Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 7 Nov 1989

Vol. 392 No. 7

Private Members' Business. - Emigration: Motion.

Mr. Barry

I move:

That Dáil Éireann, appalled by the level of emigration revealed by the recent Central Statistics Office report, calls upon the Government (1) to take action to stem this haemorrhage (2) to make realistic funding available for advice and support services for our emigrants abroad and (3) to engage in purposeful diplomatic action to persuade the United States authorities to legislate in favour of our out-of-status young emigrants in the US, now numbering tens of thousands.

I move the motion in the names of Deputies Deenihan, Connor, Bradford and myself. We in this House, and indeed in the country generally, have to address the problem of emigration as a matter of urgency because otherwise we are in danger of losing a whole generation of young people and, of course, with it the vitality and the dynamism of our society. The result is that our society will remain attached to a deep rooted conservatism which may prove to be unable to make the adjustments and meet the challenges of the next century. This House will have failed in its duty to the people if we allow that to happen. Of course, the scale of emigration in Ireland is by any standards startling. In the 12 months to April 1989 46,000 people left Ireland, an increase of 14,000 on the previous year. Only in the last 24 hours there has been a study by Dr. Damien Courtney of the Regional Technical College in Cork which says that the size of the problem may have been underestimated in the census in April last and that the number who left may have been as high as 52,000 between April 1988 and April 1989. According to the Davy Kelleher McCarthy report of 1987 the declining birth rate plus the increase in emigration will result in a negative population growth in the year 2011. The same report estimates that 500,000 people — that is one-sixth of our present population in size — will emigrate in the next 25 years. These will be predominantly young people. Unless we change we will decide that their future is not in this country.

In the seventies Ireland had a rapidly expanding and a youthful population. Indeed, it was the constant boast and it was put forward as a challenge to the politicians and the general structures of the country that as half our population was under 25 we had a difficult task in front of us.

I neglected to say at the start of my contribution that I wish to share my time with Deputies Deenihan, Connor, Reynolds and Barrett. My time will be ten minutes and the others will have 7½ minutes each with the permission of the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

Mr. Barry

Ten years ago we used to boast that half our population was under 25 and this provided us with a challenge for the future. The Davy Kelleher McCarthy report said that in 1970 the average age of the population of Ireland was 26 years. However, by the year 2011 the average age of the population will be 37 years, an increase of 11 years which will make us, by present standards, one of the oldest populations in Europe whereas we used to boast, ten years ago, of having the youngest population in Europe. Of course, the effects of that on Irish society will be so dramatic in terms of our sociological, political, economic and psychological development that it is almost incomprehensible to us now and is something we must not allow to happen. We must act now. This House, this country and this Government — I use that in the very broadest sense as I do not necessarily mean the people opposite us tonight — must do something to turn that tide back.

The purpose of a debate such as this is to focus on the action which can tackle the situation in a planned and in a comprehensive manner. I would hope when we are finished with this debate tomorrow night that we will not feel we have done something for emigration or to cure the problem of emigration and that, having had the debate, we can feel that all is now well, that we can go home and sit back into our comfortable chairs and forget about it. This is something that should be on the top of all our priorities whether we are Labour, Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil, whether we are in Government or out of Government, that as concerned people we should have this as the top of our agenda.

One of the main reasons that young people and, indeed, people of all ages are leaving Ireland is to find the work which is not available here. It is a self-evident truth that we are not providing sufficient jobs year in year out to absorb the numbers who are leaving school and who are looking for work. We must improve both the number of jobs available and also the range of employment because many of our highly educated young people seek a challenge which we are unable to offer them. We are educating young people to a very high level, to third degree and sometimes beyond that, to doctorates, and they are not contributing to the growth of this country in the future because we are not providing the jobs here for them. Even if you drop that third level cream off them and say that they may go abroad, they may advance themselves in their professions and they may come back here. I think this is true. I do not think we should be simplistic about it and say they are lost forever because many of them will come back and will make a very valuable contribution to the building of the economy and the country. Below that there is a level of school leavers, the 17 and 18 year olds — sometimes prepared, sometimes unprepared — leaving the country and their chances of coming back are less than those of higher education. The taxpayers here are educating people to a high level, a higher level, indeed, than many of the countries to which they are going. The talents of those young people are available to those other economies who did not bear the burden — that is a selfish way of putting it as I do not really mean it that way — of the cost of their education. Many of our highly educated young people are going abroad to seek a challenge which we are unable to provide for them here.

One of the things that needs to be done lies in tax reform. The Commission on Taxation report showed that other smaller economies such as New Zealand, which reformed their tax systems, stemmed the flow of emigration. That clearly demonstrates that a piecemeal reform will not achieve the objective we desire. I do not have to repeat here a point which has been frequently made from these benches over the past number of years, that unless we do something about tax reform in this country we will continue to have a disgruntled workforce at home and a huge haemorrhage of our young people abroad.

The European Commission in its annual report published last week suggests that a fundamental shift in Irish taxation policy should include an easing of the personal tax levels. These reforms are crucial as we start preparing for the challenge of 1992. In regard to 1992 — and I will come back to this in another debate — I am disturbed to see in the last six months indications, including one yesterday from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, that the goals which were set when the Single European Act was passed for 1992 are now being shifted, or being put further away, and that there is not the same political will among the nations of the 12 — I include our Government in that as one of the frontrunners lacking in the will — to see that the goals established under the Single European Act be achieved by 1992. Their views on this do not now seem to be as strongly held as they were a number of years ago.

The Commission's report makes the point that the increased Structural Funds will help to compensate for the physical disadvantage affecting nations such as Ireland, but our successes will depend on the response of private enterprise to a more competitive market. The Structural Funds will help us here. They are not at the level we would wish, but even at that lower level they will not be maintained unless we subscribe to the political goals that were laid down in the Single European Act.

We must also, as a matter or urgency, reform our political system and make it more efficient, responsible and relevant to the changing needs of Irish society. We must listen to the voices and the words of many of our young emigrants. The two Deputies here next to me plus other Fine Gael Deputies have been to Boston, New York, Washington, London, Manchester and Liverpool in the last 12 months to meet these young people. I am sure they will agree that you hear a cynicism and a defeatism which is paralysing and promotes a sense of futility among those young people. They leave this country not solely because they feel Ireland can offer them no economic future but also because they are convinced that social and political attitudes in Ireland are firmly embedded in the past.

The Taoiseach has hinted that his party accepts the need for reform of the Dáil. He must do more than hint and every Member of this House must co-operate in making the political process more effective. This includes reform at local as well as national level. The situation in East Germany shows what can happen when people lose confidence in the system; the same is happening here but it is not brought to the world's attention by TV cameras. Every week nearly 1,000 people vote "no confidence" in our system by emigrating. On the immediate practical level we must support the various action groups, commissions and resource centres who provide advice, accommodation and a sense of community for our emigrants in various countries. We must maintain a direct link with our people abroad and help, where possible, their material needs. On the social level it is vital to maintain that contact which facilitates the return of our emigrants.

