I welcome Deputy John Bruton. We remember, with warmth, his encouraging and exhilarating address to the House a few months ago on his role in the Praesidium of the Convention on the Future of Europe. I thank him for making a formal submission. We look forward to hearing his presentation. Subsequent questions will be put mainly by Senators Dardis and Ryan. I invite Deputy Bruton to make his presentation.
Presentation by Deputy John Bruton.
Irish emigrants have had a vote in Seanad elections since 1922, but only some have enjoyed that privilege. An Irish emigrant who has a degree from either Trinity College or the National University of Ireland has had the privilege of a vote for three Senators from each of those institutions since 1922. However, Irish emigrants who did and do not have the advantage of graduating from one of these colleges do not have a vote in the Seanad. That is an anomaly. If there was some genuine objection in principle to allowing people not resident in the country to have a vote in Seanad elections, we should never have allowed graduates from these universities to have an emigrant vote. Since we have allowed them to have such a vote, there can be no objection, on principle, to giving all Irish emigrants, whether they went to college, the right to have a say in the election of some Senators.
It is disappointing that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in his submission to a Seanad sub-committee on reform of the Upper House, has opposed the election of some Senators by Irish citizens living abroad. The rainbow Government published a consultation document in 1996, proposing that Irish citizens living abroad for up to 20 years should be entitled to elect three Members of the Seanad. I had in mind, at the time, three one-member constituencies covering different regions of the world.
It is entirely understandable that many would not want emigrants who do not pay taxes here to have a vote in Dáil elections because the Dáil is the tax-raising House of the Oireachtas. The Seanad, on the other hand, does not have the power to raise taxes and can merely make recommendations on Finance Bills. Therefore, if there is to be emigrant representation in the Oireachtas, the Seanad is the right place to have it.
There were even more practical considerations for choosing representation in the Seanad as the place for emigrant representation. One of the issues that had to be faced was the practicality of issuing ballot papers and collecting them from among emigrants. Under the Constitution, a Dáil election has to be over within a maximum of four weeks and one could not defer the meeting of the Dáil as one awaited the return of the Dáil ballot boxes from Terre del Fuego or wherever. In contrast, the Seanad campaign is a long drawn out affair and, accordingly, allows sufficient time for the collection of ballot papers.
The Minister's suggestion that representation for emigrants should be by means of someone chosen by the Government for their special awareness of emigrant issues is undemocratic and elitist. It implies that the Minister for Foreign Affairs believes emigrants do not have the capacity to decide for themselves who has awareness of their problems and that the decision should be made for them by a Government composed of people of whom none is actually an emigrant at the time. If the Minister's principle that the Government should select people because of their awareness of the issues affecting emigrants is to be accepted, why should the Government not also select people on the basis of their awareness of issues affecting university graduates, rather than putting graduates to the trouble of electing their own representatives? The Government might even be able to select people because of their awareness of local government issues, rather than putting councillors to the bother of electing Senators. No, I believe emigrants themselves should be allowed to vote.
An election campaign for Seanad emigrant seats would provide for the active democratic involvement of emigrants in a process of election. This involvement in itself and the campaign and debate it would create, would bring Irish emigrants in touch with one another and reduce the sense of isolation that many of them feel. Loneliness, particularly among elderly Irish emigrants, is a huge problem. A Seanad election campaign would, in a small way, reduce the sense of isolation that many emigrants feel. I believe it is a matter of some urgency and an issue of justice to allow emigrants to have a vote here. We should remember that many families in this State were able to put bread on the table in the 1940s and 1950s because money was sent home to them by brothers, sisters, sons and daughters who had emigrated to Britain or the United States. In crude economic terms, Ireland would have had a much more severe problem with its balance of payments, particularly in the 1950s, were it not for emigrants' remittances. Many Irish emigrants sent so much money home that they could not afford to invest in a house in England. Many Irish people in their declining years are living on rent assistance in rented flats or bedsits in cities such as Birmingham or Coventry, isolated from their native culture. Ireland does not have the significant problem of a looming pensions liability, faced by other European countries, because many of those to whom we would now be making pension payments are living abroad. Their pensions are paid for by the taxpayers of Britain or the United States.
