Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS debate -
Tuesday, 27 Apr 2004

Irish Emigrants: Presentation.

I welcome Mr. John Neary and Mr. Tom Brady of the consular division of the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Department has been invited to brief the committee on the issues facing Irish emigrants, particularly those living in the UK and US.

Emigration has touched the lives of almost every family in this country. Some would say it has contributed positively to our economic and social progress through money sent home from abroad, while others would say that the loss of so many talented people has hindered our development. However, all agree that Irish emigrants have made an enormous contribution to the development of the countries in which they have settled and they have brought great credit to themselves and enhanced the reputation of Ireland throughout the world.

However, not all Irish emigrants have prospered. It is the plight of those emigrants who are vulnerable and in need of support which greatly concerns this committee. We are interested in learning of the efforts of the Department of Foreign Affairs in this area and the progress being made on implementing the recommendations of the task force report on policy regarding emigrants, the work of the DION committee and other agencies.

I invite Mr. Neary and Mr. Brady to address the committee, following which I will in the usual way open the discussion to members. I wish to advise that while the members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same does not apply to those appearing before the committee.

Mr. John Neary

Thank you. Before addressing the subject of emigrants, I take the opportunity on behalf of the consular staff in the Department of Foreign Affairs to express my appreciation to you, Chairman, for your kind remarks in regard to the case in Colombia. I will inform the Minister of your kind words about his efforts.

We have circulated to committee members a briefing note on the assistance provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs to our emigrants abroad. We have focused on the DION fund, the primary channel through which assistance is provided. We have also included some information on the task force on policy regarding emigrants to outline the background to the establishment of the task force and to provide information on how it is being implemented. I also draw attention to the statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs during Private Members' time in the Dáil on 27 January last, in which he set out at greater length his views on the subject of emigration and the task force.

While I will not go through the briefing note, I am happy to deal with any questions members may have and to provide further information.

I do not wish to appear discourteous but must leave the meeting now as the Seanad is due to meet. I am sorry I must make a show of myself whenever there is a meeting at this time but there is nothing I can do about it.

Thank you. The matter is being examined.

Would the Senator like to make any comment?

I will not comment as I do not have the necessary time.

I thank the officials for the briefing document we have received. While they have indicated progress in some areas of the task force report, one of the two key recommendations of that report is in regard to the establishment of an agency which would be the driving force to implement the task force recommendations. With the best will in the world, the Department of Foreign Affairs is incapable of implementing the recommendations. This is no criticism of the officials present or their Department, but the Department is not fitted for the task. The task force recognised this and recommended a separate agency to drive the implementation of the recommendations.

The other key recommendation in the report was in regard to the funding of its proposals. While much is made about the dramatic increases in funding to bring it up to €4 million, the task force recommended and the Government accepted that the funding for 2003 should be €18 million, which in fact is the total amount provided since 1984. It was recommended that this sum was required to meet the case presented by the task force for last year alone, and that this requirement would grow to €34 million for 2005. The Department is simply dancing around the edges of the report as it cannot implement it without the necessary resources.

We are dealing with Irish people who were effectively starved out of this country in the late 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, a matter of which I have much family experience. I know what I am talking about. Many emigrants did well abroad and many of them tried to assist those who did not do so well. Nonetheless, a large percentage of those who emigrated, to England in particular, fell through all the safety nets. They worked hard but were badly paid and housed. When they were no longer able to work, they had no safety nets in the social system in England. Successive Governments, including one in which I was a Minister of State and others I have supported, have failed repeatedly to grasp and deal with this issue.

To be fair to previous Governments and the current Government, no one was sure how to deal with this problem. However, the task force report provides a road map as to how the problem should be tackled and the resources required. Moreover, without the basic material, namely money, the report's recommendations cannot be implemented. If we are serious about this issue it is essential that we stop talking about increases of €250,000 per year representing 300% or something like that. That is nonsense. That is the sort of window dressing one engages in for a local election candidate. We are talking about people who will soon die, and we should thank them in an effective way for what they did for us when we needed help. We needed help and they provided it to the tune of approximately €3.5 billion in current values over a period of 15 years, which is a massive transfer of wealth into the country from people who were working extremely hard in England in very bad conditions. They now need assistance from us in a very tangible way.

