Ireland is one of a very confident developing country. It does not depend on the news I convey to them.
I wish to ask a supplementary question on the question I tabled.
The Deputy had time to ask that question. I am moving on. The Deputy allowed others to get in.
It is unfair to allow others to ask supplementaries and not allow a Deputy ask a supplementary on a question he has tabled.
The Chair is being completely inconsistent. I must protest. I should like to add that Deputy Blaney, who had a number of questions, was allowed to dominate Question Time for the first 20 minutes. Why did the Chair allow that? The Chair allowed it because he could not stop him. The Chair is being completely inconsistent.
The Deputy should resume his seat.
It is unfair if Deputy Deasy, who has a question on the Order Paper, is not allowed to ask a supplementary when other Deputies were allowed ask supplementaries even though their names were not to the questions. It is discrimination against a Deputy to do a thing like that.
There is no discrimination. If Deputy Deasy had presented himself he would have been given preference before any Deputy.
If it is not discrimination, it is downright unfair.
I should like to point out again that the Chair must control the length of time spent on a question.
The Chair must control it fairly.
I have only been here yesterday and today and I got the impression that at Question Time Deputy Harte controls the whole show.
I should like to thank the Minister.
The progress we made yesterday and are making today must be of concern to the Deputy's party.
When will the Minister return?