I recommend the guide to London prepared by the Irish group for the assistance of Irish youth. It is an essential document for every young emigrant, particularly those in the 16 to 18 age group. It applies to London, where the most deprived of our people seem to go, sometimes with no more than a £10 note. They have no knowledge of the kind of society they are going to. The Minister might confirm that the Government will be providing extra money to help the centres in America in the same way as those being helped in London.

It is not just a question of losing population in a general way. It is the fact of losing a whole generation who should be participating in the next phase of our development as a people and as a democratic State. We must address the problem of emigration as a matter of urgency. If we do not this House will have failed in its duty to our people.

Mr. Deenihan

In the short time available to me I call on the Government to introduce more radical and imaginative steps to provide the opportunities to keep our people at home and to stem the haemorrhage of emigration. The attitude of the Fianna Fáil Party in government during the past two and a half years was that if public spending and borrowing were brought under control we could create the right climate for the growth of job opportunities in the private sector. This expectation has not been fulfilled to date to any significant extent, resulting in 46,000 of our people having to leave in 1988 to seek employment elsewhere. This is a national disaster and represents the almost total failure of the Fianna Fáil Party's policy towards solving the problem. We need a major intervention programme if we are serious about keeping our young people at home and providing them with worth-while job opportunities.

We need a restructuring of the apprenticeship scheme. It is as difficult for many school leavers to get an apprenticeship as to enter a third level college. Promised money from the Structural Funds for education should be targeted on the training of our unskilled youth. This sector is the one most at risk when they emigrate. Meaningful programmes for them should be introduced in our post-primary schools. A sound education is the key to their future, not only here but when they leave. Unplanned cuts in the post-primary sector, especially in the public sector of education, have caused huge problems for both teacher and students during the past two years.

The funding to date for advice and support services must be acknowledged and I recognise the role played by the Minister for Labour. The £500,000 allocated to the DÍON committee in 1989 should serve to improve existing services in Great Britain. However, this funding must be maintained for 1990 and increased if possible. The remit of DÍON should be extended to include the provision of funding for hostel accommodation. Suitable and reasonably priced accommodation is a major problem for many of our young emigrants.

The promise made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs during his recent visit to the USA to provide funding through the Irish consulates there for emigrant services is encouraging. The Minister when replying might say when he proposes to announce details of the extent of the funding and when it will be made available. I would also suggest that DÍON type committees be set up to allocate funds in the US. I have been in contact with both the Irish Immigration Reform Movement and Catholic charities in the Archdiocese of New York. Both these organisations are providing invaluable services for the undocumented Irish in New York and other centres. The Irish Immigration Reform Movement have already received substantial funding from New York City, New York State and the American Fund. A comprehensive funding application has been submitted to the Department of Foreign Affairs by the Irish Immigration Reform Movement. This organisation must be singled out for special mention. They more than anybody else put the whole issue of the plight of the undocumented Irish on the political agenda in the US. They should receive at least $100,000 to improve their existing office accommodation, hotline services and the hiring of full-time personnel.

Monsignor James Murray and Catholic charities also deserve special mention for their Project Irish Outreach which provides information and counselling to new Irish immigrants. It is the only privately funded, full-time Irish advisory and direct service office counselling newly arrived Irish immigrants in the New York area. The project offers advice on matters of immigration, health, social services, maternity care, personal counselling and social matters. The staff includes four immigrant chaplains from Ireland who live in areas where there is a high concentration of newly arrived young Irish people. The scheme cost over $500,000 to run this year and is deserving of substantial funding when moneys are being allocated.

I would also mention the work of the Irish Pastoral Centre in Boston. Sister Veroncia Dobson is now head of this centre and two Irish priests will take up service there in the very near future. To date all funding is from the Archdiocese of Boston and, while a major fund raising campaign has taken place this year, its financial future is far from sound. Unless help is obtained from Ireland the centre could find itself in serious difficulty next year.

Immigration reform will be dealt with in the 101st Congress. Our objective must be to ensure that any immigration reform legislation enacted is as beneficial as possible to both undocumented and potential Irish immigrants. There are a number of Bills before Congress at the moment. The Kennedy/Simpson/Simon passed through the US Senate in July. In its present form it would do little for either undocumented or potential Irish immigrants. Congressman Brian Donnelly introduced a Bill two weeks ago which calls for an extension of the original Donnelly visa programme of 1986 for five years, with 15,000 visas to be awarded each year. The legislation would also allow for the creation of a new lottery with one application per applicant. The original Donnelly visa scheme and its extension under the 1988 Immigration Act was and is of great benefit to Irish immigrants. This proposal would be of similar benefit.

Congressmen Ben Gillman introduced a Bill last March which if enacted would allow undocumented immigrants to obtain legal immigrant status by serving in the US National Guard for three years. This Bill could be of benefit to the Irish.

Congressmen Engel, Schumer and Fish are expected to introduce further Bills within the next few weeks. Two of these are expected to be very favourable to the undocumented Irish.

The sub-committee on immigration in the House will consider these Bills in the new year. Congressmen Bruce Morrison, chairman of the sub-committee, is very anxious to bring forward more liberal legislation on immigration. He has been extensively lobbied by Irish-American groups such as the AOH and the IIRM, as well as by the Minister during his recent visit to America. As he is the main player because of his important position as chairman of this vital sub-committee, the Government must maintain close contact with him to ensure that our case is adequately represented. The time is now ripe for change in US legislation on emigration. Nothing will be handed to the Irish on a silver plate and an intense and united lobbying effort by the Irish-American community on behalf of the undocumented Irish and by the Irish Government is necessary if we are to pass the kind of legislation that would be favourable to our emigrants.

Mr. Connor

This is a comprehensive motion and, with your permission, I will confine myself to one aspect, the one dealing with the extension of special welfare and advice services to our emigrants, particularly in the United States. Special services for our emigrants in the United States are required urgently. The proposers of the motion are primarily members of the Fine Gael parliamentary backbench committee on emigration and we propose that these services are creatively designed to respond to the real needs of the emigrants. The Government have completely ignored the needs and the acute vulnerability of the young illegals in the United States. However, the decision to provide funds — however inadequate — to establish welfare and advice services in some US centres at least is welcome.

I was part of a delegation with three of my colleagues who visited the United States on a special emigration fact-finding mission last September and we made a special point of meeting and consulting the groups who, despite being ignored by the Government here, have carried on an advice and help outreach to the young Irish. I refer to the church Outreach programme and the very good work carried on by the Irish Immigration Reform Movement. More importantly, we went out among the young illegals and this meant going to Irish bars which have proliferated all over New York where the young Irish now live. It meant going to GAA matches and on to building sites in places like east New York, not the most pleasant place in the world, and the north Bronx. In many ways it resembled election canvassing but it gave us an authentic insight into the problems, fears and anxieties of the average young emigrant, an insight that Minister Collins or his entourage could not get, given the safe distance he and they kept from the average young fellow on a building site who looks with trepidation at every stranger who approaches him and the average young girl working in a badly paid, isolated job as an au pair or nanny.