One item refers to €119,000 for a house for returning emigrants. That would provide one house per year. We are very good at setting up schemes and not providing funding for them. That €119,000 would have just about provided one council house per year. That is not a scheme. It is nonsense. It is window dressing of the worst sort and it should not be included as something worthwhile on our part. It is of no value to the many people who are homeless in England. I understand 60% of the homeless in London are Irish people. I do not have the figure for the number of Irish who are in jail but people who are homeless or in jail are indicative of a population which is extremely poor. The rich do no usually go to jail and they are certainly not homeless. There are large numbers of homeless Irish people in London in particular and I ask — I should be asking the Minister rather than the representatives — that the agency be set up and funded as it was intended and recommended in the report.

In case I do not get an opportunity to come in again, I want to be specific about one case. Teach na hÉireann in Coventry was established with the help of the local authority, some small grants from the DION fund and a good deal of voluntary effort. That facility is partially running now but because it has not got money it can only open two days per week and is largely run on a voluntary basis. If money were provided for that project, a much larger number of people could be provided with its service. In a recent reply to a Dáil question the Minister recognised that it is providing a positive service and improving the life standard of elderly people in Coventry city. Is there a possibility that money could be provided for this project, which was provided largely by voluntary effort on the part of Irish emigrants in England who had done better than their fellow countrymen, to allow it operate on a five days if not a seven days per week basis?

I thank the Chairman for giving us this opportunity. Every individual and every family in Ireland has experience of relatives who, for one reason or another, emigrated. There is a new context now, as stated in the first paragraph of the report on emigration, Ireland and the Irish Abroad. It states that the economic and social developments that have taken place in Ireland in recent years and the new and inclusive definition of the Irish nation in Article 2 of the Constitution as a result of the Good Friday Agreement provide a new context in which to view the phenomenon of Irish emigration and present an opportunity to put in place a new approach to meeting the needs of Irish emigrants. It is an excellent report and it sets out a road map which should be followed but we are disappointed that there does not appear to be the policy commitment to put the resources in place so that this road map can be followed.

We tend to think of the emigrant Irish in the context of the United Kingdom and the United States and of economic emigrants who are lauded and mythologised in emigration ballads like McAlpine's Fusiliers. We think of them now in places like Cricklewood, with broken health, problems of alcoholism, living alone, not integrated with the community of London, the English or indeed anyone in the United Kingdom and alienated from people at home. That appears to be the pressing need, which has been well highlighted and argued and which must be addressed.

Over the years not all emigrants were economic migrants. I remember through my school days reading the Limerick Leader where the court cases were always the main feature and in court case after court case district justices gave young fellows the option of taking the boat to England or facing a jail sentence. That is a form of emigration that was in place at the time.

Many people who are members of the gay community, people of homosexual tendency, quietly emigrated. They headed for the anonymity of places like London, Manchester or cities in the United States if they could get in. As late as the 1960s people in second relationships as a result of marriage breakdown found that there were far more tolerant societies in which they could lead a new life if they emigrated. People in one kind of social trouble or another found that it was easier to live in one of the English cities, particularly London, rather than face social isolation and be ostracised at home, from unmarried mothers and people in broken relationships to people who were gay.

It is not solely an issue of economic migration of the unskilled. The history of censorship here and the lack of space for independent thinking forced many people out. In graduation classes in, say, UCD rather than Trinity — there was always an international community in Trinity — and in the national universities through the 1950s and into the 1960s there were very high incidents of graduate emigration, and many of those people did not come back here. A significant amount of that emigration was clearly job driven because one had to go to get the job that matched one's qualifications, but there was also the issue of the intolerant society.

As well as considering what we can do in terms of direct aid to prepare people for emigration if the cycle commences again, help people abroad or aid people through a system to return, there is always the wider context of the kind of society we have developed here. Is intolerance still driving people out or rather is it economic necessity? In that context our policies on emigration and people who want to come and live in Ireland are a reasonable measure of what many of our citizens found offensive in the past and which required them to leave for more space and more intellectual and social freedom.

I am glad to have the opportunity to take the debate a little in that direction because everybody is conscious of the push and pull of economic migration in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, but if we examine the tables we see that people leave Ireland on a continual basis. That will always happen but there are issues about our society that should not be ignored when we are debating this matter.

I agree with Deputy Noonan on the issues in our society. I may not be able to stay for all the debate but I would like to hear the Department's views on some of the reasons people still feel they are being forced to leave.

A recent "Prime Time" programme showed the appalling living conditions of some emigrants in Great Britain. If the allocation to the DION fund, which provides funding to welfare organisations, has been increased by more than 300% since 1997, how does that tally with the portrayal in that programme of emigrants living in appalling conditions? Since that programme was broadcast, has the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government made inquiries regarding the conditions in which these emigrants are living?