The emigrants of the 1940s and 1950s are part of a lost generation and the present generation is responsible for rediscovering them. The involvement of Senators who are directly elected by emigrants would greatly enhance the quality of debate in the Seanad. The expertise of those with practical experience of separation from their native land would be brought to the floor of the House and the welfare of emigrants, particularly elderly emigrants, would be placed firmly on the national political agenda.
Problems may arise as a consequence of the cost of travel of emigrant Senators from overseas, but air travel costs have fallen in recent years. The cost of the attendance of emigrant Senators at Leinster House would be a fraction of the huge cost of the annual exodus of Ministers of all Governments during St. Patrick's week. The willingness of Ministers to use the Irish diaspora as an excuse for tax-financed travel each March is in stark contrast to the willingness of the current Minister to be open about the possibility of giving the diaspora a vote in Seanad elections.
I propose that three Seanad seats should be allocated to emigrants. The Senators in question should be elected by proportional representation in three one-seat constituencies. The global constituencies would have to be revised from time to time to take account of the number of eligible voters in each of the different regions of the world. I envisage that one constituency would cover Britain, another would cover the Americas and another would cover continental Europe and the rest of the world. Emigrants would need to have had a vote in this country at some stage of their lives in order to qualify to vote. In other words, someone who emigrated as a child would not qualify. We should consider whether an emigrant who qualifies to vote in this way should retain that entitlement for his or her entire lifetime, or whether it should be retained for a limited period. I believe the entitlement should be retained for an entire lifetime, but there is an argument for a shorter period.
Those who argue that emigrants may be unfamiliar with domestic Irish politics and may vote for parties or candidates presenting simplistic viewpoints could have a point. This might well happen initially, but I think the experience of voting, over time, would prove to emigrants that a simplistic programme would achieve very little here. Emigrants would not, therefore, waste their votes on extremists.
A decision to give a vote to emigrants in Seanad elections would be seen as a very imaginative one. I commend the proposal to the committee and, ultimately, to the House.
Just as everybody is against sin, in principle, I have no objection to much of what was said by Deputy John Bruton. I am somewhat concerned by the practicalities of it, however. There is a concern that emigrants may elect people with peculiar views, but if one examines the Senators elected by the two university constituencies over the last 50 years one may draw some peculiar conclusions about the sort of people elected by those who are allegedly the best-educated people in the country.
I intended to ask about the 20-year provision, but I take it that Deputy Bruton has changed his mind in that regard. He stated in his original submission that emigrants should be allowed to vote for 20 years after they leave Ireland. I assume he now believes they should have the vote for life. Does he envisage that they will vote by means of a postal ballot or that they will vote in Irish Embassies? The logistics are a minor concern, as they can be sorted out if we decide to proceed with this proposal.
I have no problem with the principle of emigrant voting, but why should it be confined to Seanad elections? Many countries allow emigrants to elect representatives to the principal chamber. It may not be entirely apposite, but I have the feeling that every time there is a problem in society, somebody suggests that it should be addressed on the primary school curriculum. Similarly, it seems that every time the representation of different, broadly defined, social groups is mentioned, the suggested solution is to find a space for them in the Seanad. One has to examine clearly why the Seanad is the appropriate place for the elected representatives of Irish citizens who live outside Ireland. Why does Deputy Bruton suggest that they be represented in the Seanad but not in the Dáil? I have also asked about the logistics of the matter.
Deputy Bruton is more aware than most that most of the work of the Houses of the Oireachtas is extremely important, but also as boring as dishwater. What sort of dynamism could we give to the Seanad to help the elected representatives of emigrants to feel it is worthwhile to travel up to 5,000 miles every few weeks in order to participate?