In a general way, arising from our meetings and discussions, we found that at least 90 per cent of the young people we met left this country because they had to. Almost all agreed that they had no choice. Well over 90 per cent of them were preoccupied with their illegal status and they agreed that it hindered them in a major way from leading a normal life in the United States. The majority of them were unaware of their rights in terms of protection at work, rights to health care or to protection against exploitation. These rights exist notwithstanding their legal status. There was also a marked reluctance among the young emigrants to use the advice and welfare centres that existed, particularly those established by the city authorities. I want to pay tribute to people like Mayor Koch who, in a very enlightened way, have established emigrant outreach services to emigrants from all countries, particularly those who are illegal. Nevertheless, the average young Irish emigrants are frightened or suspicious of these services but, fortunately, they are less frightened and less apprehensive of the IIRM or the Church.

One other outstanding conclusion we came to was the deep sense of alienation towards Ireland and its political institutions which permeates the outlook and thinking of the average young emigrant. This arises because they feel let down, that the Government here are glad to be rid of them, and indeed there is a lot of truth in that. I will repeat what I said in the Seanad over a year ago. What would our unemployment figures be if the 46,000 people who left this country last year or the 50,000 who left it the year before were added to the often frightening figures of our unemployed live register? Where would the control of public spending be if we had to fund the countless millions it would take to provide them with even subsistence social welfare?

It seems that the Government are to respond to the massive problems solved for them by emigration in a way that can only be described as mean, tardy and wretched. The provision of a sum of money for next year varies from £100,000 to £500,000 depending on who is talking. The Fianna Fáil Ministers usually refer to the lower figure and the Progressive Democrat Ministers usually refer to the higher one. Both figures are pitiably inadequate given the size of the problems we have to tackle. However, we agree that it is a start and we welcome it. We may make suggestions as to how this money should be spent to help our lost generation in the United States.

The system operating in the United States should be operated to the maximum, for example. The existing agencies, the IIRM, the Catholic charities in New York and the other church outreach programmes in the major US centres should be funded for their existing work. Money should be provided to allow them to expand their services. All our consular offices in the various US cities should be properly staffed to co-ordinate and help the work of the voluntary agencies. The priorities must be confidential, easily available advice centres to advise the emigrant on the various aspects of the law — for example, the Donnelly and Berman visa programmes and any other regulations that may affect them, such as the law on workers' sanction or the laws relating to exploitation at work.

We must also use these funds to produce leaflets and publications that contain reliable and accurate information on emigration procedures, health and social services and education opportunities for the new and young Irish who live in the United States and who may wish to better themselves. We should establish a unit for investigating reported places of exploitation of new immigrants to make sure that such people are fully informed of their rights and their right to redress. They should also be informed of their rights in the event of injury at work or illness induced at work.

There is clear evidence that many of our illegals are exploited by unscrupulous members of the legal profession in the United States who are exacting large sums of money from these unsuspecting young people on the promise that they can legalise them, which is usually impossible. We can contribute to removing these unscrupulous shysters from the payroll of the young Irish immigrants if we put together a list of reputable solicitors — they call them attorneys — and make this information available to any emigrant who may wish to take legal advice to change their visa to a J1, J2 or H1 while they are in the United States.

There is a need to look closely at certain fund raising in the United States which is ostensibly presented as being for emigrant services. Quite clearly, some of this fund raising has nothing to do with immigrant help or welfare but has a lot to do with subversion or probably worse. Our diplomatic and consular service in the United States should co-ordinate and monitor, as far as possible, all such fund raising activities. The fund raisers for emigrants whose bona fides are suspect should be isolated and information about such sources made available to the older Irish community, which is very important when you are talking about fund raising. Of course that information should also be made available to the new Irish community.

Mr. G. Reynolds

The question of emigration can be approached from many different angles and viewpoints. We must first define exactly what it is we are talking about. Even if we had the Utopian dream of full employment there would still be people emigrating. These would include people seeking new experiences, new eductional opportunities, a better climate and lifestyle and those who view emigration as affording them better reward for their efforts. If that were all we had to deal with we would indeed be a lucky nation. Once and for all let us put an end to the ridiculous contention that many people emigrate through choice. There are some emigrating through choice but they bear no relationship whatever to the total numbers. Many people who are employed at home are leaving, not so much because they are low paid but because we have the most vicious and penal taxation system within the EC. The result is that many people in work at the end of the week finish up with the same amount or less than they would receive on the dole. That destroys the spirit, leading to the often heard cry: why should I bother; why should I work when the incentives are not there?

We must first accept facts. Then we can discuss ways and means of altering the position. First, we must seriously examine the activities of the corporate sector. They pay a very low rate of taxation. In return they are expected to engage or employ more people. That is not happening, with the result that the trend is away from manpower toward mechanisation. That is understandable when one realises that our system penalises employers for providing employment. Official statements will deny that but the reality is immediately evident from those on the ground. Indeed employment incentives are so tied up in red tape and form-filling employers simply do not bother. A happy medium must be struck. Surely it is not beyond the ability of our planners to provide a simple, fool-proof system?

We must take a close look at our taxation system. Everybody is aware that it is in a complete mess and constitutes one of the most penal worldwide. All we are doing is tinkering with the various bands while announcing that there is more money being put in people's pockets. The entire base of the system is wrong. Unless far-reaching reforms are implemented there will be no incentive to our people to work and remain at home.

We politicians will have to realise that many of our pronouncements on emigration and employment are being greeted with cynicism and total disbelief. The daily announcement of several hundreds of jobs by such and such a year may satisfy ministerial cravings for good publicity but those who are unemployed, on their way to the boat and train, simply regard it as rubbish. Announcing official employment figures in order to demonstrate that unemployment is falling while ignoring the emigration figures does not fool anybody. Charging emigrants £5 for the privilege of emigrating and treating them as tourists when they return to visit their families merely adds insult to injury.

Equally solemn statements at election times proclaiming that one party or another will end emigration must cease. I was an emigrant in the United States for three and a half years. I know that our emigrants there do not want this issue treated as a political football. It is people who are involved and who are being hurt. We must remember that people who emigrate can be lonely and vulnerable.

It is high time the Members of this House put their heads together in a practical way in an endeavour to solve this problem affecting, if not destroying, every family in Ireland.

Mr. S. Barrett

Since Fianna Fáil took over the reins of office in March 1987 well over 100,000 of our people have left this country. Given the negative attitude of the Government toward the need for radical change in our structures, there is nothing to suggest that this unacceptable trend will not continue. A great many of our young people have left, leaving sadness in family homes and destroying communities within which the vitality and enthusiasm of young people is so essential.

We are the only European country where total employment is lower today than in the twenties. Recent statistics published by the Central Statistics Office show that the total number of people at work fell by 1,000 between April 1988 and April 1989, evidence — despite all the public relations hype — that the Government are not tackling the problem of increasing the number of jobs available to those seeking employment. The sooner Government Ministers stop distorting the real figures and tackle the problem the sooner we will stop the massive brain drain now and in the future.