Deputy Stagg said that €119,000 has been allocated for projects to provide for the needs of returning emigrants. That appears to be a small allocation given that we have introduced beneficial schemes to provide housing for the elderly, people with disabilities and lone parents. It seems that not much housing has been provided for returning emigrants. When the former Ministers of State, Deputy Molloy and Deputy Stagg, were in the Department, much emphasis was placed on this issue. Under the old system, an emigrant had to return home first and then apply for housing to the local authority area in which he or she lived. The former Ministers of State changed that requirement to provide that one could make an application for housing from where one was based in Britain, which was a good idea, but that provision does not appear to have resulted in much progress in the provision of such housing. An allocation of €119,000 for projects for returning emigrants will not provide much housing. I would like some information on this area. More information and support should be provided for emigrants who wish to return home.

In Dunmore in County Galway, there is a homes for Dunmore project in respect of which two families who lived in Great Britain have received houses. Those people were returning home for years and felt they were in the way when they returned to live with their relatives. This is an issue that needs to be addressed, which is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I am amazed to note that the DION fund assisted approximately 30,000 people in 2003. While that is a welcome announcement, it does not tally with the position portrayed in television programmes, especially the recent "Prime Time" programme, or some of the stories we have heard. I would like some information on this area.

I welcome this opportunity to put some questions to the officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs. A useful debate on this issue has taken place in both Houses. As recently as January, the Labour Party tabled a special Private Members' motion on this issue and we had a healthy and heart-felt debate on it. There was warm support on all sides of the House for this issue being raised in the Dáil in a serious way by the Labour Party. There was broad cross-party support for an increase in the allocation of funding to groups who provide humanitarian assistance to these needy people. I refer to Irish emigrants who left here during the 1950s and 1960s and who, because of the way they lived their lives, perhaps having sent much of the money they earned home, did not make provision for their own elder years. They have no pension entitlements or many of them have fallen on hard times and are in urgent need of assistance from the State.

I tabled a question on this issue at a recent meeting of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body because I considered it an appropriate forum at which to raise it, as many Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom who are members of that body have large numbers of Irish emigrants among their constituents. Some of those emigrants are happily resident in England and are not to be viewed through the prism of poverty, but those MPs who represent Coventry and other parts of England would be mindful of the existence of many poor elderly Irish people in need of assistance. Unfortunately, my question was not reached. However, I am sure we will have an opportunity to discuss this matter again with our colleagues across the water.

Primarily, I believe it is legitimate for the Irish Government to support these people who now find themselves in need of humanitarian assistance. As stated in the Dáil and Seanad, these people left Ireland with hundreds of thousands of other emigrants over the decades. It is estimated that 800,000 Irish people left Ireland from 1949 to 1989. Many of these people have done well but many have not, especially those who went to the United Kingdom during those difficult years and worked in the building trade. They had an insecure working life and worked very hard, but the large building firms for which they worked made no provision for them in their old age. That is an issue that should be put up to those large building firms who made a great deal of money on the backs of Irish labourers and, in many cases, have abandoned them now to poverty, isolation and penury in the United Kingdom.

That the Irish groups being funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs through the DION fund assisted 30,000 people last year is indicative of the level of such need that exists. Even though the allocation to the fund increased significantly by one third in 2003, I cannot accept that the figure is adequate and I would imagine there would be support among all parties in the Dáil for an increase in such funding.

Organisations such as the Federation of Irish Societies, which is a significant player, and the Roman Catholic Church, through the DION fund, would accept that they need to be helped to absorb increased funding. In other words, they need to build up their capacity as humanitarian actors in this field. To that extent, I agree with the Minister for Foreign Affairs when he declines to go down the road of establishing a large agency in the context of current funding. I believe such an agency would tend to spend a great deal of money on its own operation.. I tend to agree with him that with the current level of funding, it would be better to continue to fund the excellent network of organisations which are working on an outreach and frontline basis with Irish emigrants. I urge the Minister to review a planned increase in the budget for Irish intervention to provide for the needs of Irish people living in the United Kingdom.

The second issue I wish to raise is one on which I have sought information from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Access to Irish broadcasting is important for Irish emigrants living in the United Kingdom. A good service, the Tara service, which was a commercial television station, was available on satellite and cable and it broadcast RTE information, news and sport programmes to Irish emigrants in England. I understand from a reply I received that the company providing that service went into liquidation due to a lack of commercial success. In other words, it was not viable commercially and RTE has plans to commence a longwave radio service which could reach listeners throughout Ireland, much of the UK and parts of Europe.