I will take Senator Ryan's points in reverse order. Emigrant Senators would not just bring to the Seanad their knowledge of the emigrant constituency they represent. It is likely that they would also be interested in public affairs in the country in which they reside. They would bring to the floor of the House information about how the particular legislative problem being tackled by the Seanad is dealt with in Canada, for example. When the emigrant representatives are preparing for the contributions they will make to Seanad debates, they will be in a position to research what was done in their adopted countries, or in other countries in that region with which they are familiar. No current Member of the Seanad can do this in quite the same way. This is a clear segment of added value. The expertise of these representatives is something that cannot be bought, other than by paying consultants from the countries in question to come here, which would be much more expensive than paying three Senators.
I take Senator Ryan's point that the solution to every problem of representation seems to be to provide extra representation in the Seanad. If this approach is a problem, the Seanad can be extended beyond 60 members. I do not see any reason this cannot be done. If one is to change the Constitution, which will be necessary to effect the changes that have been proposed, while retaining the current number of Taoiseach's nominees and local government representatives, there is no reason the membership of the Seanad cannot be increased to 80. We should not be fixated on these things. If one compares the number of Members of the Oireachtas with the numbers of civil servants in virtually every other category of the public service, one will find that these Houses have been restrained to a much greater extent than any other part of the public service. Why should we be fixed on 60?
The Senator also asked why emigrants should be represented in the Seanad and not in the Dáil. I firmly believe in the principle of no taxation without representation, but also - in the case of the Dáil - in no representation in the tax-raising House without eligibility to taxation. Every person who votes in a Dáil election is a taxpayer. They may not be paying income tax, but they are paying some form of tax. We are aware that value added tax is paid by children. It is right that everybody who votes in a Dáil election is a taxpayer, as the Dáil is the tax-raising House. The Seanad is not the tax-raising House, so it is the place to accommodate other forms of representation.
The Senator's first question related to the logistics of the ballot. I believe that the election of emigrant Senators should be by means of a postal ballot, as there is no need for people to go to embassies to vote in a Seanad election. One would have to require voters to go to Embassies for a Dáil election. That is another argument for not having it for a Dáil election which has to be over within four weeks. That would disenfranchise large numbers of people. It would mean that if a person from British Columbia wished to vote in a Dáil election, he or she would have to go all the way to Ottawa whereas for a Seanad election he or she could be given a postal ballot. The post from British Columbia gets here just as fast as that from Ottawa.
I thank Deputy Bruton for his presence here and recognise the depth of his experience in political and administrative matters as a former Taoiseach. I have always held the view that there should be representation for emigrants. I share Senator Ryan's view that it is appropriate to have people voting in Dáil elections and this could be done by registration to people's home constituency. There are international precedents for that. One of the most memorable elections I recall was the South African election in which there appeared to be a considerable degree of participation by expatriates. There is the issue of registration and how one would deal with it, who would vote and how they would register to vote. The other central issue is that emigrants have a right to elect people to the Seanad and university graduates have a right to elect people to the Seanad but what about the rest of the electorate who appear to be excluded? What about the ordinary Irish citizen resident here? In other words, they do not have a direct vote to the Seanad. The university graduate has a direct vote, the emigrant has a direct vote but the ordinary citizen resident in the State does not. How does one get over that issue? Bringing your experience as Taoiseach to bear, could it be dealt with by three of the 11 people coming from the Taoiseach's nominees?
I do not disagree with what Deputy Bruton said about the historical contribution and that the country was sustained at one point by remittances from emigrants but, to a degree, we are being overtaken by events. The current level of emigration is low. We now have net immigration. Are we proposing something that is appropriate to ten years ago which may not be appropriate now?