In the short time available to me I should like to outline some of the changes necessary in order to create a positive environment for employment. The creation of sufficient jobs constitutes the only way of stopping forced emigration.

Recent increases in interest rates and the upward trend in the rate of inflation are a cause of great concern. The Government must take immediate steps to reverse these trends and also to reduce costs to industry in many areas such as transport, fuel and insurance premiums. We are fast approaching the year 1992. The reality is that there will not be investment in manufacturing and service employment here unless we have low costs accompanied by a high level of productivity.

Fine Gael have offered on many occasions to participate in an all party committee on tax reform. The Government have consistently refused that offer despite the obvious need therefor. In addition to reducing high levels of personal income tax we must introduce incentives for employers to expand their workforce and encourage greater investment particularly in manufacturing industry. Our tax code investment funds — be they pensions or otherwise — should be encouraged to invest in manufacturing industry, in particular in small companies. I propose that the provisions of the Finance Act, 1982 be amended to allow tax relief on interest paid by individuals on a loan raised to buy shares in a company established under the business expansion scheme. This relief should be extended up to the amount of the unused portion of an individual's entitlement to tax relief in respect of mortgage interest. Of course a realistic ceiling on tax relief for interest would have to obtain. I propose that individuals connected with a firm should be entitled to claim tax relief on investments made by them in a research and development company sponsored by their firms.

I said earlier that the need to reduce costs is an essential part of the strategy for employment growth. The frustration of employees as a result of the high rates of personal taxation is understandable. This, together with the increase in mortgage interest rates, will lead to continuous demands for high wage increases. We must examine ways and means of encouraging greater employee participation in profit-sharing schemes. This could be achieved either by way of bonus schemes based on productivity or employee share ownership. A recent survey carried out in the United States shows that 10 per cent of all US workers are now involved in a scheme known as the employee share ownership programme. This scheme has been helped considerable by Congress passing a law giving generous tax advantages to workers involved in the scheme. Why cannot we have the same here? Surely it makes sense that, when a company is doing well, it should be possible for employees to share in the profits rather than be forced consistently to seek high wage increases? There are numerous examples of similar schemes having been successful in different parts of the world. We should commence the process here beginning with employees in commercial State bodies.

It is obvious to everybody that the unskilled worker is daily being replaced by the machine, that the need for greater investment, particularly in third level education, is vital if we are to provide our young people, in particular, with the skills and training to meet the challenges of tomorrow's world. Whether we like it or not resources will have to be found to ensure that more and more of our people be given access to third-level education. Equally we must ensure that those at present on the unemployment list be given the opportunity of retraining — and I mean real training — so that they will have an opportunity of getting gainful employment. Recent statistics show that 4 per cent of those with third-level education are unemployed, a figure well below the national average.

The Government speak daily of the need to prepare for 1992; rightly so. If we are to avail of the opportunities obtaining in Europe surely the first thing we must do is provide our people with language skills? Yet there is the disgraceful position obtaining in which a tiny percentage of our population only are given the opportunity of learning a continental language. Surely it is time we provided the resources so that such continental languages can be taught at primary level? Programmes should also be devised for those who had not the opportunity, while at school, to avail of language skills to do so now. How can we expect to compete in the European marketplace if we cannot converse with those with whom we want to do business?

We have spoken sufficiently long about the possibility of the sale of shares in State companies in order to raise capital for the expansion of such companies. It is time a date was set for the Government to report to both Houses of the Oireachtas on the possibilities, terms, advantages and disadvantages of such a move. There is no reason commercial State bodies should not be allowed and encouraged to go into the marketplace, particularly in Europe, using their skills and expertise to compete for business in order to expand employment opportunities. The lack of capital for such expansion has managed to strangle many of these companies and the situation should no longer be tolerated. We should also look at how employees are paid for their efforts in these bodies. I mentioned earlier that we can begin to rectify this situation by promoting profit-sharing schemes to encourage those involved to increase production. Why should those working in commercial State bodies be tied into a situation where their earnings are much lower than the private sector? This is no way to encourage expansion and development.

Over the last number of years there has been tremendous growth in the numbers engaged in part-time employment. We have failed to recognise this from the point of view of altering our taxation and social welfare codes to cater for this and the end result has been a growth in the black economy and a failure to protect the rights of those workers, either by the rates being paid or the hours being worked.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy might now bring his speech to a close.

Mr. S. Barrett

The reality is that part-time jobs are here to stay and the sooner we recognise this and make the appropriate structural changes to cater for them the better.

There are many other areas I should like to cover but unfortunately, as you have just reminded me, a Cheann Comhairle, my time is running out.

An Ceann Comhairle

The time has come to call the Minister.

Mr. S. Barrett

Perhaps the Minister will give me one minute.

Minister for Labour (Mr. B. Ahern)

Yes.

Mr. S. Barrett

We should begin our reform in these Houses. We are operating an antiquated system in the manner in which we are carrying out our business. The best way to lead others is by example and certainly the structures we have in Leinster House are no example to those outside.

I hope the Government realise that time is running out and we cannot allow the scandal of emigration to plague us for much longer. It is a public disgrace that in a country with a small population such as Ireland, we cannot supply sufficient job opportunities for the relatively small numbers seeking work. If we adopt a positive approach to 1992, then we will succeed, if we do not the brain drain will continue. I read recently that in 1992 there will be 25 per cent fewer school-leavers in Britain; in Germany there will be 47 per cent fewer school-leavers by 1992, and in Italy there will be 56 per cent. These countries will be crying out for young, well-educated and skilled workers. Ireland will have these young people and if we have not got the jobs to give them then the British, German and Italian economies will benefit from the skills that our young people can offer them.

Mr. B. Ahern

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"recognises that emigration can best be overcome by the economic policies of the Programme for National Recovery which have the objective of increasing self-sustaining employment through higher economic growth and endorses the efforts being made by the Government to have the position of the Irish out-of-status emigrants in the United States redressed and the measures taken to provide increased resources for support services to emigrants in Britain and the United States.”

I ask for your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, to share some of my time with the Minister of State at the Department of Education.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

Mr. B. Ahern

As Minister for Labour my responsibilities relate to the provision of pre-departure advisory services for emigrants, the allocation of State financial assistance to voluntary emigrant-support services in Britain and to overseeing the application in Ireland of EC regulations governing labour mobility within the Community.

Mr. M. Higgins

If there are copies of the Minister's speech perhaps they might be circulated so that we will be more easily able to respond.

An Ceann Comhairle

Can the House be so facilitated?

Mr. B. Ahern

I understand there are copies so they should be circulated shortly.

My colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who has overall responsibility for emigration matters, will deal with the question of Government measures on behalf of Irish emigrants in the United States and elsewhere. I propose, therefore, to concentrate on the first two items in the motion — those calling for Government action to reduce emigration and to provide realistic funding for emigrant advisory services.

