I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." I would like to share some of my time with Deputy Kavanagh.
Private Members' Business. - Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1991: Second Stage.
Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
In introducing this Bill for Second Reading on behalf of the Labour Party, I have very mixed feelings. While I sincerely hold the belief that Irish citizens living abroad have the undeniable right to vote in their native country, there is also the disgrace that so many thousands of our people have been forced to go abroad to seek a living. For nearly 150 years the accepted practice has been that emigration is inevitable and a complacency has been allowed to set in where in modern Ireland the free movement of labour has now become the trendy phrase for forcing people to seek a living abroad.
The horrific figures which have recently been disclosed regarding emigration from this country do not spell out the heart-break, hopelessness, frustration and anger which so many of our people feel and endure. The statistics hide the human problem which successive Governments have failed to remedy, a human problem which successive Governments never had the will to tackle. The safety value of emigration has been and is being used by past and present Governments as a means of containing our critical unemployment problem. It is the classic case of "out of sight, out of mind".
In recent years we have seen on our television screens trainloads of refugees leaving Eastern Europe because they have been denied their democratic rights. For many years we have witnessed the exodus of thousands of our people by plane and boat because they have been denied their moral rights, that is, the right to live, work, rear their children and grow old in their native land. We must never forget this problem did not start this year or last year but has existed for nearly 150 years. Forced emigration was a tactic used by a ruthless and uncaring British colonial administration which used emigration both as a means of weakening the Irish nation and building up their colonial empire. It was a choice given to a proud people — starve or emigrate. It is to the eternal shame of our native Governments that, for nearly 70 years, they have continued the same tendency to do nothing to address this shameful haemorrhage of our people.
From my native port of Cork, thousands of people, men, women and children, were battened down into the holds of filthy ships with their only hope the promise of a new life in a new land, but often destined only to be consigned to the cruel depths of the North Atlantic having died of consumption, pestilence and malnutrition. These coffin ships were the only escape route to America and very often emigrants spent their life savings on the fare and borrowed from their neighbours to pay for their passage to America. In many cases their only belongings were a pitiful bundle of clothes, with just enough food to last the journey. All they had to offer a new employer was their strength and willingness to work.
These savage acts were carried out by a brutal alien government, and what is incomprehensible is that emigration with all its tragic side affects has been allowed to continue by subsequent Irish Governments with no real effort being made to find a real solution or to utilise fully the resources of this country to provide worthwhile jobs for all our people, control of which has been in our hands for three generations.
Emigration, especially the forced emigration I have mentioned, has been a feature of Irish economic and social life for the last number of years and is an uprooting, alienating process. Unfortunately, some of our emigrants end up as virtually stateless, unable to vote in the country of which they are citizens and unable to vote in the country in which they are resident. They see no reason Irish citizens should be deprived of one of the most basic rights of any citizen simply because they have been forced to live and work abroad. Ironically, all the emigrants who have left Ireland in the years since 1986 are still included in the 1986 census figures on which the recent Dáil constituency revision was based. If the revision had taken account of the scale of emigration at that time there would be six fewer seats in this House as a result, and still emigrants are unable to vote.
In recent weeks we have heard the Minister for Finance and Government spokespersons outlining policies for an upswing in the economy and figures have been presented which show an increase in investment. I suggest this is a repetition of the performance of past Governments and past Ministers and will do nothing to lighten the burden, dispel the disillusionment or restore the faith of our young people who are forced to seek a living in New York, Boston, Birmingham, Kilburn and Camden Town, for what we are experiencing is an upsurge in the economy which is benefiting principally a select few. The benefits from that economic upsurge have not trickled down to the people who are desperately searching for a job, who have never known what it is to work and whose only prospect is to seek a living abroad or a life on the dole. The rising tide has lifted not all the boats.
We have failed our unemployed people before now and unless there is a complete change in strategy and a new approach we will fail them again and again and those young people now attending schools and colleges throughout the country will have no alternative but to follow the emigrant trail to Britain, Europe and the US and hope that whatever education they have will enable them to survive and perhaps prosper in a foreign land. Under the present electoral system they will do so disenfranchised, deprived of the right to vote in their own country, truly the sign of ultimate betrayal by their native Government.
I suggest that, while conditions of transport and communications have improved and have been modernised, the basic rights of Irish people to participate actively and fully in their national affairs have not changed. Many of our exiles who have been forced to seek work abroad have not reneged on their responsibilities at home. Many a hard earned pound has found its way back home to help educate the young brothers and sisters and to keep the old in relative comfort. These emigrants have contributed quietly and at great cost and personal sacrifice in a very big way to the economy of this country. We hear much about investment going out of Ireland but we hear very little about the inflow of emigrants' earnings. Money earned on the building sites, in the bars and offices in Boston and Birmingham has filtered back to Ballinrobe, Ballyhaunis and Ballydehob to help those in need, the unemployed, the old and the young.
Many of our exiles, particularly in Britain, have experienced hostility due to the despicable actions of subversive organisations in their indiscriminate attacks on public and civilian targets. We saw the reaction of the British public and the police force to the now infamous Birmingham Six. While the Six were from Northern Ireland, nevertheless the fact that they were Irish was enough to condemn them to 16 years of wrongful imprisonment. Many of our people suffered in the vicious backlash felt throughout mainland Britain during that time. The Irish once again suffered in a foreign land.
Our emigrants suffered in the early part of this century in the US and in Britain when satirical magazines depicted the Irish as being uncouth, loutish and ignorant. Signs appeared banning black people and Irish people from lodging houses, bars and hotels. In the fifties and seventies in Britain our people also suffered due to the irresponsible and futile campaign of the IRA. Surely in the nineties it is time our Government responded to the plight of our emigrants by allowing them to vote in their homeland. Many innocent Irish people have borne the brunt of this hostility. Yet while they are identified as being Irish they are not treated as equals in the Irish electoral system. They are left in limbo.