Obviously, those who would get the vote are people who are still alive. There is a significant number of people who would benefit. If we take the Irish emigrant population in, say, Coventry, the average age there is probably about 65. There are very few Irish-born people under 40 years of age residing there. However, there is a significant number of Irish people in Coventry over 40 years of age who would benefit. They may get the chance to vote only once before they pass on to the next world but they would deeply appreciate being remembered enough to be given the vote. It is not practical to give them a vote in the Dáil elections for the reasons I have outlined, leaving aside the arguments of principle about representation, taxation and so on, to which I hold, but to which others may not. It would not be practical to give them a vote in the Dáil election as such elections must be over within a four week period. There cannot be a hiatus in the administration of the country. It would be practical, however, to allow them a vote in Seanad elections.
The idea that emigrants could have a vote in a Dáil election in their home constituency could mean that in some constituencies in the west, such as Sligo-Leitrim, more emigrants would be eligible to vote than residents. That would not be good. The people of Leitrim who live in Leitrim and pay taxes there would be unhappy that Leitrim's representation in the Dáil could be decided by people who, admittedly, shouted for the Leitrim team in the first round of the Connacht Championship but that is all.
I would also make a constitutional point. The constituencies are decided not on the basis of the number of electors but on the number of residents. If the concept of emigrant representation were to be introduced, would that mean the constituencies would have to be redrawn on the basis of the number of natives of Leitrim who lived abroad as well as those who live in Leitrim? If they are given the vote, how could they be excluded from the calculation? There is an interminable number of problems with emigrant representation in the Dáil in the context of the Constitution. Virtually all those problems would be solved by allowing participation in Seanad elections and by enlarging the Seanad, if necessary.
What about university graduates having a vote as emigrants but not having a vote as citizens?
I would question university representation in the Seanad. I do not believe in it and it is not justifiable. It was justifiable in the early part of the last century as a means of ensuring in a home rule setting that the ex-Unionists would have some representation in the South in the home rule Parliament. That is why it was suggested in the original models for home rule which were then taken over. Virtually the entire body of home rule work was taken up in 1922 by the new Government which did not give any acknowledgement of authorship to those who had done the work. This is one of my obsessions to which I will continue to refer at every opportunity. That is another lost generation. I say that in the presence of two very distinguished Senators who would be elected on any platform in any constituency. If we are to have it, that is fine. It is a small anomaly. The ordinary citizens of Ireland are represented in the Dáil and in the other House of the Oireachtas, namely the President. Therefore, they have two out of three.
What about the registration aspect? Would registration be required through the Embassy or elsewhere?
I think so. One would have to register. One would have to produce evidence that one had a vote in Ireland at some stage. The electoral register for the time would have to show that one had a vote, not that one exercised it, but that one was on the register before emigrating. I think that would be a requirement.
Many would have emigrated long before they reached voting age. This would apply in the main to our elderly emigrants.
That is true. The Chairman has a point.
Would the person for whom emigrants would wish to vote in the Seanad elections also have to be an emigrant or could a charismatic person be chosen who emigrants felt would represent and act as a conduit for their views?
They should be free to choose anyone they wish. If they felt they would be better represented by somebody who is resident in Ireland they should be free to vote for such a person. Alternatively, they might choose to vote for somebody who was resident among them.
I can think of at least one colourful former Member of the Seanad who would possibly see himself making a return to the House if he had the opportunity to participate in that sort of election. I hope that as a result of all our work, some form of elected representation for emigrants will be added to the Irish political process. One of the terrible aspects of all we did wrong in the past - I am not casting aspersions - is that unless forced to do otherwise, we will just turn our backs and not see them. This is a major issue for a huge number of people. It would be wonderfully symbolic for people to be asked to vote to elect somebody to a House of the Oireachtas. However, I think it is wrong to limit this to people who had a vote here. They could still participate if they identified themselves. I am not too worried about the register as this is for only three Members of the Seanad. The number of people involved is large. The capacity to manipulate the register will not be that great. I would be happy to have those who wish to vote self-select if they provide some proof of the fact that they are Irish. After that if they wish to vote, we should allow them to do so. Otherwise, the resources that would have to be devoted to checking that each person was on a register at some stage would be enormous. If I were to do this, I would do it in as simple a fashion as possible to show people they had not been forgotten.
