I have given permission to Deputy Bruton to raise on the Adjournment the adequacy of the funds available this year for the repatriation of destitute Irish citizens living abroad.
Adjournment Debate. - Irish Citizens Abroad.
It would be appropriate for me to explain, first of all, the provision in the Estimates in regard to repatriation and maintenance of the destitute Irish persons abroad referred to. If an Irish person goes abroad, usually on holiday, and finds himself suddenly without funds, if he can contact the Irish Embassy in the country in which he is so in difficulty the Irish Embassy have funds available to them to get such a person back to Ireland. The usual situation would be where people are, for instance, robbed while on holiday of funds that they brought to maintain them or in some other way lose the money available and they find themselves in trouble and have not the money to get home or to live in the country in which they find themselves. In the past the Irish Government through the Department of Foreign Affairs have provided a sufficient amount of money to enable these people to be brought home.
The number of Irish people going abroad on holiday is increasing very rapidly one year on the next. More people went abroad on holiday last year than in any other year in our history and I think that last year's record will be exceeded this year. Quite clearly there is a need for an increase in the funds for the repatriation of such people because there is no evidence to suggest that there has been any diminution of the risks attendant on foreign travel by Irish holiday-makers either in the form of their being robbed or in the likelihood that they might lose their funds for some other reason. Therefore, I am very concerned that the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Estimates for this year has provided substantially less money, barely more than half as much, for the repatriation of Irish people abroad than was actually spent last year. In 1980 the total provision under this heading, taking into account both the original Estimate and the Supplementary Estimate, amounted to £45,000. This year the provision is a mere £26,000 which is substantially less, and this year's provision is not only substantially less than the amount spent last year, it is substantially less even than the amount spent in 1979 because in that year £36,000 was spent on the repatriation of Irish people abroad.
Of particular concern to me is that this House, assuming no intervening political events which upset normal processes, will go into recess some time in June and that will be before the period when the bulk of Irish holiday-makers will be abroad. The amount of £26,000 quite clearly is insufficent in view of the expenditure last year and the likelihood is that this House having gone into recess there will be no opportunity to introduce a Supplementary Estimate to make additional funds available to the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department during the summer of this year might not be in a position to have sufficient funds under this subhead to repatriate Irish citizens. If that were to happen it would be a very serious and worrying situation because one of the attributes of sovereignty is that a country has the facilities to protect its own citizens abroad. If we are not providing sufficient funds for the repatriation of Irish people who get into difficulty, as quite clearly we are not this year, we are abrogating our responsibilities and rendering almost nugatory the provision whereby passports are issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs which invite people in foreign countries to respect the bearers of the passports and which extend to the bearers of the passports the protection of the Irish Government in whatever part of the world they may find themselves. We are rendering ourselves liable to be accused of repudiating the responsibilities which the Government have taken on themselves by issuing passports if by reducing to almost half last year's level the funds available for the repatriation of destitute Irish persons abroad we are rendering ourselves incapable of giving to those people the basic assistance that is their right as bearers of Irish passports.
I would point out for the information of the House that this is not a gift which is given to these people. When they come home they have, of course, to refund to the Department whatever money they have been given. Naturally there would be a delay but this takes place, and in some cases the full refund would not be made. Therefore, a provision is necessary and the provision necessary last year under this head was £45,000 and only £26,000 is provided this year.
Therefore, I ask the Minister what arrangements he proposes to make if this money proves to be, as is likely, insufficient. Does he intend to introduce a Supplementary Estimate this summer to add to the money which is being provided here? If he has already formed the intention of so doing he is in that sense denying the content of his original reply to this question which was that the provisions contained in this Estimate are adequate. He cannot say that he will introduce a Supplementary Estimate this summer and at the same time say that the existing provisions are adequate. If he says that the £26,000 is adequate I would be grateful if he would explain exactly how he proposes to make savings on this head against the amount spent last year. Does he propose to make less money available? Does he propose to pay only half people's fares? Does he propose to restrict the conditions under which assistance is made available to destitute persons abroad? It behoves the Minister to give a very precise answer to these questions because otherwise, as I have said, we will not be affording the protection to Irish citizens travelling abroad which the issue to them of an Irish passport implies will be available.
I would have thought that the shadow Minister for Finance would welcome the sort of assiduous paring down of the Estimates with regard to which we in the Department of Foreign Affairs engaged with a view to cutting costs in a practical and constructive manner. To get this matter into perspective, I am glad to say, in regard to these funds in respect of repatriation of Irish citizens that there is a very high rate of recovery from the people concerned and their families. The actual refund recovery rate is of the order of 80 per cent. Eighty per cent of the money that is spent by our embassies abroad is recovered. Some of the money in this respect is recovered almost immediately. I propose to improve substantially the procedures whereby the money can be got immediately from the family here whose relative or friend is in trouble financially while abroad. Eighty per cent of these cases are not cases of distress but of casual shortage arising by reason of some emergency, problem or delay. If we substantially improve procedures for immediate collection at home in regard to the family, one can effect a very real reduction in the amount required under this subhead.
I thought the Minister said the recovery rate was good at present.
The point I am making is that the recovery rate of 80 per cent overall is good, but this represents a period of time. Because of the high recovery rate, we have evolved a procedure, which we intend to extend and develop, of immediate recovery, without any expenditure whatever, in the sense that one can give at embassy level to the person concerned and recover immediately at home, if the follow up is effective. We see the very real prospect of a practical saving in this respect.
The Deputy will appreciate that what we did in regard to my Estimate — other Ministers have done so also — is to go through each one with a fine comb. The Deputy will see where a saving can be effected here by an immediate collection from the family at home related to the person in need. We are not talking about people in distress, who amount to only 20 per cent. In 80 per cent of cases, they are people who can afford to pay or their relatives or friends can afford to pay. If the immediate inquiry is made from them, one can straight away meet the cost and there is no particular Exchequer commitment. That is one area of practical improvement which I have researched and where we can make an effective improvement in regard to expenditure. It is far better than having an open-ended commitment to paying out automatically, accompanied by a slow and tardy procedure of recovery of the money involved. If we expedite the recovery period, we can balance it out to the extent of 80 per cent and thereby effect a saving. We intend to develop this procedure over the next 12 months and I hope to be here this time next year to show how effective it has been.
I would like to emphasise that there was an unduly inflated figure last year to the extent of about £10,000 of the £45,000, owing to the blockade of French ports by fishermen in July, at the height of the holiday season, which caused considerable financial harassment for many Irish visitors to Europe. That accounted almost entirely for the supplementary estimate of £9,000.
I would like to reassure Deputy Bruton that no Irish citizen will be prejudiced in any way in this respect. It is a fundamental duty of our embassies abroad to look after our citizens. Whether we improve the recoupment procedure in the manner I have mentioned, from the relatives and friends at home or from some other subhead, within the overall vote, that is our problem and——
I welcome the Minister's assurances.
I welcome Deputy Bruton's query and the manner in which he raised it, because it is important and a fundamental aspect of our embassies' activities to ensure that Irish citizens are looked after. That is the main thrust of the Deputy's inquiry and I can reassure him on that point. However the money is procured, no Irish citizen will suffer because of lack of finance if he or she approaches an Irish embassy in a foreign country.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.15 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 17 February 1981.