While the majority of our European partners enjoy the right to vote in their country of origin in most elections, there is not any such right for the Irish. We are constantly told to act as Europeans. Ireland is one of the few remaining countries in the European Community which disenfranchises its emigrants, contributing futher to the alienation of the emigrant community. Britain, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Holland, Spain and Portugal have provided voting rights for their emigrants in some or all elections. The publication of this Bill by the Labour Party now offers a unique opportunity for all the political parties who accept in principle the right of Irish citizens living abroad to vote in Irish elections, to do something concrete and bring Ireland into line with the rest of Europe, by supporting this Bill.
My constitutency of Cork North Central has not escaped the devastation of emigration. I, like many other Deputies, have visited the emigrants abroad. The forceful message I have taken home from them is "for God's sake stop playing political football with our lives". It is for this reason that the Labour Party are supporting the principle of providing our emigrants abroad with the right to vote, a right that was won at a terrible cost, a right that was paid for with the lives of our forefathers. We have not any authority to deny any of our citizens that right, whether they work in Tuam or Timbucktoo. I would be less than honest if I did not put on the record of this House the fact that many of our people abroad showed little interest in participating in Irish elections. The feeling they expressed was that they could not care less about a country that had failed them so badly. For many, the emigrant trail was the only pathway to a future which had independence and dignity.
Financial help to the emigrant groups looking after the welfare of our people abroad, while welcome, is pitifully inadequate. Equally important as financial support is the fact that our people abroad have a meaningful role to play in affairs at home.
What is incredible is that in 1989 the week before our general election, 35,000 expatriate Poles in New York were able to vote, despite the reputation of the totalitarian regime in Poland, a regime which we in the Republic of Ireland have often criticised as one denying basic human rights. Yet on production of a passport or driving licence, Polish emigrants were allowed to exercise their franchise and vote in a vital election.
An estimated 6.9 million illegal Mexican citizens in the United States will be able to vote in their next presidential election, yet the Republic of Ireland will only allow embassy staff and UN representatives — a mere 100 people in the US — the right to vote. Ireland denies over 200,000 Irish people in the United States alone the basic human right of voting in Irish elections if they so wish.
This Bill, if accepted, would put Irish people abroad into the mainstream of potential life in this country here, and would be an important factor in reaching out a hand to those who, through no fault of their own, had no option but to leave their native land. Extending this hand would strengthen the links between our people at home and abroad, and prove that although they are living in a foreign country, their opinions and voice are still heard, and, more important, still matter. Surely, if we cannot give our people employment in their own country, we have a moral obligation to give them a vote.
As we approach St. Patrick's Day, our day of national celebration, our thoughts naturally turn to out people overseas. Many thousands of Irish emigrants have done well in the countries of their adoption. They have played major roles in their chosen professions, in business, religion and politics. They have been instrumental in organising the great trade unions of Britain and the United States. They have made an enormous contribution to the legal and administrative needs of their adopted countries. In many cases they reached the very pinnacle of success. Two Presidents of Irish extraction stood in this Chamber and addressed Dáil Éireann. Irish emigrants, when given the opportunities, proved that they could reach the top of their professions. They have made an indelible mark in the history of the world.
As Government Ministers prepare to travel abroad to celebrate our national day, is it too much to ask — too much to hope — that this year they will take to our emigrants the news that the Irish Government have accepted in principle the granting of the right to vote to our emigrants with whom they will celebrate our national day? Such an acceptance would be positive proof that the elected representatives of this country really care for those who have been forced to go abroad to find work. Is it not hypocritical of us on the one hand to deem those resident abroad to be one of us — one of our own — and at the same time to deny them the right to vote?
The Labour Party believe that this is one of the easier problems to solve — all it takes is political will. By publishing this Bill, we have initiated the process. The principal features of the Bill are: people who have emigrated within the last 15 years can apply for a postal vote in certain elections if they are 18 years of age or when they reach the age of 18; emigrants will retain the entitlement to vote in those elections for up to 15 years after emigration; the elections in which they will be entitled to exercise their postal vote include all elections and referenda with the exception of of local elections, and their vote will normally be exercised in the constituency where they were last resident;
The Bill confers the necessary powers on the Minister for the Environment to ensure that there would be no abuse of the system, by introducing regulations and safeguards with the consent of the Dáil.
The Bill, in its objectives, sets out to rectify a situation which has been allowed to continue for far too long and to provide for a choice of systems of voting — postal, embassy or consular — for those properly registered in their home constituencies. It would also give the Minister certain powers to introduce regulations to curb any abuse as he sees fit.
The Labour Party have been to the forefront in supporting the essential value behind the campaign to give voting rights to emigrants. In publishing the Bill we have made a positive and concrete contribution to that debate. There is no impediment in the Constitution to extending voting rights to emigrants. As outlined in the Bill, it is relatively straightforward to establish such rights. The Bill outlines the method of registration but most important it would establish for the first time in our history the principle of votes for our people abroad and by so doing it would strengthen the ties and links which bind our nation to other continents throughout the world.
This year we celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Rising. I can think of no better way or no more appropriate gesture than to reach out to our people across the Atlantic, the Irish Sea and in the southern hemisphere and grant them, our emigrants, the recognition which is rightfully theirs. We have failed them once, let us not fail them a second time.
My colleague, Deputy O'Sullivan, has made a very fine case to the Minister on why he should accept the principle of the Bill at least and establish voting rights for our emigrants. We, in the Labour Party, are well aware that we do not have available to us the wise heads and the knowledge that is available to him within the Department and, consequently, the Bill may not be as watertight as we would like for our emigrants. I hope that when the Minister responds tonight he will accept the principle of the Bill and indicate not only to the people in this country but to the many thousands who have emigrated during the past decade that they will be entitled to have their say in determining the Members of this House and of the European Assembly.