I am struck by the Chairman's point that many emigrants would not have been here long enough to have had a vote. Many of the emigrants were 14, 15, 16 and 17 years of age and would not have been eligible to vote, particularly when the franchise was only extended to those who were 21 or over. It does not make much sense for somebody who was two years of age when their parents left this country to have a vote for the rest of their lives. I do not know where one draws the line between two and 14 or how the system could be administered. There are some arguments to be made and Senator Ryan is right in that even if we err a little too far on one side of the line in terms of generosity, it is not the end of the world.
I agree with the points Deputy Bruton made about the Dáil and Seanad. Deputy Bruton and myself were the first two Members of either House to try to put our constituencies on a technology footing back in the late 1980s, against many odds at the time. Can we deal simply with the voting aspect? I have sat in Ottawa with my laptop and mobile phone and moved money from my account in Dublin to pay my bills. I can do that through a very simple system of securitisation. Today, with electronic signatures, it is simple for people to vote securely electronically. Would Deputy Bruton accept that emigrants' votes might be controlled in a much more secure fashion though the option of electronic voting rather than having to go through all the difficulty involved in getting in the votes if it is an either-or situation? It can deal with all the difficulties.
Personally, I believe voting is an emotional and symbolic exercise for emigrants as much as it is a functional one. The emotional and symbolic content of marking a ballot paper is important and it would be valuable. I would be reluctant, therefore, to see it being done electronically because to my old-fashioned mind it seems a little impersonal. The vote is gone before it is cast, so to speak, whereas the actual process of looking at the paper and marking it would mean something to the emigrants whose only experience, if they had voted here, would have been of voting in the old way. In this case I would not be a "techno-freak", so to speak. The count, the opening of the ballot box and waiting for the ballot papers coming from Labrador and elsewhere would all be part of the drama of the exercise. This is about giving people a sense of a dramatic new involvement of emigrants and the more ceremony there is to it, the better. We should not disdain ritual. The ritual of marking a ballot paper has a validity.
When Deputy Bruton was Taoiseach, did he consider the possibility of extending votes to emigrants for the election of a President on the basis that the presidency, as an institution, reflects the notion of nationhood in a much broader way than, for instance, the Dáil and the Seanad? The Dáil and the Seanad make the rules for the people who live in the State. Those who live in this State are affected by them on a daily basis but the Irish presidency is a much broader concept, articulated recently by former President Robinson and President McAleese in their work in trying to connect with the Irish diaspora. Would it not be an emotional and symbolic gesture, to use Deputy Bruton's own words, and more appropriate if our emigrants could vote in a presidential election because of the concept of nationhood which, even in constitutional law, is different from that expressed in both Houses of the Oireachtas?
I would have to take some time to think about the reason I would instinctively say "No" to that. The function of the President is as one of the Houses of the Oireachtas. A very much underestimated role of a President is acting as an adviser to the Taoiseach of the day. The President is somebody with whom the Taoiseach of the day can have a very personal relationship and it is an important one which I know former taoisigh, as well as myself, have valued. It is important, therefore, that the President should represent the citizens of the State resident in the State rather than a group or a population that could be twice or three times the size of the population resident in the State. The case would be adequately met by representation in the Seanad and, after all, three representatives in the Seanad would be better able to look after emigrants than one President who had many other functions to fulfil. Emigrants require a certain amount of care, particularly elderly emigrants. I would make a strong plea to the Seanad to think of old people living alone who have lost contact with their relatives in Ireland who have no interest in them. They think daily of nothing but Ireland. They listen to the radio late at night when they can get RTE and that is their only contact. The Seanad should think of them and the thrill they would get from being asked to vote for somebody who wanted to represent them in Dublin. That would be tremendous for them and it would be quite important.
Thank you very much, Deputy Bruton. We have greatly enjoyed your contribution and I am sure our final thoughts will reflect what you have said.
Sitting suspended at 12.55 p.m. and resumed at 1.45 p.m.