Perhaps the officials dealing with this would respond to the point about whether the Department is considering the recommendations relating to broadcasting contained in the task force policy regarding emigrants. It would be a legitimate way of helping emigrants to keep in touch with Ireland through broadcasting if the Government could assist the reinstatement of the Tara service in some fashion. I would like to hear their response to that proposal.

There would be cross-party support for the planned expansion of the DION fund in the coming years. The people involved are a finite group and in their elder years. The provision of the support requested by them, the agencies who provide for them, the churches and the people who work with them cannot be postponed. The primary responsibility rests with the Government. Of course, the British social services are also assisting these people. However, as Deputy Stagg eloquently said in the Dáil, there is a moral responsibility on us, who are enjoying such plenty at present, to help those unfortunate Irish people. They have had a difficult life and everybody is aware of the remittances that were sent home, which fuelled this economy during times of penury. It will be an important statement about the generosity of this State if we ensure that these people are well looked after and comfortable in their old age, particularly in the United Kingdom.

I am glad we are spending so much money, even if it is not enough, on people who were forced to emigrate in the past. Some sociologists define civilisation in terms of how it treats its weakest members or minorities. As a student, I worked in England and I played hurling with many Irish emigrants.

I read the book Dialann Deoraí by Donall MacAmhlaigh, a book with which some members of the committee might be familiar. Donall MacAmhlaigh worked as a porter in a hospital. He also worked on building sites and he wrote for The Irish Times at one time. A surgeon who was attending Irish emigrants in the hospital where he worked asked MacAmhlaigh why the emigrants did not talk to him. MacAmhlaigh explained to him that, through lack of education, these people were intimidated by professionals. I was mindful of that story when Deputy Noonan was speaking. Even if these people could return to Ireland, they would be returning to a different country from the one they left. Many of them will never return.

What concerns me about the money we have spent is what it does for the 30,000 emigrants who benefited. How did they benefit? I favour a dedicated unit within the Department of Foreign Affairs to oversee expenditure. If professional people are employed to advise on social welfare and so forth, that takes care of only one physical need. The emotional need is different. It might be better expenditure, for example, to allocate money to British Telecom so Irish emigrants could phone somebody at home at weekends free of charge. It would provide a contact. It might be also better expenditure to give money to some of the GAA clubs, which do tremendous work, or some of the Irish centres. I was in the Manchester centre recently and it is spending £20 million, between voluntary and Government funding and some funding from here.

The isolation these people feel is the biggest difficulty. It was not popular to tell them one was studying to be a teacher because most of them had horrific memories of being beaten by teachers. Some of these memories might have been exaggerated. It was not popular either to tell them one could speak Gaeilge. I speak Gaeilge and I worked with men from Connemara but I never dreamt of speaking Gaeilge to them because they had a hang-up about it. They believed it was a disadvantage to speak Gaeilge in England and not to be able to speak English.

I do not know if their emotional condition has improved a great deal since then but that was my experience when I was there as a student. They are the areas that need to be addressed. The emotional needs of these people must be looked after as much as their physical needs, and I am not sure that DION is the best group to do that. There needs to be sensitivity, the possibility of contact between these people to discuss, for example, the results of club hurling or football, soccer or rugby at home and the facility to phone home. Some of the people I met a year and a half ago in Manchester had not been in touch with Ireland for 30 years, either by phone or otherwise, and they did not know if any of their relations were alive at home. I met at least two such people.

What concerns me even more than how much money we spend is how we spend it, the value we get and how the people who need it most will benefit.

I thank Deputy O'Donnell for her kind comments. The debate in the Dáil was the first substantive debate on Irish emigration in the Chamber. That is extraordinary given the number of people involved, more than 800,000 over a three decade period. There is broad cross-party support for positive action to implement the task force report. We do not need a new plan; we have a plan and it has been accepted by the Government. All stakeholders were involved in drawing up the plan so we know what needs to be done.

However, we need to stress the urgency of the matter. Even the type of phased increase Deputy O'Donnell mentioned might be too late. It will certainly be too late for some people. As I said in the Dáil, we sent them abroad with cardboard suitcases and they are now being consigned to graves in cardboard coffins as paupers. That is happening every day to Irish people.

It is terrible.

We need to move urgently to rescue them from that. It will require considerably increased funding but that is a tiny proportion of the money they sent home which had a positive effect on our economy and education system and which led to the increases in economic activity here in the 1960s and 1970s.

We must stress the urgency of implementing the report. No more examinations or investigations of what should be done are required. Everything is laid out like a road map.

I wish to add a few points. I note from the report the progress that is being made. The funding for emigrant services is being brought together under the Department of Foreign Affairs. There is definitely a need to co-ordinate the services. I have discovered in my constituency and in other areas that there is a lack of co-ordination in supports for people who wish to return and, for example, are seeking housing or accommodation for older people. There is a need to pull together.