As politicians, we are all aware that such a radical proposal, as is being put forward here, presents dangers for Governments and for political parties but as my colleague, Deputy O'Sullivan, said, if we do not have an out of sight, out of mind attitude to our emigrants the Minister will adopt the Bill. Our emigrants have been written off all too easily as we are aware that they are most likely to oppose us if the Government fail to produce in this House radical proposals and policies to create employment at home. They will be the people most aggrieved and, unfortunately, they do not have a say in this country. They cannot make a decision on politicians of all parties whose policies had the effect of sending them abroad.
Last year the Minister introduced a Bill relating to the revision of Dáil constituencies. That revision was based on the 1986 census and, although constitutionally correct, was flawed in the sense that it was not based on the actual population of the country at that time. I am of the view that the Minister should have delayed the revision and had a census carried out which would have allowed him to gauge the extent of emigration since 1986. It has been said that as many as 200,000 people have left this country since then. Nobody can say for certain whether this is the true figure but we can arrive at a consensus on the actual figure by a number of ways.
For example, and this is perhaps the most valid figure and one of which we are all aware, we could examine the figures for the two general elections which have taken place since the 1986 census. The total electorate for the general election held on 17 February 1987, in the middle of winter, was 2,445,000 of which 1,793,406 voted. The next general election took place two years and three months later in June 1989 and strange as it may seem the register of electors indicated that the figure for the number of people entitled to vote was 3,300 greater than the figure for 1987, yet on that day, in perfect weather, 1,677,592 voted, 115,000 fewer than voted in the previous election. I should remind the Minister that the European elections were held on the same day so the amount of publicity which normally goes with a general election was almost doubled. We cannot say people were put off or that there was some reason people failed to turn out other than that the vast majority of that 115,800 had left the country.
It is worth looking at the figures for some countries for those two general elections. Let me take my home country first in case the Minister gets the idea that emigration affects everywhere except Wicklow. I can tell him that 3,500 people fewer voted in Wicklow in 1989. As we are all aware, when we wondered after the election why the percentage was down to the low sixties as against the middle seventies two and a half years earlier, it was quite clear in every case, as my colleague has said, that the vast majority of those 3,500 people were in such places as Birmingham, London, Melbourne and Boston. This figure includes many young people with families who had left the country with them and so had no vote. In two and a quarter years my constituency lost over 4,000 people through emigration. In case the Minister feels aggrieved because I have not mentioned his area, 4,500 fewer people voted in the two constituencies in Mayo. In Meath it was almost the same figure — around 4,500. The effect was uniform across all counties. In Dublin Central 6,000 fewer people voted that day and in Limerick 5,500 fewer people. In Cavan-Monaghan 4,392 people fewer voted in the 1987 elections. It was a perfect summer day with two important elections taking place.
We have some statistics to quantify the effect emigration has had over the whole of Ireland and I suggest to the Minister that they are the figures on which he should have based his revision. We would have had fewer Deputies in the Dáil if we had had an up-to-date census. That was not the case. There might have been changes in some counties that some of us might not have liked, but we have an opportunity to fight our cause in Ireland whereas the people who emigrated had not the opportunity to voice their opinion on the people who went forward in 1987.
I am not suggesting that this measure is a benefit to this party or to the Opposition in general or to any particular political party. We are putting forward this Bill because it is the right thing to do by our emigrants, people who have had to leave us. Recently an economist suggested that the economic miracle that we have seen is being threatened because due to the downturn in the economies of the United States and Great Britain some emigrants are returning and this will threaten the macro-economics of the budget because the figures for social welfare do not accurately reflect returning emigrants and there are no houses in the country for people joining the long queues for local authority houses. He said that in various ways the returning emigrants would pose a problem. These are young Irish men and women who, frustrated at the fact that they could not be employed here, left the country and finding the same situation now occurring, particularly in the south of England and in various parts of the United States, and frustrated by the fact that green cards are not available to them in the States, feel that they should be able to return home and expect a living here. That unfortunately is not the case and will not be the case for some years to come. The least we can do is say to them that if we cannot give them a job we can give them a vote if they cannot come home, which will allow them to pass judgment on the administration who may be the cause of their being emigrants.
This is a bold suggestion being made by the Labour Party and we hope the Minister will accept it. He should not feel that people may be annoyed at having to leave the country. They will surely feel that this country has some regard for them and that they too can have a say in how it is being run. It would certainly have the immediate effect of all of us becoming aware of the cause of emigration, and being more urgent in our approach to the difficulties of people who have to leave this country through no fault of their own. A lot of nonsense is talked about our being Europeans and it being good for us to go abroad to educate ourselves in the languages, customs and traditions of other countries. It is said this is one of the reasons so many people have left. We all know that the basic reason for the high level of emigration is the failure of successive administrations to keep to the forefront the problem of unemployment which results in emigration. That should always be the most urgent priority in our approach to the economy. For too long we have had the balancing of the books which depends on sending young people abroad. Young people come second and emigration has been the safety valve of this nation for too long.
Our party in putting forward a radical proposal of this type deserve the support of all sides of the House. The Minister will receive the congratulations of people around the world if he takes a bold step in this direction. If emigrants from other countries in the EC can vote at European elections — Italians in Brussels or Greeks in Germany — then the mechanics of operating the election cannot be beyond the wit of those ladies and gentlement in the Department of the Environment. It may present some small challenge where the electorate is further afield but it is a proposal which can be put into effect. My colleague, Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan suggested methods by which the vast majority of our emigrants could have the opportunity to cast a vote in a general or European election. The Minister may raise problems in this regard but that will not be the real reason for refusing to accept this Labour Party Bill.