As public representatives all of us must be concerned about a situation where people who are unable to find work here — or if they have jobs but for some other reason, such as personal taxation — feel obliged to seek employment elsewhere. I fully understand and share the genuine concerns of the Members who have already spoken to this motion.

As a member of the Government I can assure them that we are equally concerned about recent trends in emigration. I can also assure them of the Government's determination to come to grips with the situation and of our total commitment to redoubling our efforts directed at stimulating and accelerating the job-creation process so as to reduce the pressures which force people to look for work abroad.

With 22,000 people registered as unemployed and a potential for growth in the labour force of about 25,000 every year this is a formidable task. Even if we had the resources it would be very shortsighted of the Government to indulge in a free-spending spree of relief schemes merely to keep people off the live register. We must also avoid the temptation of treating the symptom instead of the disease simply because we find the cure unpalatable or unpopular.

The hard fact that must be faced is that the one and only effective solution to involuntary emigration is to create the right conditions at home in terms of job opportunities, personal tax levels, career prospects and quality of life which will attract and absorb the annual outflows from the education sector and those on the live register. This is a monumental task and there are no easy options or quick-fix solutions.

Of course, we should not allow ourselves to be overawed or intimidated by such a challenge. Indeed, the Government's record clearly shows that not only are we facing this challenge head-on but that our efforts over the last few years to revitalise the economy and to maximise employment growth and job opportunities are now beginning to bear fruit.

All the economic indicators clearly vindicate the Government's macro-economic strategy, as set out in the Programme for National Recovery. The cornerstone of that strategy is the twin objectives of correcting the imbalances in the public finances and restoring and strengthening the competitiveness of the economy. Only in this way is it possible to lay the foundations for strong, organic and self-sustaining growth in national output and job creation.

Because of the resolute action taken by the Government order has been restored to the public finances. Exchequer borrowing has been brought under effective control and we are on target to reducing it to manageable levels. GNP has been rising rapidly and as a recent EC Commission report now confirms we have one of the fastest growth rates in the Community. Exports are hitting all-time records and independent commentators and experts are forecasting sustained, robust economic growth for the foreseeable future. Inflation and interest rates are well below those of some of our largest trading partners and industry's order books and expectations are continuing at a high level.

In summary, the Government, through careful and courageous policy measures, are succeeding in creating the most favourable climate and conditions to maintain the momentum of economic development and for embarking on the second phase of their overall strategy for accelerating the job creation process.

The creation of new jobs is the primary objective of the Programme for National Recovery. That programme has lowered Exchequer borrowing so that interest rates have been cut; has reduced inflation; brought about moderate pay settlements; improved the competitiveness of the economy generally, which has boosted the value of exports by close to 40 per cent and industrial production by over 25 per cent in the past two years; and has enabled personal tax rates to be reduced. All of these developments have been designed to create the conditions in which new jobs could be created and existing jobs maintained.

The programme, and the resurgence of economic activity with which it has been associated, has brought about a transformation of our employment performance. Whereas between 1980 and 1986 there was a net loss of jobs in the economy of between 70,000 and 80,000, the latest Central Statistics Office estimates show that in the two years to last April, total employment grew by 10,000. These estimates, taking into account variations in numbers on special employment schemes, indicate that, in each of the two most recent 12 month periods for which figures are available, there was a growth in employment of around 5,000. This compares with a projected annual rate of increase in the optimistic scenario presented by the NESC in Strategy for Development, which had the support of all the social partners, of only 3,500. In fact, the number at work in April 1989 was similar to NESC's projection for next year.

The growth in employment over the past two years, moreover, took place against the background of retrenchment in the public sector. Allowing for the necessary reduction in the public sector — a course of action which had wide agreement in this House — the latest Labour Force Survey points to a substantial net increase, of the order of 35,000, in the number of private non-farm jobs in the period since the programme strategy was put in place. This is, by any standards, a remarkable out-turn. It shows, that the policy measures taken, allied with the responsible actions of the parties to the programme, have stimulated job-creation and helped preserve viable jobs. In this regard, the 40 per cent reduction in redundancies in the first three quarters of 1989 is a most encouraging trend. The more recent indicators of employment are uniformly favourable, suggesting further progress on employment since the survey. In the second quarter of this year, the number of manufacturing jobs rose by 1,200 — after allowing for the normal seasonal pick-up — on top of the 6,000 gain in the previous 12 months. Building and construction employment is advancing strongly, as borne out by the 11 per cent increase in the index for September.

The extent of the recovery in autonomous employment over the past few years has been masked by the impact of the measures necessary to restore stable public finances and create an environment for growth, but these difficult decisions are now clearly bearing fruit. As the contraction in the public sector becomes less acute, this dramatic growth in self-sustaining jobs should be increasingly reflected in overall employment performance. Independent assessments bear out the Government's view that, if we stick to the responsible course followed in the past few years and avoid actions which would damage our international competitiveness, we can build substantially on this progress in the period ahead.

Another indication of the improving employment situation is the reduction in the live register of unemployed. That total is now at its lowest level for five years and is now over 32,000 lower than two-and-a-half-years ago. These positive trends demonstrate clearly that the Government policies are working to create more jobs and reduce unemployment. These trends will accelerate and will inevitably reduce the rate of involuntary emigration, particularly when allowance is made for the impact next year of additional resources from the Community's Structural Funds, under the National Development Plan.

Although employment trends and prospects are now the most favourable for decades, there can be no room for complacency and I can assure the House that there is no relaxation of the Government's efforts to expand employment. Towards this end a special Ministerial Committee on Employment was established by the Government earlier this year. The committee comprises the Ministers for Education, Environment, Industry and Commerce and Social Welfare and is chaired by me. Its remit is to consider and bring forward proposals for increasing employment and reducing unemployment.

Deputies will already be aware of the package of employment measures which I announced recently which were based on the committee's recommendations. The committee are actively considering a wide range of possible initiatives with a view to putting further recommendations to the Government.

Despite the most favourable outcome of all these initiatives it is obvious that there will be a sizeable imbalance between labour supply and demand for many years yet. The ESRI, and other agencies, suggest that emigration will continue for the foreseeable future but at a declining rate.

The Government's view is that as long as significant numbers are interested in seeking work abroad they are entitled to receive the best possible information and advice to enable them to make an informed choice and to make a satisfactory and successful transition to the destination of their choice. Indeed, under the EC regulations on free movement of workers we are obliged to provide information and advisory services in line with the Community's policy to promote labour mobility.

I have always held the view that all aspiring emigrants should first be appraised of the employment and training opportunities available to them at home before deciding to emigrate. I believe that FÁS are in the best position, through their national network of offices, to outline the various options open to them. I also believe that the best prospects lie in ensuring that FÁS are equipped to provide a reliable full-time facility with uniform standards of service throughout the country rather than putting resources into voluntary organisations most of whose services are only part-time and the quality of which can vary considerably depending on the level of voluntary effort and the commitment or otherwise of the people involved. My objective is to see that FÁS services to the public are developed to the highest standards, in line with the resources available to them.