Senator Kitt mentioned changes that had taken place earlier, where there was more co-ordination. However, there is more to be done in that area. If somebody comes home that person is allowed to come into the rental system without the six month delay. There was a crazy system formerly where these people had to wait six months before they could consider the rental system, but that has changed. However, they have to be able to make arrangements from the UK or in some cases from America to go into one of the units for older people. We constantly encounter these cases. The people must be resident here, compile all the information and demonstrate that they are in need. That could be co-ordinated at both ends of the process and these people could be put at ease. I can offer examples of the type of difficulty we encounter. Obviously, the voluntary agencies and organisations are having the same difficulties in helping people to settle here again.

Some of the points of progress and the increase in the Vote were mentioned. A substantial increase in the Vote is necessary, and that is recognised in the report. The point is how it will be used. I welcome the fact that an implementation group has been established and is meeting fortnightly to monitor progress and examine implementation of the recommendations. However, we need to produce the details of the action plan on which the spending can be based and to have these ready for later in the year so a definite decision can be taken by the Government when deciding the Estimates.

The Government will start considering the Estimates in June. It will consider them over July and after the break in August the Estimates are virtually ready for implementation early in September. After that, one tries to include extra elements. It is urgent from that point of view. The process needs to move quickly and needs to be sufficiently broadly based, as the witnesses have heard from Deputies and Senators. It particularly involves the Department of Social and Family Affairs, FÁS and others. That group needs to get working.

According to page four of the report, the Minister plans to establish a dedicated unit in the Department. While that is perhaps the best way to begin, I would call it something stronger than a unit because doing so would give people more confidence that it would do something. That would be welcome but it would need to be closely tied in with other Departments working in the same area and which provide money. The Minister said that as soon as Ireland's EU Presidency is finished, he will take the opportunity to build up that unit. That would be important and perhaps we should also examine the best potential composition of the unit. We would be happy to discuss that with the witnesses.

There is obviously a need for greater funding. The dedicated unit is welcome. Support for the work of the voluntary and statutory agencies is important and, as was mentioned, they can bring to bear other funds that are available locally. They need enough support to reach more of those concerned.

The question of returning emigrants needs to be examined comprehensively. As a Dublin Deputy, I can say that we get such cases concerning people who are in vulnerable situations in the UK and want to come home. The Minister will be conscious of the UK's responsibility to give such people the support they need so that they do not have to remain in these terribly disadvantaged situations. We cannot neglect that side of it, and it is not as if we are trying to get away from our responsibilities. We look after other people when they are living here by providing funds for them. It just so happens that as regards the UK, the funds we provide in Ireland are higher than those provided in the UK. Credit for that is due to many people who have worked to increase funding over the years.

I must stress the need for positive steps to fine tune the action plan urgently. Perhaps it is because I most frequently tend to come across people who are in dire circumstances that I think of them particularly. Deputy Tony Dempsey and others have said that loneliness and lack of support for such Irish people living abroad must be tackled. That can best be done in conjunction with the voluntary agencies. Perhaps Mr. Neary would like to comment on some of the points that have been made by Deputies and Senators.

Mr. Neary

I will do my best to respond to the questions that have been posed. We have taken careful notes of all the comments that have been made by members of the committee, including the Chairman. We will report those statements to the Minister to ensure that he understands the full force of them.

Deputy Stagg asked about the agency involved. In the context of the current level of funding the departmental Vote can provide, the Minister does not believe that a substantial part of that should be used to establish and run an administrative body. He believes that, at least for the moment, the thrust of the funding should be focused on providing frontline services to emigrants who are vulnerable and require special assistance or support. The Minister feels that if the level of resources provided increases substantially beyond the existing level, at that stage one could consider using some of that funding to set up an agency. For the moment, however, the Minister believes the focus should be on the frontline services.

The Minister does not see the unit, which he has said he will establish, as being an alternative to the agency. There was a separate recommendation in the task force report for the establishment of a separate unit in the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Minister sees it in that light. He sees the unit as being a potential forerunner of an agency, which might in time evolve into one, but that is for the future.

On the specific question of Teach na hÉireann, if it has put an application to the DION fund for assistance, although the level of resources is still low in absolute terms, there has been a substantial increase in the fund this year, so it has a lot more money with which to respond to requests for assistance. If Teach na hÉireann has applied for a grant, I am sure it will be looked on favourably. We will certainly pass on the Deputy's comments to the DION committee.