I hope the Minister will agree to adopt this proposal and will not say that the Government are considering similar legislation. That would mean forgetting about it for years. I hope the Minister will give this top priority in his Department and arrange some sort of timetable so that this can be in place by the next general election, be it sooner or later. I strongly urge the Minister to attempt to meet the bold policy the Labour Party are putting forward in regard to votes for emigrants. He would be respected not just by people here but all over the world for doing something for our emigrants in 1991.
Since coming back to office in 1987 the major objective of the Government has been to restore the economic strength of the country. We embarked on this policy with a determination and a degree of success which, without exaggeration, has won admiration at home and abroad.
We made economic recovery our primary objective because we recognised that economic malaise lay at the root of a great many of the country's ills. We recognised, in particular, that the only solution to involuntary emigration lay in the pursuit of vigorous policies which would turn the economy around and thus remove the root cause.
I think we can claim substantial success in our efforts. The improvement in the quality of life and, consequently, in national confidence is evident all around us. The rate of emigration has fallen substantially and there is strong evidence that emigrants are, in fact, returning in quite substantial numbers.
In addressing the causes of emigration at home, the Government have been mindful of their responsibilities to those who have already left. Through our diplomatic and consular missions, we adopted specific measures to meet the range of difficulties that face some of our emigrants. The Government committed themselves to the continued provision of all possible assistance and appropriate back-up services to emigrants to ensure that their welfare needs are safeguarded.
This determined approach in dealing with the welfare problems of emigrants is clearly demonstrated in the excellent work being achieved by the DÍON Committee in Britain. With the majority of our emigrants still going to Britain, the committee under the aegis of the embassy in London, are charged with monitoring the situation facing emigrants in Britain, liaising with the various welfare and advise centres there and providing financial support for the work being carried out for the benefits of these immigrants.
The Government also attach the gratest importance to the need of our emigrants to the United States — the other great traditional destination for Irish migration. Some recent US immigration legislation had placed Irish immigrants at a disadvantage. The Government pulled out all the stops to encourage our friends in Congress to promote reform measures to address this anomaly and they did so with great success.
In addition to their efforts to achieve legislative changes, the Government have sought to improve the welfare and advice services that are available to the newly arrived Irish emigrants in the United States. Immigration working committees under the aegis of our consulates have been established to co-ordinate the activities of the main organisations in the immigration area with a view to tackling the most pressing welfare issues.
The fact that Government spending on information and welfare services for emigrants has increased by a factor of up to five in a very short time provides solid evidence of the Government's concern and the practical steps they have taken for the benefit of emigrants.
I mention these matters in order to set the scene, to put it on the record that the Government's concern for emigrants has two major elements: first, to remove as far as possible the root causes of involuntary emigration and second, to provide emigrants with the practical support and back-up facilities that they need.
The Government's position is one of solid practical down-to-earth concern and support, not a matter of sentiment, public relations gestures, slogans or catch-cries.
Let me now come directly to this Private Members' Bill which proposes to extend voting rights to certain emigrants. This is an important question demanding an open, honest and constructive debate on all its aspects.
The proposal in the Bill is that emigrants of up to 15 years standing would have the right to be registered as electors and to vote at elections other than local government elections. It is proposed that voting should be by post but that the Minister for the Environment should have power to modify the legislation relevant to postal voting in any way he considers necessary in order to bring the scheme into operation or to safeguard the integrity of elections.
This would be done by regulations which would require approval in draft form by both Houses. In other words, this Bill, at best, purports to deal only with the issue of principle. All the essential implementation arrangements are ignored and left to be dealt with in a separate measure or measures to be brought before both Houses later.
The Programme for Government indicated that the feasibility of granting voting rights to recent emigrants would be examined and this has been done. A great deal of thought has, in fact, been given to the issues of principle involved and to all the potential implications. The matter is a complex one, demanding very serious and objective consideration and it should not be decided on the basis of emotion or through gamesmanship on the Opposition benches.
I might mention in passing that there is obviously a very wide divergence of view on the Opposition side about how the matter should be addressed. This is evident from the fact that the preferred solution of the main Opposition party, whatever view they may take tonight, is to give emigrants the right to elect an additional three Members to the Seanad, and they have brought forward their own Private Members' Bill to provide for this.
There is, an extensive range of issues which must be addressed in considering any proposal to extend voting rights to persons resident outside the State. I propose to devote my contribution in large measure to identifying these issues. I know the House will wish to consider them in a responsible and constructive way. On an issue such as this, it is easy to score cheap points, but let us face reality, let us look at the facts fairly and squarely and then take our decision in the best interests of all the people involved whether at home or abroad.
Let us first take the numbers involved, if this Bill were passed, because numbers are of the essence so far as any electoral question is concerned. At this stage, figures can only be approximate. The numbers involved would eventually be determined by the pattern of future emigration, any cut-off point decided on — if a cut-off were acceptable at all — the actual registration and voting arrangements put in place and the level of takeup by eligible persons.
It is very difficult to arrive at a realistic and authoritative figure based on emigration statistics and virtually impossible to project such a figure into the future. Emigration is influenced by many factors, not just the economic, social and political circumstances at home and abroad. Emigration can be subject to sudden and dramatic fluctuation. For example, we had a migratory inflow in the seventies and we had high emigration in the eighties. The current level is substantially lower and there is reason to believe that significant changes in the pattern may now be taking place. The emigration figures available are net, that is outward less inward migration. There is no age break-down but we can accept that the typical emigrant is a young adult and, hence, that a very high proportion of emigrants would be of voting age.
