Vol. 567 No. 7
5 Dr. Cowley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make special financial provision to help organisations in view of the funding shortfall for voluntary organisations in 2003 which deal with emigrants in the UK; if he is fully committed to the implementation of the recommendations made by the task force on emigrants; if he will report on the stage of implementation of its recommendations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14989/03]
The task force on policy regarding emigrants was established in December 2001, on foot of a commitment in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, to address the special needs of those Irish emigrants abroad who are particularly marginalised or at greatest risk of exclusion. The purpose of the task force was to develop a coherent, long-term approach to our emigrants and their needs.
The task force presented its report to me at the end of August 2002. It contains many wide-ranging and far-reaching proposals and I am deeply appreciative of the work of the task force. Many of the recommendations require additional resources, but they also call for a new attitude to emigration and a new culture of communication and co-operation on the part of all those concerned in official and voluntary agencies. The task force has set the question of emigration in a modern context and provided a template for a new approach to meeting the needs of our emigrants abroad, particularly those who are most vulnerable and disadvantaged.
Last October, I established an interdepartmental working group to consider the recommendations of the task force with a view to the submission to Government of proposals for future action. I regret that, because of the budgetary situation this year, it was not possible to secure additional resources for services to emigrants. The new social partnership agreement, Sustaining Progress – the successor to the PPF – contains a chapter on special initiatives which will be addressed during the lifetime of the programme. One of these initiatives is migration and interculturalism and, included under this heading, is a provision, arising from the conclusions and recommendations of the task force, for the development of a coherent set of initiatives in consultation with the relevant interests. The arrangements for carrying out this work are being developed at present and will help provide a mechanism for advancing the implementation of the task force's report.
With regard to the DION fund, which provides financial support for voluntary agencies that assist Irish emigrants in the UK, the position is that the responsibility for the fund was transferred to my Department from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment on 5 February 2003. This was in line with a recommendation of the task force on policy regarding emigrants, which proposed that all Government funding for emigrant services should be brought together under the Vote for Foreign Affairs. I am pleased that we were able to quickly make this important structural change. While the DION fund for this year, at €2.573 million, is 5% less than the figure for 2002, the appreciation in the value of the euro since then means that the sterling value of the fund will be maintained in 2003.
I take this opportunity to express my appreciation to all those in the UK, and further afield, who work so hard on behalf of Irish emigrants, particularly the vulnerable and the elderly.
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. The report, which has been sought for a long time, is welcome. However, I regret that it is gathering dust. I appreciate the help the Government is giving to emigrants. Safe-Home, the National Repatriation Centre, has repatriated 130 people, thanks to help from the Government, the Tánaiste and DION. However, what is happening is cruel.
The Minister said that DION would contribute more than €2 million.
The report suggested, for what it said were very sound reasons, that all that money had been sent home in the shape of immigrants' remittances. At a time when we had no money in this country, those were the people who helped us. To say now that we cannot help them for economic reasons is cruel in the highest order. Some €11 million was to have been given in 2003, building up to €21 million in 2005. Would the Minister even consider granting some of those recommendations, such as free travel, during the short time that the emigrants will be at home? The overseas agencies are doing very good work, as the Minister is aware. I know that he appreciates it. At the same time, he said there had been a reduction in their funding granted on the sterling equivalent. Would he not even consider those two recommendations covering free travel and the overseas agency? Does he not find it cruel that they are being left without the funds promised to them? They never pleaded the poor mouth with us, so why should we do so with them?
I recognise the very genuine, practical and progressive approach that Deputy Cowley has taken during his involvement in this matter, and I commend him for it. It was not a question of people being promised anything. I told the task force to go away and, without reference to me or budgetary parameters, put forward what it felt would be the optimum way to proceed. I told it to be free in its recommendations. I made it clear that I was not trying to tie it into my own budgetary constraints.
Rightly and predictably, the task force came forward with quite specific and ambitious proposals dealing with the immediate future quite apart from longer-term issues. I have no problem with that, for its job was to put forward the best possible case for services to emigrants. I appreciate that and respect its work. Incidentally, I am very glad to hear when I go to the United States and elsewhere the appreciative words for the committee who went to listen to what emigrant groups have to say. It was the first time that they had been asked about their requirements.
The important issue that came out of the taskforce was that we should all recognise that the stereotypical view of the 1950s and 1960s emigrant is no longer the reality, though there are unfortunately people of that era who require our help and whom I would genuinely like to help in future. I must work within realistic budgetary constraints. The taskforce served the very important purpose of helping us update our understanding of emigrants' problems so that we do not simply have a stereotypical view inherited from the past. The Deputy mentioned some practical approaches, and I am very open to any initiatives as part of our efforts. I will have to examine them in the context of future Estimates debates with the Department of Finance.
I make the important point, as I did when the task force handed me the report, that the timing of its production was such that it had bypassed the Estimates process for this year and that it was not possible to rejig the situation at that stage. I also made the point to it quite honestly and openly that, while I very much respected its very ambitious programme for the future, I did not see how I could move from the current level of support to its projected level so quickly or so soon, and I feel it accepts that. Its job was to give me its optimum position for me to work with and to proceed as quickly as possible. In an ideal world, we would all move far more quickly than usual.
We have a template for the future, an up-to-date, interactive report that dealt with emigrant groups abroad and those who have concerns at home. I respect all the task force's members, who compiled a good report. I do not intend for it to gather dust, but it would also be very unrealistic to think that it could be implemented immediately, given the increased level of resources that it sought so soon after its publication. I made that point very clear to it when it gave it to me. They were honest with me about what it saw as the required levels of support, and I was honest in return about what I could do in the immediate future.
The report's value is not just short-term, but also medium and long-term. It will form part of my future discussions, as will suggestions from Deputy Cowley and others in the House who have practical initiatives which would not entail mind-blowing expenditure. They will be incorporated into my discussions with the Department of Finance as we prepare for the next financial year. To say that we do not have the sort of money being spoken of in 2003 means no resiling on the part of this or any future Government but a question of recognising how far we must travel to meet a modern country's requirements in its response.
Before we move on, I would like to make a courteous point. I know the Minister for Foreign Affairs will share my view that the time allowed has meant a most unsatisfactory opportunity to deal with Foreign Affairs questions. I ask him, in view of the fact that in the four weeks after the resumption of sittings there is no provision for Foreign Affairs questions, to use his influence with the Whips, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste to arrange for a comprehensive debate on foreign affairs so that we might at least revisit some of today's issues.
As the Deputy knows, I would welcome far more debate on foreign affairs, whether it be in plenary sittings or before the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Subject to the agreement of the Whips, I am available to go into far more detail on important questions that have arisen, particularly as a result of recent conflicts.