Both Deputy Noonan and Senator Kitt sought the reasons people emigrate. Their analysis echoed the views of members of the task force, which was a broadly-based group, including representatives of Irish organisations in Britain and in the United States. The combined view of all the members was that there are many reasons people emigrate. The economic one has been important historically but is not the only one. There are social and other reasons people emigrate. It is not possible at this stage to say definitively what the reasons are and more research is required to do that.

The most recent figures from the Central Statistics Office suggest that there are still approximately 20,000 people leaving the country every year. The majority of those, however — probably 12,000 or 13,000 of them — would be young people leaving for a year or so. Many of them are back-packers going to Australia or other countries. They are not emigrants in the historical sense who were forced to leave, but people who are choosing to leave for a period before returning to make their lives in Ireland. Therefore, the numbers who might fall into the category of involuntary emigrants and who feel they are obliged to leave for one reason or another are relatively small. That there are still people in that category is a source of concern and certainly warrants continuing priority being given to this area.

We all felt enormous sympathy and compassion for the people who were featured in RTE's "Prime Time" programme. Clearly, those whose cases were highlighted have special needs which must be addressed. The Department's view and that of our embassy in London is that while the needs of those particular people are clear and direct, the programme as a whole did not give a balanced picture of the Irish community in Britain. While there are undoubtedly people who require special assistance, many other Irish people have made good lives for themselves in Britain. They have managed to make the transition from one culture to another, which is difficult for any immigrant. They have been able to prosper and have not required special services. I do not mean in any way to diminish the needs of those who require assistance. The Minister accepts fully that there are clear needs and that not enough is being done to address them. In terms of balance and presenting an objective picture of what is being done, however, the Minister does not feel the "Prime Time" programme was absolutely fair.

Senator Kitt referred to returning emigrants. One of the terms of reference of the task force was to consider the needs of returning emigrants. In their travels to England, America and Australia to meet Irish emigrants and the agencies which provide services for them, the members of the task force were struck by the apparent fact that while many emigrants contemplate returning to Ireland, a much smaller number will ultimately do so. There are many reasons for this. For some, the cost involved may be prohibitive and older emigrants may have lost contact with family or friends at home. The cultural shock of returning to Ireland may be as much of a challenge as moving abroad was in the first instance.

The initiative introduced by former Minister of State, Mr. Bobby Molloy, has helped in that it has made it easier for emigrants who wish to return to Ireland to obtain housing. The Chairman pointed out that these people do not have to return before applying for housing and can do so from abroad. We understand that since this initiative was launched, a total of 120 units of accommodation have been offered to returning emigrants. Of those offers, 79 have been taken up. This reflects the fact that not everybody who wants to return home is ultimately able to do so.

The €119,000 to which the briefing paper refers is given, through the DION fund, to agencies in Britain and to the safe home programme in Mulranny to provide advice and information for people who are contemplating returning to Ireland. It is not given in grants to either purchase or rent housing. The cost of the units to which I referred is provided by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government through its subventions to the voluntary housing associations in Ireland. I should clarify that the figures provided in the paper are those which relate to the Department of Foreign Affairs. In addition to the money provided by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Department of Social and Family Affairs provides funding for voluntary agencies in Ireland for pre-emigration advice and information. We are not, therefore, presenting the full picture; we are presenting the picture as it relates to our Department. Other Departments will be able to provide information about what they do.

Deputy O'Donnell stated that the DION fund is adequate. The Minister would not argue with that and accepts that this is the case. He believes, however — he made it clear in the Dáil on 27 January — that responsibility for dealing with the problem of emigration does not rest solely with the Government of Ireland. He was not attempting to diminish his responsibility or that of the Government, he was merely making the point that this is not a problem that can ever be solved by one party. There is a responsibility on the statutory authorities in countries where Irish emigrants settle. There is also a responsibility on the Irish communities in these countries to help their fellow emigrants. These communities have responded generously and actively in the past and in many ways the Irish voluntary agencies abroad have been very much to the fore in terms of meeting the needs of Irish emigrants.

The Minister sees his role in terms not only of providing more money to the voluntary organisations but also of helping them to improve what they are doing by accessing funding from other sources. He also sees it in terms of using his influence and that of the Government to encourage the statutory authorities in other countries to be more aware of the needs of Irish people and improve the services they offer to them.

On the subject of broadcasting, as Deputy O'Donnell correctly said, the service that was provided for Irish people in Britain ceased because it was not commercially viable. The task force accepted that it would probably not be possible to reinstall that service or provide an equivalent without some subvention. One of the recommendations it made was that money should be provided by the Government to fund or part-fund a television and radio service for Irish people abroad in the same way that the Australian Government provides such a service for its emigrants in the Pacific region. We know that RTE would be happy to provide this service if funding was made available. This is one of the many recommendations in the task force report which, as Deputy Stagg stated, cannot be advanced until the funding required is put in place.