The CSO estimate that net emigration between 1981 and 1990 was in excess of 166,000. In the Population and Labour Force Projections publshed by the CSO, net annual average emigration up to 1996 is assumed to be somewhere between 15,000 and 30,000. If we take the most optimistic figure and if we assume a cut-off point of 15 years as proposed in this Bill we could, at a very conservative estimate, expect a potential increase of about 250,000, or an increase of some 10 per cent in the total electorate spread over the 41 Dáil constituencies; this would average out at about 7,000 per constituency which in some cases would exceed the quota for a Dáil seat.
In this respect alone, the Irish situation is very different from that of some other countries which allow their citizens abroad to vote. For example, in the US which has an open-ended voting arrangement for citizens abroad, the number of electors outside the country is about 1 per cent — and this covers all citizens, not just those born in the USA. If one were to apply that yardstick to the Irish situation, the number of non-resident electors could exceed those at home.
I am sure people will come up with other figures but, in my considered view, the ball-park figure cannot be less than 250,000. In support of this I would cite the British census of 1981 which showed that persons born in the State and resident in Great Britain at that time totalled 611,941.
I should point out at this stage that bearing in mind the provisions of this Bill, I am confining my analysis to the question of conferring voting rights on emigrants who were on the electoral register here or would have been entitled to be on the register had they remained here. But there are much larger issues to be considered if we take account of the very wide definition of Irish citizenship and the large numbers of Irish citizens living abroad who never resided here. These issues would obviously need to be addressed by constitutional lawyers in the first instance.
The constitutional implications of this Bill have several aspects but I will deal with just one. Article 40.1 of the Constitution provides that "All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law." The principal objective of this provision is to secure that legislation will not discriminate invidiously as between citizens or categories of citizens. It follows that where a distinction is drawn between different categories of citizens, the categorisation must be justifiable objectively by reference to real differences in situation. The question could be asked "is it reasonable to give the vote to a person who is absent for 15 years and deny it to a person absent for 15 years and one day?" This seems to me to be an arbitrary cut-off point, and very difficult to justify objectively on any grounds. So, too, would any other cut-off point.
I do not propose to develop this point in great detail or detain the House by extensive quotations. I simply say that the question of equality before the law is discussed in some detail in the late Professor John Kelly's work on the Irish Constitution.
It may well be that the Constitution might demand a more substantive criterion. We might be expected to use a more sophisticated yardstick which would measure genuine differences in the situations of the persons involved. It might be necessary to have regard not just to the length of absence but also to matters such as the nature and purpose of the absence, the nature and extent of any continuing links with this country and the emigrant's status in the country of residence including, in particular, the position in relation to civic and voting rights in that country.
This brings me to the principle of "one man one vote". Citizens of Ireland resident in the UK have full voting rights at UK elections. I might say in parenthesis that, of course, certain institutions there are not elected, including the Head of State and the Upper House. Is it appropriate that emigrants should have voting rights in two states, in particular that they should be able to vote for two separate sovereign parliaments? In this regard, Irish emigrants in the UK are in an entirely different situation from those resident in any other country. It would seem reasonable that any new voting regime should take account of this factor in one way or another.
It is not possible to point to a specific constitutional provision, nor, so far as I am aware, to any international instrument which would actually prohibit voting for more than one sovereign parliament but it would seem to be contrary to the norms of political philosophy and, indeed, almost a contradiction in terms.
At European Parliament level the relevant EC statute prohibits plural voting. If this Bill were passed we would, in fact, be facilitating plural voting since our emigrants could also vote in the UK or in Belgium or in The Netherlands. In my view, the European authorities would expect appropriate mechanisms to be put in place where such a possibility would exist on a widespread basis. To assure the member states concerned that our electors are above reproach in this regard would not suffice. The present Bill does not advert to these questions.
Do emigrants as a body really wish to be accorded voting rights at Irish elections? I know we have all received representations from individuals and organisations and that organisations have been established specifically to campaign for this purpose but emigrants do not necessarily speak with one voice. At their annual meeting in 1989 the Federation of Irish Societies, which is the premier body representing Irish organisations in the UK, rejected a proposal calling for votes at Dáil elections. I understand they did so on two principal grounds — first, that emigrants do not wish to be in the privileged position of having votes in two countries, the very point that I have just been making and, secondly, an apprehension that an extension to emigrants of the Irish vote could at some stage call into question their right to vote in UK elections.
This touches on a central point: from the practical viewpoint an emigrant's living standards are determined by conditions in the host country, employment, wages, taxation, housing, health and welfare services, the environment and so on. The decisions that affect him on a day-to-day basis are those taken by the administration of the host country, not his country of origin. It is, therefore, vitally important that emigrants should have an input into the administration of the country which many of them now see as their home. In recognition of this, proposals are being pursued by both the EC and the Council of Europe to extend the local government vote to all residents regardless of citizenship. Granted this would be a small beginning and, small as it is, some countries have serious problems with it, including constitutional problems. However, it is an indication of the direction in which European thinking is moving.
In the past the right of Irish people to vote in the UK has been a matter of some controversy. There were elements, in fact quite an influential lobby, who considered that the granting of such a right to any foreigners was inappropriate. Fortunately, this viewpoint no longer attracts substantial support. We trust this will continue to be the case and we should be slow to take any steps which might alter this position.
I appreciate it is no longer popular to associate taxation with representation but it is a fact that every resident in this country in one way or another contributes to the Exchequer. On the other hand, with very few exceptions, emigrants pay their taxes, local and national, in their country of residence and rarely contribute directly to the Exchequer of the home country. This, again, is a factor which must be duly weighed. We may take different views as to the weighting to be assigned but it is a fact and in our deliberations we must take account of it.
We must also have regard to the nature of our electoral system. It is notorious that seats are won and lost by a handful of votes. I do not have to quote examples, we are all familiar with them, some of us, particularly on the Labour benches, uncomfortably so. It is also a fact that relatively few seats in this House are decided by first preference votes; the majority of seats, particularly the vital marginals, are decided by the lower preferences of a relatively small number of votes. A person living outside the country, even on a short term basis, cannot be as aware of current affairs in this country as a person living here. The issues and the policies in a general election here will not be discussed, in any adequate way, in the papers he reads or on radio and television.
