Deputy McGinley has ten minutes left.
Private Members' Business. - Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1991: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I am primarily contributing to the debate to support the proposal put before the House by Deputy McGinley last night that the best way in which we can give representation to our citizens abroad in this Oireachtas is via the medium of the Seanad. Deputy McGinley has gone into the merits of this proposal in great detail and I do not intend to repeat them now.
It is worth nothing that Ireland is unique in the EC and indeed among a large number of democracies worldwide in not having some form of voting for its citizens overseas. Therefore, it was an awful revelation to hear the Minister say last night, at the end of a long rubbishing of the Labour Bill before us, and I quote: "I must oppose the Bill at this stage for reasons of principle"— that is the important point —"practicality and administrative reality". The Government are opposed in principle to giving votes to our citizens overseas. Because the grounds on which votes should be given to emigrants have been well covered by previous speakers, and no doubt will be similarly well covered by several speakers to follow, I want to deal with the broader question of emigration from this country, a social phenomenon taking place all around us with the most profound ramifications for the wrong kind of social change.
This phenomenon has been completely ignored by the Government. I suppose that is not surprising given their record. The Government regard the export of our people and the problems they bring away with them as pure gain. It is not to our credit that within this Parliament the problem has been largely ignored.
When the first head count of next April's national census is published it will, I predict, frighten people but only confirm what many of us have been saying for a long time. If time allows, I hope to refer later to some figures which will illustrate that point better.
Emigration has long been a feature of Irish society. Indeed, it has become a structural feature of our cultural inheritance. Because it is so closely linked with a major historical event on this island the Great Famine, there is a lasting association here in the popular consciousness between emigration and misery.
Aside from what happened in the 19th century there has been in this century five great movements of people out of this country. However, it is the most recent one, which has cost us thousands of our young qualified people such as engineers, technicians, nurses, teachers, doctors, etc., of which we should be most ashamed. At the time of previous emigrations or massive out-movements of our people it was difficult, because of a lack of knowledge of economic affairs or economic forecasting to predict such happenings. However, in the post-Keynesan world and with the way better communications has increased our knowledge and influence over the global economy it is thoroughly shameful that emigration should again revisit us in the latter part of the 20th century, this time decimating the most productive sector of our population.
Many people warned us from the early seventies that because of the baby-boom in the sixties and early seventies we would need unprecedented levels of job creation to give them employment when they reached working age in the eighties. We were well warned then to plan for this. However, what we did in terms of planning and action at a crucially important time during the mid-to late seventies was to engage in a colossal act of blundering populist madness that could not be more at variance with the national interest at the time. Despite the enormous price we are now paying for this appalling set of blunders it is a sad commentary, perhaps on all of us, that most of the people guilty of this sabotage are alive and well and sitting in the ministerial and Government benches opposite us today.
It is interesting to point out that in 1981 the proportion of our population at work was 33.3 per cent of total. Yet ten years later in 1991 the proportion of the population at work is about 30.5 per cent of total. Therefore, we have a situation where those at work must now support an average of 2.25 others in addition to providing for themselves.
It is also interesting but damning to note that despite the effect of recession in the UK on the numbers of people leaving Ireland, we are still losing at least 500 people every week, which is about the size of a fairly large primary or secondary school. It is interesting too to note that while the Government have no plan to stem numbers forced to go, they seem on the other hand to have a plan to keep the people moving out. The Central Statistics Office make no bones about the fact that they estimate that between 15,000 and 35,000 people per year will leave this country in all of the years between now and the end of this century and the ESRI agree with these figures.
Since the last census figures we have related to 1986, we have to rely on surveys, observations and some guesswork to know what is happening emigrationwise. The Irish Episcopal Commission on Emigrants carried out a survey last year which showed, among other things, that there are parishes in the west of Ireland where the population is now disappearing at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. Another startling figure which shows what is happening — it is a pity the Minister, Deputy Flynn, is not here as this would be of interest to him — is that for the register of all electors for County Mayo for the year ending 15 April 1986, which indicates that there were 83,254 persons registered to vote. However, on the register of electors for the year ending 15 April 1991 just five years later, there are 79,111 people registered to vote. That is a dramatic drop of 4,143 persons in five years, and it is only an indication of what is happening because the register of electors cannot reflect the numbers of people up to and often over 18 years of age, and as we all know, this is the age group among which there is the greatest propensity to emigrate. I should also point out that in the same period in my own county of Roscommon there was a drop of just under 1,000 in the number of persons registered to vote. This also indicates what is happening in these western counties where the population was already so attenuated and weakened by previous emigrations.