In order to remove any doubts about FÁS's role and responsibilities in that respect I issued a set of guidelines to FÁS in June this year setting out clearly their functions and duties in relation to services for persons interested in employment abroad. The guidelines are based on the principles of discouragement of unplanned and unprepared emigration and the need for national policy to be supportive of EC policy to facilitate free movement of workers. Essentially, what is involved is putting in place organised pre-departure advisory services for persons considering job-opportunities in the EC and who are properly prepared for such a move while, at the same time, discouraging those who are ill-prepared, illequipped, immature or who appear to be vulnerable or at risk.

I have instructed FÁS to ensure EC vacancy notices are displayed in FÁS offices and that notices should be displayed advising job-seekers that information supplied under the EC sponsored SEDOC vacancy-exchange system is available on request.

I have also suggested that liaison between FÁS and the employment services in the main destination countries should be developed by means of bilateral contacts and that, in co-operation with other relevant agencies, FÁS should assist Irish nationals abroad wishing to return to work here or to set up business at home. FÁS have recently reviewed their services for intending emigrants and are in the process of developing them further.

It is clear that those for whom emigration poses the greatest danger are the young, unskilled, early school leavers. Here there is a double problem; we must try to dissuade such persons from emigrating and we must try to persuade them to participate in further education and training so as to acquire skills which will enable them to earn a living. For many, their experience of the formal education system has been an unhappy one.

In January last, with my colleague, the Minister for Education, I launched the Youthreach programme. This is an imaginative and major intervention. It provides unqualified early school leavers who fail to find employment with up to two years further education and training. The programmes are innovative and flexible, enabling them to be tailored to suit individual needs. An allowance is paid during the entire period. It is our hope that this action, together with the withdrawal by the British authorities of unemployment assistance from young people, will result in unqualified persons under the age of 18 opting to remain at home instead of risking emigration.

DÍON has been referred to by a number of speakers. A small percentage of Irish people who emigrate do get into difficulties — often, I must say because of lack of proper preparation beforehand. On the advice of DÍON, the British based committee which is chaired by the Labour Attache at the London Embassy and advises me on welfare matters in relation to Irish workers in Britain, I am making available grants totalling £500,000 this year, to non-statutory organisations providing emergency help and advice to Irish people in Britain. This is a 100 per cent increase on the 1988 grant and a 320 per cent on the 1986 figure. The dramatic increase in the DÍON grants has been achieved against the background of a very difficult budgetary situation and represents an earnest of the Government's concern for our less fortunate emigrants. In the near future I hope to be able to announce the final list of grants for this year and to be briefed fully by DÍON on the up-to-date position on the needs of emigrants to Britain and their likely financial needs for 1990.

A number of Deputies asked about continuing to assist DÍON in 1990. Deputies will be aware that the Book of Estimates will be published shortly. I should like to tell them that it is our intention to try to maintain existing services. Members will have met representatives of the DÍON committee on their visits here. They have not yet prepared their programme for 1990 but I discussed this matter with them two weeks ago when I met them in London and toured some of the centres that are in difficulty. They received money from groups here and have considered how they can work with local authorities in various boroughs in London, and elsewhere, to try to raise more money for centres, hostels and so on. Primarily they are anxious that we should fund their full-time social workers, welfare workers and those who are working on the streets in a number of areas in London. We are anxious to continue to work with them.

Through FÁS we have done some physical work on the centres such as that in Camden Town. There are two areas about which we must be careful. In the debate tonight we are dealing with the young Irish people who emigrate but we must also consider the need of older Irish people to use the facilities that the centres have on offer. DÍON, and the Government, are anxious to continue to help those people. We want to revitalise the centres. The vast majority of the £500,000 allocated this year to DÍON will go directly to welfare workers, social workers and those who work on the streets. In their programme for 1990, which I will discuss with them some time in early December, we will attempt to gain for them any assistance they require. Also this year they are involved in a fairly large research project. So many reports are available now that often contradict one another that DÍON are anxious to try to get a definitive programme to see exactly where the problems lie and how best they can match the funds they get themselves, from voluntary subscriptions and from the Irish Government, with money in local authorities.

There are a number of excellent housing projects, some of which Deputy Deenihan mentioned. CARA was one which has been very successful in using some of the money from Irish organisations and matching that to get considerable funds from the local authorities. I think it is true to say DÍON do not want the Irish Government to become involved directly in supplying hostel accommodation, though certainly they want the staff, the welfare workers and so on. I assure Deputies who have raised this in a constructive fashion tonight that we will continue to be as supportive of DÍON as we possibly can.

In conclusion, and in response to the motion before us, I want to say that no Government have achieved so major a transformation of the economy in such a short period of time as this Government and the last Government.

Mr. Carey

God help us.

Mr. B. Ahern

We are now well poised to take advantage of the solid economic foundation which has been laid.

I look forward to further expansion of the economy with a resultant increase in the level of employment available. This, I hope, will reduce substantially the problem of involuntary emigration.

In general, I consider that the level of funding for DÍON grants is adequate. I will, of course, in consultation with DÍON, be keeping the matter under close review to see whether any adjustments are needed for the next year.

Mr. Connor

On a point of information——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is no point of information, Deputy. Please resume your seat. I am calling the Minister of State——

Mr. Connor

He commented on emigration.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is no point of information on a Private Members' motion. The Deputy should know that.

Mr. B. Ahern

At the start of my address I made it clear that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will direct his contribution to the US and I will not be covering that. The Deputy missed that obviously.

Mr. Connor

But the Minister might let us know the amount of money.

Mr. B. Ahern

He will be speaking tomorrow night. I hope the Deputy will attend again tomorrow night. He was very good tonight to attend.

Mr. Carey

That is very generous of the Minister. He got away soft. He will not get away that soft.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think Deputy Carey realises he will have to retain whatever threat he has in mind for outside the House.

Mr. Carey

That could be.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Carey knows the position in which he could find himself. Deputy Frank Fahey, with nine minutes of uninterrupted time.

Minister of State at the Department of Education (Mr. F. Fahey)

If Deputy Carey has come in this evening to play the traditional role of the Clare corner back, there is still a bit of fight left in some of the forwards around here. I have never been ungenerous in regard to this topic. I have always been absolutely truthful about it and I remain so at this time. Changing from that side of the House to this side of the House has not changed my views about emigration, that it remains probably the greatest tragedy in this country now and in the last five years since 1984 since we began to have such a huge drain, particularly of involuntary emigration. I feel the same disgust about the fact that so many young people have to leave this country in an involuntary way at present as they have during that five year period. I offer no excuse whatsoever for the fact that that remains the position.

I want to outline some further initiatives that have been taken by this Government in an effort to stem emigration and prepare people as well as possible for that situation. Before I come to that I want to make a very important distinction between involuntary emigration and the increasing emigration which is taking place on a voluntary basis where people are deciding to leave their employment and go elsewhere to improve their career prospects. Everybody would agree that there is an increasing level of such emigration which is nowhere as serious as the involuntary emigration where people are having to leave simply because they have no option — the employment opportunities are not and have not been available.