A casual glance at the Boston Globe, the Herald Tribune, Le Monde or, indeed, l'Osservatore Romano would indicate that they do not deal in any significant way with the policy issues considered by the electorate here during election time. The parties and candidates cannot mount the same campaign in relation to emigrants as they do at home. Thus, the voter abroad, no matter how close his ties, cannot be as well informed as the home voter. His vote, particularly his lower preferences, are unlikely to be cast with the same care and consideration. Yet our system is such that the lower preference votes of a small number can have an entirely disproportionate effect on elections. They can, in fact, determine who governs.
In this regard we are in a different situation from virtually every other country. In countries such as the United Kingdom and France which have non-proportional systems, winning margins tend to be substantial and the elector exercises one choice only. Even in list systems of proportional representation, where the allocation of seats may be closely related to the number of votes cast, each elector can exercise essentially one choice. Elections are decided by the first and only choice of the voters, not by a fifth or sixth preference.
Then, there is the question of integrity of elections. I do not think it would be possible to overemphasise the importance of this aspect, yet the Bill does not even attempt to deal with it in any way. It simply hands the problem over to the Minister.
For my part, I make no judgment whatever in relation to the rectitude of electors at home or abroad. I will put the matter as an entirely neutral and generalised statement — experience here and elsewhere has shown that while it remains a practical proposition to affect the outcome of an election by unorthodox methods, somebody somewhere will attempt such methods. It follows that whatever voting arrangements may be put in place for emigrants they must include safeguards that, at the very minimum, are as effective as those applying at ordinary polling stations at home. There is a solemn obligation on the Oireachtas to provide this safeguard to protect the integrity of elections. This is particularly the case when we consider that any electoral abuse which may take place outside the State would effectively be outside the reach of our courts.
Whatever voting arrangement is put in place must be such as to make it reasonably certain that the vote is cast by the elector freely and in secret. This is something which the sponsors of the Bill cannot ignore. It is simply not good enough to say, "We will leave that over to another day". In a matter as serious as this, we cannot divorce the principle from the practicalities.
In considering possible voting arrangements account must be taken of the time-scale at elections. At a Dáil election the polling day can be as early as the eighth day after the latest time for receiving nominations. This means that when account is taken of the 24 hours allowed for withdrawal of nominations, there may be just seven days for printing ballot papers, issuing them to the electors abroad and having them back in time for inclusion in the count. This may possibly work for people resident in these islands but clearly will not serve those resident, say, in the United States, New Zealand or Australia. Before somebody says, "Allow more time", let me point out that the time allowed by the Constitution is strictly limited and, in any event, it is highly undesirable that the country should be without a parliament longer than strictly necessary.
The Bill specifies that voting would be by post, but the sponsors would, apparently, be prepared to consider other arrangements. The choice is, in fact, severely limited. The practical options are: postal voting with special safeguards; proxy voting; or special polling stations in embassies.
I do not propose to discuss these in detail. We have had experience of postal voting at local elections and I think it is fair to say that there were serious reservations about it. If this system were to be used again, significant additional safeguards would have to be provided. We would have to be quite sure that the ballot paper gets to the person for whom it is intended and that he has the opportunity to vote in secret, freely and secure from pressure or undue influence. The security arrangements must be spelt out specifically in the law: it borders on the irresponsible to say, "Let the Minister work out the details". The Oireachtas must decide in a matter of this significance.
Voting by proxy operates to a limited extent in certain EC countries. It would, however, be a novel development in relation to public elections here. The system would be particularly open to abuse even if the greatest care were to be exercised in vetting applications and if stringent rules applied in relation to the proxy. The complexity of our election system must also be taken into account. In the British or German system, for example, the choice is simple — the elector votes for candidate or party A or B. In our case the elector must express a series of fairly complicated choices. First he must decide which party to support. Then he must choose between the candidates of that party. Next he must decide whether to continue his preferences for the candidates of other parties and in what order. To a very large extent it is these secondary decisions that ultimately decide election results here. Thus the elector would have to be in a position to give very specific instructions to his proxy. It is not simply a case of, he always votes Labour, Conservative, Democratic or Republican.
Providing a polling station at, for example, an embassy, would apart from any other consideration, be capable of serving only those who live reasonably convenient to that Embassy. Providing a vote at Washington DC for a resident of say, Seattle, is not really helpful. There would be the practical problems of providing ballot papers for all 41 constituencies in each location and making sure that the ballot papers are despatched to the relevant returning officers in time to be included in the count.
None of the arrangements referred to is entirely satisfactory. None of them measure up to the essential requirements and none is capable of operating effectively in the very limited time available, particularly in the case of Dáil elections.
On a matter so fundamental as the election of members of the national parliament, it is vital that there should be broad, cross-party agreement. It is clear that there is, at this stage, no consensus between the parties on the question of formal linkage between emigrants and the Oireachtas. This is evidenced, as I mentioned earlier, by the fact that the present Bill proposes emigrant representation in the Dáil while a Bill presented by the main Opposition party proposes that the link should be by way of Seanad representation.
Where a formal proposal for legislation is presented to this House it is incumbent on the promoters of the measure to ensure that the proposal is coherent and workable and addresses in a reasonable way the issues which it purports to deal with. I regret to have to say that the Bill does not, in any meaningful way, address the issues I have outlined.
The homework has not been done; the very serious and complex issues arising have not been taken on board; the measure is not workable in this present form or capable of being suitably amended. I must oppose the Bill at this Stage, for reasons of principle, practicality and administrative reality.