How much would be required to fund that broadcasting service?

Mr. Neary

It was estimated that in the region of €1 million would be required. However, it depends on what type of service one wants to provide, how extensive one wants to make it and to how many countries one wants to make it available. If there is an amount of money available, something can be done. The more money there is, the more that can be done.

Deputy Tony Dempsey asked what the money that is provided does for emigrants. In the case of the DION fund, which is by far the largest share of the money provided by our Department, the money primarily goes to agencies providing services for Irish people in terms of paying staff salaries. That has been a conscious decision taken by the DION committee because of the limitations on the amount of money available. Each year it receives requests for assistance and, in total, these come to far more than the amount of money available. It has, therefore, taken the view that the best way to use the money allocated to it is to fund the salaries of front-line workers. These workers provide advice and information in respect of housing and health care issues. They also provide information to those contemplating returning to Ireland.

Some of the money is also allocated to projects which are aimed at providing not just for people's economic needs but also for their emotional needs. This is done by providing opportunities for people, particularly the elderly, to meet and help support each other. Something is being done in that area but, as stated, there is no doubt that much more could be done.

Deputy Tony Dempsey also made the point — this was accepted by the task force — that apart from the more material needs of emigrants, there are also cultural and spiritual needs. Emigrants identify strongly with Ireland and want to maintain this. A great deal has been done by voluntary organisations in recent years in this regard. There has been a major revival of Irish music, sport, dancing and culture abroad and there is no doubt that these activities have helped Irish people to maintain their sense of Irish identity. The task force felt that this was a legitimate use of public funds and that the Government should support these activities to help people retain and maintain their sense of Irish identity. The Minister accepts that but believes, in the context of the current level of funding, that the emphasis should be on vulnerable emigrants who have more material and immediate needs.

The urgent reaction to which Deputy Stagg referred is something of which the Minister is conscious and we will re-emphasise the need for it when we report back to him.

The Chairman referred to the need for co-ordination. That point was made strongly by the task force and it is accepted by the Minister. We hope to make a small step in that direction this year by allocating funding from our budget to AIM which is the umbrella body for voluntary Irish agencies that provide services to emigrants. We hope that this will enable AIM to provide more support to its members and, in particular, to encourage more communication, contact and networking among them and also between them and their counterparts in other countries. The task force was struck by the fact that in many countries there are many well-intentioned people doing a great deal of important and valuable work for Irish emigrants but they are not all aware of what is being done by others. If they were aware, they might be able to take advantage of the experience of others and, in that way, make what they are doing more effective and capable of having a greater impact. The Minister very much accepts the importance of communication, networking and dialogue and he hopes in the future to do more to support that.

I refer to local authorities. When these cases arise, the approach of Dublin City Council to returning emigrants on the one hand and community welfare officers on the other needs to be co-ordinated, apart from the co-ordination of the agencies. I referred particularly to people who are experiencing a great deal of difficulty in returning.

Mr. Neary

The Chairman mentioned the responsibility on the UK authorities, which the Minister accepts. He hopes to use the structures provided under the Good Friday Agreement to encourage greater interaction between Departments in Ireland and their counterparts in Britain to give greater focus to the needs of the Irish there and in this way to, hopefully, bring about a better response to those needs.

I welcome the announcement that the unit, which has been developed within the Department, is a forerunner to an agency. Funding has not been provided to the level required to establish the agency now.

The activities of the very much maligned Catholic Church in regard to emigrants should be acknowledged. Fr. Paul Byrne and others in London have done trojan work on behalf of Irish emigrants on shoestring budgets. Mr. Neary is correct that other agencies, including the British Government and other Governments, have responsibilities in this regard. However, we have a moral responsibility and duty to emigrants, which requires, if the task force recommendations are to be implemented, approximately five times the amount available. We are trying to identify and assist lonely, isolated people who are ill, in jail or homeless so that some dignity can be returned to them in their remaining years.