While the initiatives outlined by the Minister are tackling the problem of unemployment, I agree with Deputy Barrett that all of us as politicians must redouble our efforts to ensure that absolutely no effort is spared to create a climate conducive to investment to create more employment. Even in this House it is correct to say that we must look at the structures with which we operate. We as politicians in general and as an Oireachtas must look at our performance in relation to the creation of a climate for investment and of jobs. We still have to put aside quite a number of the habits and prejudices of a lifetime before we will be put in a position to tackle the problems facing us. Looking around right now I take two examples of areas where, despite our best efforts to create employment prospects, we are militating against ourselves seriously.

The whole planning appeals process today is putting a 12 month delay on a whole range of major industrial projects which are trying to get off the ground in order to create employment. While I am the first person to agree that we must be very careful about planning, the need to protect the environment and so on, I feel it is crazy that in our planning process when you go through the local authority a major industrial project involving major investment and major creation of jobs can be held up for 12 months. In fact, an industrialist said to me the other day, "Now when you are planning a project you must plan for an extra 12 months because of the inevitable appeal to An Bord Pleanála". That is sheer lunacy. As a Government and as politicians we must face up to the fact that we must clear those bottlenecks if we are to be a realistic about the need to create employment.

In my area in the last couple of weeks I have come across yet another absolutely ridiculous situation. It concerns sport holidays as part of the promotion and development of our tourist product. In this the fastest growing area of tourism development in Europe and the US, namely, the provision of activity holidays in areas such as walking, cycling, equestrian sports and adventure sports, our legislation provides that it is almost impossible for people involved in that development to get insurance to cover those areas. I appreciate that Deputy Barrett when he was in my position initiated some moves in this direction, but only in the last few weeks have we begun to put together legislation to deal with this problem of insurance where it relates to people who want to come into Ireland to participate in sporting activity holidays. It is one of the key areas in regard to the development of our tourist industry where we can create thousands of jobs, yet right this day we are not in a position to respond to major development proposals because our laws in regard to insurance are completely outdated and archaic. Unless we get to grips with fundamental issues such as those we cannot talk realistically about solving the problem of unemployment.

The difficulties with regard to emigration can be solved only by a continuation of the policy now being pursued to create employment and the environment conducive to investment.

Deputy Connor mentioned the US. As the Minister for Finance has said, the question of emigration to the US will be dealt with by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Suffice it for me to say that major progress has been made, as the Fine Gael deputation to the US found recently.

Mr. Connor

On a point of order, we did not find any such thing.

Mr. F. Fahey

Progress was made particularly by the Tánaiste during his tenure as Minister for Foreign Affairs but also by our Department of Foreign Affairs and by our Ambassadors and diplomats to the US. The Fine Gael deputation, if they are honest, will admit that some of them went to the US with a view that the attainment of an amnesty for all young persons was possible. That is a point that was put to me vehemently by Deputy Connor when he was in the Seanad.

Mr. Connor

What about the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the US?

Mr. F. Fahey

The reality is that there is no possibility of the attainment of such anmesty. However, progress has been made and I look forward to a continuation of that position at the hands of our Minister for Foreign Affairs.

With the Department of Labour, we in the Department of Education are involved in trying to prepare in the best way possible those young people who, unfortunately are left with no option but to emigrate. In that respect we spent £500,000 in 1988 in the provision of information centres on emigration throughout the country. The Department seek to ensure that the youth information centres assist in the preparation of those contemplating emigration by way of presenting accurate information on the reality of emigration, on clarifying the fundamental issues, drawing attention to the alternatives available, challenging the common myths and misconceptions in the matter and, basically, stimulating full consideration of all the implications on the part of prospective emigrants.

A range of responses has been developed by our Department including the compilation of information files covering the main areas of destination, the publication of emigration guides and leaflets, the organisation of talks and workshops in schools and at other venues on emigration and the making of videos, tapes and slides on the full range of information. All of this is in the interest of preparing for emigration as best we can those young people who must leave.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister must conclude now.

Mr. Carey

He has gone on for three minutes longer than the time allotted to him.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not so. I am surprised at Deputy Carey not realising that earlier the Minister for Labour agreed to allow Deputy Seán Barrett continue for an extra two minutes. We have been making that time up so perhaps the Deputy could make his complaint to Deputy Barrett.

Mr. M. Higgins

I intend sharing my time with Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan in the ratio of about 20 minutes to ten minutes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. M. Higgins

At the outset I welcome this discussion on emigration, this outbreak of concern that has been manifested by so many here this evening. In the short time available to me I should like to state a number of facts on the issue of emigration and on the text of this motion. On and off for the past 20 years I have been teaching one of the few courses at third level on sociology in this country. There is an interesting similarity between what I have heard and what is contained in the literature.

The current approach to emigration in terms of statistics and the response to the issue is characteristically dishonest. There is no attempt to link the emigration figures to the unemployment figures. Neither, for example, has there been any revelation this evening in either of the two Government speeches we have heard of the work that has been done in the ESRI on the new method of calculating migration, an aspect that has been commented on in the professional literature on this subject. The figure of 46,000 for this year, for example, is a low figure just as the figure of 32,000 for last year was an underestimate. I want to make my first important point in this regard by saying that even if I accept these low figures, the rate of increase between 1988 and 1989, from 32,000 to 46,000, will, if it continues, give us in 1990 the largest number of people ever to leave the country since the foundation of the State. The previous high figure is for the year 1955. I mention this for the benefit of those who wish to refer back to such figures, people who have more time than I have these days for such work.

My next point relates to the neglect of emigration in terms of the country generally and of this House. As all earlier speakers have said, there has not been sufficient interest in the problem. The only occasion on which this House established a commission to examine the causes of emigration was after the 1948 election. The Government had changed and there was a number of issues in that election, including the release of Republican prisoners and so on. Among the demands made to the then new Government, following the burning alive of a number of people in bothies in Scotland, was that a commission would be set up to investigate the circumstances and causes of migration. For the first time that commission put into the literature on emigration the famous push-all thesis, that people were pushed out by reason of lack of opportunity and attracted on the other side by opportunities there.

On 23 May 1988 I received a letter from the Ceann Comhairle telling me that a question I had tabled to the Taoiseach for oral answer on 25 May was being transferred to the Minister for Foreign Affairs who was due to answer on 21 June, 1988. On that date I asked the Minister if he would consider setting up a commission, by way of a generous all-party offer, to look at emigration in all its aspects. The reply was that such a commission was unnecessary. What we got was the kind of mantra we had this evening. I need only give two lines from the paragraph concerned because it is repeated so often it sets off an automatic resonance in anything that can be listened to in any part of the world. It is all so totally predictable. I quote, "Because of the resolute action taken by the Government, order has been restored to the public finances." At that stage you close your eyes, visualise a little candle and go on repeating the next two pages of the Minister's speech.