I wish to share my time with my colleague, Deputy Connor.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Fine Gael are firmly in favour of the principle of granting voting rights to our emigrants and having directly elected emigrant representation in the Oireachtas. We have studied the measures proposed in the Bill before us tonight and while we are generally in agreement with the main thrust of its proposals we detect some difficulties that need further clarification and elaboration. While accepting the principle that our emigrants should never be written out of our domestic political agenda, Fine Gael have published and circulated their own Bill advocating emigrant participation in Seanad Éireann directly elected by the emigrants. I intend to elaborate further on the Fine Gael Bill at a later stage in the debate.
Very few countries and certainly no other European Community countries have suffered so much and lost so many of its citizens through emigration as we have. During the eighties our national economy was subjected to two critically debilitating factors of monumental proportions — first, the interest repayments on our borrowings which were estimated to be in the region of £2 billion per annum; and, secondly, the continuous loss through involuntary emigration of hundreds of thousands of our young people, the fabric and seed of our nation-hood.
Politicians, Governments and economists created a political consensus to address and control our rate of borrowing. Through a concerted effort by all and political maturity, particularly by the Fine Gael Party, over the past few years the borrowing rate has been stabilised. Unfortunately there has been no such success in the area of unemployment and emigration, which are closely related. Unemployment continues on its upward curve and any stabilisation in the level of emigration lately has been entirely due to economic recessions in the host economies of the UK and the US rather than any improvement achieved at home.
Many urban and rural communities throughout the Republic have been virtually decimated by emigration. Towns and parishes have lost an entire generation between the vital ages of 18 to 30 years and there are very few families whose sons or daughters have not had to leave and seek employment from here to the ends of the earth. It is conservatively estimated that during the eighties alone well in excess of 250,000 people had to leave. Unfortunately many of these people are at present suffering from the pangs of economic recession in the United Kingdom and the US. Here I must compliment the Churches for their continued efforts in highlighting the extent of the devastation of rural communities. Unfortunately at Government level there seems to be a resigned acceptance of emigration. Indeed it is seen as a safety valve or a sort of economic regulator such as interest rates to absorb our surplus workforce.
We are unique in Europe, if not in the world, in that such a high proportion of our citizens have had to forsake their native land to find a livelihood elsewhere. Many of us recall the harrowing television scenes at the beginning of the year when weeping emigrants were taking leave of their families and returning to their adopted homes. Many of us hope it will only be a temporary adoption and that they can return home permanently.
The Bill before us this evening advocates giving voting rights to our emigrants in Dáil elections, European Assembly elections, Presidential elections and referenda. Fine Gael welcome the introduction of this Bill because we agree in principle that our emigrants should be granted voting rights and a strong voice and representation in the Oireachtas. It is a particularly appropriate time for the introduction of such a Bill within the octave of our national holiday and feast day which Irish emigrants throughout the world celebrate. It is right and proper that we should have them uppermost in our minds on occasions such as these. After all, they are our people, our kith and kin, who have been forced to leave their country not through any fault of their own but rather through our failure to provide them with a livelihood.
Fine Gael have always maintained a close and lively interest in the welfare of our emigrants. Our deputy leader, Deputy Peter Barry, has been a constant champion of emigrants rights whether in Government or Opposition. Over the past few years he has acted as chairman of Fine Gael's emigration committee and has together with other members of the committee, Deputy Connor, Deputy Deenihan and Deputy Bradford, visited Irish emigrant centres and organisations in the United Kingdom and as far away as the US. Indeed, one of the priorities of that committee, on which I had the honour of serving, was the difficulties being experienced by our undocumented young Irish people in the United States. Thankfully with the passing of the 1990 Act there their situation should ease and improve over the next two to three years. Here I should like to pay tribute to the excellent and effective lobbying campaign mounted by the IIRM throughout the US which was so instrumental in having that Bill passed by Congress and signed by the President before the end of last year.
While I agree in principle with the proposal in the Bill that emigrants should be granted voting rights, certain aspects of it present difficulties that require further examination and clarification. My first reservation concerns section 1, which states that only citizens who have emigrated these last 15 years may apply for registration. One can justifiably ask, if the principle of granting voting rights to emigrants is acceded to, why limit the right to those who have left the country these last 15 years? This is somewhat contradictory or perhaps even discriminatory. It advocates voting rights for emigrants but not all emigrants — only those who have left these last 15 years. Why not afford the right to all Irish citizens who have had to emigrate or as the Minister said, to those who emigrated 15 years and one week ago? We will need to look again at this section.
I realise that this proposal may create problems. It is conceivable that the potential external electorate of emigrants could almost match in numbers the internal or resident electorate. We differ from other countries in that our potential emigrant electorate is so substantial in relation to the home electorate.
The Bill also proposes that a qualified person shall register in the constituency where he or she was ordinarly resident on the date when the most recent register in which his or her name was included or would, but for age, have been included, was drawn up. In other words, each qualifying emigrant would be registered in his or her home constituency.
This proposal requires careful examination as it could create an imbalance between the number of electors represented by each Teachta Dála. Consitutionally, representation is based upon population rather than electors and the Constituency Commission base their decision on the census of population figures. However, if large numbers of emigrants register in some constituencies, say, the west of Ireland, where emigration has been heaviest and most pronounced, for example, Donegal, Kerry or Roscommon, it could very well result in the west of Ireland Deputies representing many more electors than Deputies from other parts of the country. Would it not be more practical to create overseas constituencies so that those elected would directly represent our emigrants? This area requires further examination and consideration.
The Bill also deals with the operation of the postal vote, and here again I believe we are faced with tremendous difficulties when one considers that ballot papers have to be distributed and collected in the limited number of days between the close of nominations and polling days which on average is usually about ten or 12 days. The Minister mentioned that it can be as little as eight days.