I welcome Mr. Neary's report. Is this area covered by consular services? Does the budget line come from consular services or is a specific budget line provided for the Irish abroad? Approximately 3 million Irish citizens live abroad, of whom 1.3 million were born in Ireland. Since they have been embraced by the amendment to Article 2 of the Constitution as representing part of the Irish nation, constitutional rights apply to them and when they get into difficulties of a consular nature, as experienced by the three Colombian prisoners, the full strength and clout of the Government should be there to assist them. Has the budget line for consular services been ratcheted up commensurate with the recognition in the Constitution through the amendment to Article 2 in the 1998 referendum that the Irish abroad are recognised as part of the nation? While a finite group of poor Irish emigrants living in the UK is in need of immediate assistance, is a similar pattern emerging in other countries? Do people living in other parts of the world need similar consular assistance? Is the Department examining this issue in terms of planning?

The committee would like priority to be given in the forthcoming Estimates to the task force report on Irish emigrants, particularly those who are vulnerable and need support. The funding of consular services generally is constrained. They come under a great deal of pressure given the level of activity of Irish people around the world. Increased consular services need to be recognised as well as the task force report so that the Estimates do not provide extra funding for the report while the funding for consular services remains the same.

I have witnessed the consular services working with the Irish aboard, particularly in England. They always need more staff but they do tremendous work. There is a growing demand for consular services.

Mr. Neary

I will clarify the position on the unit for Deputy Stagg. The Minister said he would establish the unit initially. He believes it could be the forerunner for an agency but he has not committed himself to establishing an agency.

I was trying to push that.

Mr. Neary

All I can do is repeat what he said. Our experience has been that they are always to the fore in meeting the needs of the needy and the vulnerable. We have worked closely with them over the years and are happy to continue that.

In response to Deputy O'Donnell's question about funding, a separate budget is lined for the grants provided to Irish emigrant agencies abroad and that has increased since the DION fund was transferred to us from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment last year. A specific budget is not lined for consular services. It is absorbed by the other administrative budget lines of the Department but there is no conflict between the two and it is not a question of one being increased at the expense of the other.

As regards the needs in other countries, the situation in Britain is unique because of the scale of emigration there. It is estimated there are 1.2 million Irish-born people abroad, with approximately two thirds in Britain. One is, therefore, dealing with the greatest number of Irish emigrants and the greatest number who left in the 1950s and 1960s when they were forced to do so. Many left without proper education or training, or the capacity to live independently and successfully abroad. The greatest number of vulnerable and needy people are still in Britain. The chances are that those who emigrate today involuntarily for social reasons or whatever and without thinking out the consequences or implications of what they are doing will hop on a plane at Dublin airport and go to Britain, given the low cost of air fares. It is probably still the country to which most vulnerable Irish emigrants travel and the greatest need, therefore, is there.

That is why, in allocating the funds available to us, we have concentrated heavily on Britain and the DION fund. However, we monitor the situation in other countries and, where needs arise, see what we can do to meet them. There is no shortage of need in Britain and the number of people — approximately 1,000 — helped by the DION fund is small, although it is significant. As I said, the fund is over-subscribed every year so there is more that can be done if more money can be made available. We hope more money can be made available and we hope to convince the Government of that in the forthcoming round of Estimates.

I thank Mr. Brady and Mr. Neary for their presentation today and their help to the committee on other occasions. We intend to follow this up as people are unanimous in their wish to see further resources put into this area.

I now come to correspondence from the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny. The sub-committee has examined five proposals falling within the remit of the Department of Foreign Affairs. It has considered that no further scrutiny is required for those proposals — Comm 2004/77, proposal for a Council regulation on financial and technical measures to accompany the reformed social and economic structures in the framework Euro-Mediterranean partnership; Comm 2004/113, proposal for a Council decision concerning the provisional application of the agreement on the participation of Cyprus, Malta, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Hungary in the European economic area and the provisional application of four related agreements; Comm 2004/94, proposal for a Council decision on the Community position within the EU-Mexico joint council concerning the liberalisation of the tariff treatment of certain products; Comm 2004/148, proposal for a Council regulation and directive adapting certain regulations, directives and decisions in the field of free movement of goods, company law, agriculture, taxation, education and training, cultural audio-visual and external relations by reason of the accession of Cyprus, Malta, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Hungary; Comm 2004/51, proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Community and Barbados, Belize, the Republic of Congo, Fiji, Guyana, Cote d'Ivoire, Jamaica, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Surinam, St. Christopher and Nevis, Swaziland, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe on the accession of Mozambique to protocol No. 3 on ACP sugar of annex 5 to the ACP-EC partnership agreement. The sub-committee has recommended that no further scrutiny of these proposals is necessary. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The sub-committee has also requested that we note four other proposals and measures which are listed in the documentation circulated with the agenda. Is the committee happy to note these measures? Agreed.

The joint committee went into private session at 3.25 p.m. and adjourned at 3.30 p.m. sine die.

Top
Share