My second point is the refusal to set up a commission on emigration. Meanwhile, the Minister for the Environment, in reply to another question from me as to whether he proposed to consider the granting of voting rights to emigrants offered what was a major insult to our emigrants by saying that historically in Ireland there had been abuse of the postal vote. In other words, our emigrants could not be trusted. I had pointed out to the Minister that we were now one of two countries in the EC which did not provide for such rights, that France, for example, had four methods of voting, voting by post, by proxy, in embassies and so on. In that grand European gesture of his reply, the Minister dismissed the right of emigrants to vote.

I attended a conference in London on emigration organised by TIDE and by the action Group for Irish Youth and I also attended a conference here in Dublin just over a year ago in this regard. In September this year I visited the Irish in San Francisco and on the west coast of the US generally. The growth of emigration in that latter area is interesting. For instance, instead of having just two Irish pubs in Geary Street, there are six while, instead of there being one GAA team, there are eight. Figures for non-status emigrants to the west coast of the US are grossly underestimated.

One of the sources of dishonesty in regard to emigration has been the question of the language used — non-status, etc. How can one tell the difference between immigrants who are non-status, who are illegal, who are out of status, out of quota and so on? This has a parallel in regard to European emigration because part of the dishonesty of those who went around spouting rhetoric regarding the effects of the integrated market, without examining or specifying what they meant by cohesion, was to say that we do not have emigration at all. I suspect that emigration will end, not by reason of people not being forced to leave their country but because such movement will be called European labour mobility. It is as if we did not know it but that we are really Europeans after all. It is like some principle of magnetism — people will be drawn to Germany. I heard a person on the radio suggesting that Irish emigrants could become an élite class in Germany. This casuistry is very interesting. In a speech delivered by Mr. Peter Sutherland, then member of the European Commission responsible for competition policy, social affairs and education on the occasion of the annual Congress of the Irish Episcopal Commission for Emigrants, dated 11 April 1985 he had a number of things to say. In his speech he made the following comment:

I hope I shall not be misunderstood if I say that we should think a good deal about those doors (he was referring to the doors of the Community) and how we can exploit the openings they give. We have become so accustomed by miserable historic experience to regarding emigration as a curse to be avoided if at all possible that we are in danger of closing our eyes to the qualitatively different versions of emigration which are now beginning to beckon from mainland Europe.

There were 2,000 Irish people working temporarily in Germany and Holland and there were another 500 in different parts of the Community. Non-Community migrants living in appalling conditions totally outnumbered other migrants. Interestingly, in another document produced by the Commission at that time it showed that Ireland proportionately had more people living in Britain than had any other country in the EC living anywhere else. The nearest was the Portuguese people living in France.

My next point is the dishonest suggestion that there is a qualitatively new kind of migrant. My own estimates are that migration to Britain is three times the volume of the migration to the United States. I do not think people should rely only on my estimate. Published, not by the Irish Government, this week were not one but two reports on living in London. One was entitled "A Guide to London" for young Irish people produced by the Action Group for Irish Youth. Interestingly, another guide was published earlier in the week entitled "Irish in Britain Directory", a comprehensive guide. This book was produced by the Brent Irish Advisory Service. I will content myself at this stage by saying that Ken Livingston and the Greater London Council, while it was there, did more for the Irish in Britain than any Irish Government, Minister or agency. That is a fact.

There is the suggestion that there are voluntary and involuntary migrants but if you want to use that argument it behoves you, if you are honest, to put a figure on the number of involuntary migrants. I have been in the business of researching this matter for the past 20 years but I do not know of any means of calculating that and I should like to know where it is established. People say there are involuntary migrants who are highly qualified but I should like to know what proportion of such people are leaving the country every year.

Another point follows logically from that and it is in relation to one I have made already. I believe the Irish migration to Britain is three times the volume of that to the United States, at the very least. Where surveys have been carried out they have shown that Irish migration to the London area in particular has been primarily over 60 per cent by people who are unemployed. While people shed a bucket of tears this evening, I should like to make the following point: the majority of people going to London are going to a place where a certain amount of anti-Irish feeling has been regenerated. By 1985 perhaps 400,000 people had been stopped under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which Act has been trawling for Irish people in Britain. Approximately 6,500 of them have been detained. In Mrs. Thatcher's Britain which abolished the agency that did most for Irish emigrants in Britain, the Greater London Council under the leadership of Ken Livingston — and I pay tribute to him in this House — the London those people are going to is a place where there are 400,000 unemployed. It is one where 250,000 households are on the waiting lists, where 6,000 families live in bed and breakfast accommodation because suitable accommodation is not available. It is stated that of those who were homeless in 1986 as a result of the new atmosphere in Britain some 15 per cent said they were Irish.

When we get the lecture about the new migrant who has emerged, about exercising his or her choice, when we are told that really we are all Europeans, and would it not be nice to be part of the German ruling class and all the rest of it, I ask people to look at the figures. I ask them to be honest and realise what we are doing when we are sending people to London.

I want to comment on what we are doing with this word "emigration". In ancient Greece, and indeed in most civilisations, many philosophers when their backs were to the wall exercised a choice between death and exile and they chose death rather than exile. We have consistently exiled our people. Between 1841 and 1961 two out of three people born in Ireland were living abroad. This is the last chance we have. After the emigration of the 1950s there was an internal migration during the sixties where the rural areas lost to the cities and that is why by 1971 Ireland was an urban rather than a rural country. Interestingly, after that period some families came back but now because the marriage age and the size of household has fallen there will never again be such a bulge in the population. People in their millions were sent out of Ireland in the 19th century; for six pence people travelled from Mayo and Donegal to pick potatoes in Scotland. During the 1950s people left at the rate of 55,000 per year and here we go again. This is the last chance we will have to do anything in relation to keeping our population at home. I agree with speakers from all sides who said we will have an ageing population after 1992. What happens is that we lose the younger people and the people who remain have smaller families. Let us compare the figures given here this evening; 5,000 net jobs to come and an estimated emigration figure of 46,000.

Service for our emigrants should be provided in the United States, in London, Camden and elsewhere but what is required most from this House is recognition of the fact of what emigration is and what it means. I turn to those who have expressed concern and I make a plea to them. It is part of the schizoid activity of this House to suggest that emigration has nothing to do with the economic policies we are following. When we listen to the speeches following the budget it will be clear. Tonight we have had the first lines of the mantra: I can recite it by heart, "at last when the public finances are coming under control". As I said, you shut your eyes, meditate deeply and the rest follows. What is this business of creating an atmosphere for investment that will lead to growth and jobs?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

An mbeidh tú sásta——

Mr. M. Higgins

Perhaps the Chair would let me finish my sentence. I will finish on an interrogative, to resume tomorrow evening. What happened to the favourable environment, the lowest inflation rate, the best interest rates, the most assistance to the private sector and practically everything else, and why were they not able to indent on emigration? I will say a little more about that tomorrow evening.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy finished on the affirmative, not the interrogative.

Debate adjourned.