One must agree that it would be a gigantic logistical achievement to have ballot papers distributed to perhaps 150 or 160 countries in the five Continents, have them legally marked and collected again to be posted back to Ireland and redistributed to 41 multi-seat constituencies all in less than two weeks. Added to this is the further complication of multi-seat constituencies. One can envisage the result of the first count being delayed pending the arrival of the Solomon Island vote.
Indeed there can be long delays. It was only last Thursday that I received a letter posted by An Cumann Gaelach in Dubai — I did not know there was a Cumann Gaelach there — on 16 December.
Was it a Valentine Card?
Admittedly, it was addressed to Dinny McGinley, Dublin, Ireland, and that says something for An Post.
It says something for Dinny McGinley.
A vote in a general election to elect a government of a sovereign State is a valued and precious right not enjoyed throughout the world. We can recall rebellions and revolutions throughout the ages demanding this right. Many of our European neighbours have obtained this right, the right to vote for the candidate and party of one's choice. Indeed, some of the Gulf States prominent in the news these last few months, particularly these last few weeks, have yet to win that right.
The exercise of that right in this country is scrupulously supervised in every election. The security apparatus of the State is fully employed and involved to ensure that every single vote cast is legal and valid. Instances of personation or misconduct demand the severest of penalites and all this rigorous care is necessary if our citizens are to have trust, faith and confidence in the democratic institutions of our State. If that trust and confidence is not forthcoming the entire system is undermined and this can lead to a situation where consent is withdrawn and you ultimately arrive at a point where at best chaos reigns or at worse civil war prevails. Fortunately, since the establishment of this State that trust in and acceptance of the democratic decision is widely accepted because we know in our hearts that the system is fair, honourable and above reproach.
Here I pose the question; if voting rights are to be extended to Irish citizens in every country, from Greenland to New Zealand and from the Faroe Islands to Honolulu, can we guarantee with confidence the same rigorous application and standard of supervision and efficiency? Not alone must the process be above suspicion but it must be seen and accepted to be so. Our democratic institutions have been hard fought for. We have together succeeded in building a stable system that has withstood the test of 70 years. In introducing any new departure from well established practice our first priority must be the maintainace of and further strengthening of our institutions.
Another weakness I perceive in this Bill if accepted and passed without amendment is that the voting power of our emigrants will be diffused and dispersed throughout the 41 constituencies which would leave their effectiveness as a body grossly diminished. Bearing in mind the difficulties and weaknesses we see in the Bill but at the same time firmly committed to the principle of voting rights for our emigrants and their representation in the Oireachtas, the Fine Gael Party have devoted time and thought to the problem. I have already published and circulated our own Bill entitled the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1991. Our Bill advocates that the membership of Seanad Éireann be increased from 60 to 63 Members and those directly elected as distinct from being nominated by the Taoiseach of the day from 49 to 52. The three extra Senators would be elected on a new emigrants panel. Under our Bill emigrants could register on a voters panel which would entitle them to vote directly to have three of their own representatives in Seanad Éireann.
We believe the proposals in our Bill have many advantages. First, a Seanad campaign is much longer than a Dáil election campaign and consequently there would be adequate time to have the ballot papers distributed and collected for the Senate count. Secondly, due to the fact that there would be a separate and independent emigrant panel it would not disrupt the entire election count if emigrant ballot papers got delayed in the post, as I mentioned earlier.
The count could proceed as usual on the other panels pending the return of the emigrant votes.
Having three Members elected directly to the Seanad would give the emigrants a stronger and more effective voice in the Oireachtas. I believe it would be far more cohesive and responsive to their needs, wishes and aspirations than having their votes dispersed throughout 41 constituencies without having any single Member as one of their own. Our proposals would also ensure that their three representatives would be most probably from the ranks of the emigrants themselves. Perhaps one from the US and Canada and two from the UK. They could represent the emigrants, articulate their needs, desires and problems and ensure they have a platform in the House of Parliament.
The Seanad is, after all, a vocational based second Chamber. One of its functions is to give a national platform to special interest groups as the present panels indicate. The electorate of the Seanad is at present restricted to elected Members of both Houses and political parties, excluding, of course, the University panels, though many would maintain that University panels are also restricted and elitist. An emigrants panel as proposed in the Fine Gael Bill would certainly bring an element of universal franchise and real democracy to the Seanad. Indeed, in my opinion, it would give a special standing and status to those elected on such a basis.
The Fine Gael Bill requires a constitutional amendment, and I believe there would be widespread support for such a proposal. There are many families within the State who have close relations abroad who would qualify for the franchise. Whether tonight's Bill or our constitutional amendment Bill is successful remains to be seen. We are ultimately dependent on the Government's attitude and response. Indeed, they have been remarkably quiet and reticent on the subject so far. Listening to the Minister's contribution I have very grave doubts as to the Government's intentions. They do not seem to be in favour of any Bill, whether our Bill or that of the Labour Party, which says something for their concern for emigrants.
I know that emigrant organisations and their people at home are keenly following this debate, and there will be great disappointment if we fail to deliver to our emigrants an opportunity of being represented and heard in the Oireachtas. Fine Gael will be supporting Second Stage Reading of this Bill. However, if it goes to Committee Stage we will be tabling many amendments related to the difficulties which I expressed during my contribution.
Ag an bpointe seo, mar urlabhraí Ghaeltachta, ba mhaith liom tagairt a dhéanamh do na himirceoirí go léir ar fud an domhain a bhfuil na ceantair Ghaeltachta fágtha acu agus go mbaineann an Bille seo leo fosta. Tá mé cinnte, ón dteagmháil a bhí agam féin leo le seachtainí nó le míonna anuas, go mbeadh fonn orthu go léir, tar éis an Bille seo a dhul tríd, úsáid a bhaint as an vóta i dtoghcháin sa tír seo.
Debate adjourned.