In terms of social effects, this leaves a very undesirable imbalance in the population structure of Irish villages and towns. As I have said, Counties Mayo and Roscommon lost almost 6 per cent or more of their population last year, and the figures for previous years are similar. As someone said to me recently, this phenomenon is similar in effect to a whole generation going to war. Anyone who visits the airport in the Minister's constituency on a Friday evening all see hundreds of heads of households returning from England being greeted by their young children. This shows in a very real way the level of hardship being imposed on many families by emigration. It also means the loss of the most vital resource of any country, its youth. It is estimated that 47 per cent of 18 to 25 year olds will leave Ireland within the next 25 years if present trends continue. Translate that into UK figures——
Acting Chairman
Sorry, Deputy, your time has expired.
I would like to make just one more point. Since there are 6.17 million people between the ages of 16 and 24 in Britain, this would mean a loss of three million of the people in that age group, and that would not be acceptable. The long term effects of this haemorrhage of the population structure and the implications for social planning are incalculable because the young people who are leaving are mostly of marriageable age.
This proposal is a highly emotive one. It is purely a symbolic gesture to our emigrants. On the surface it reads fairly well and it sounds extremely reasonable, but it would be almost impossible to deliver on. In concluding last night, Deputy Connor said the Minister said he opposes the Bill at this stage. He did, and quite rightly so. He said he opposes it on grounds of principle, of practicality and of administrative reality. It would be an easy option for the Government to take the same casual approach that appears to have been taken in the drafting of the Bill. We could do what might appear to be the popular thing and grant the request for a vote to some of our emigrants. It would be an easy option to totally ignore the logistical difficulties involved. It would be easy to play down the practical difficulties we would be faced with in policing any such scheme and ensuring the integrity of the voter.
The Minister has not taken that course. He has spelled out the practical difficulties involved. He pointed out that the Bill as drafted is weak and makes no attempt whatsoever to address these difficulties. He said that when ever a proposal for legislation is presented in the House it is incumbent on the promoters of the measure to ensure that the proposal is coherent and workable and that it addresses in a reasonable way the topic involved. I suggest that every Member of this House is particularly knowledgeable of the difficulties in running elections. They are all aware of potential abuses and restrictions placed on voters here, not to talk of those abroad. Deputy McGinley spelled out much stronger than did the Minister the difficulties and the possible disruption if there was any looseness in policing the voters and the votes, which is most important. I will come back to these points later because they are of critical importance. They are central to the principle of extending the franchise to Irish citizens who no longer live within the jurisdiction.
On the principle of extending the vote, while there might appear to be continued support from our emigrants, the facts were very clearly enunciated by Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan on his return from a comprehensive visit to major cities in the UK. He said the emigrants were not in the least interested in having a vote in Irish elections. I remember his quote at the time because I was a little surprised by it, but I took it as being an honest and straightforward assessment of what he had experienced in the UK.
I worked abroad in 1960-61 and I would honestly say that at that age I had not much interest in elections in Ireland. I think that reflects the views of the average person abroad. There are groups who may be more involved or may take more of an interest in these matters, but the average emigrant is not interested in having a vote in Ireland, as Deputy O'Sullivan discovered. There may be different reasons for this. As Deputy O'Sullivan said these people may feel let down by successive Irish Governments, but the more likely reason is the one I have given — that they simply get on with what they are doing and become involved in local issues in the land of their adoption, something we have continually encouraged them to do.
Deputy O'Sullivan went further last night and commented on the two Presidents of Irish heritage who came here to address us. It is safe to say that the reason those people got to the top was that their forefathers did not continually look over their shoulders and say they wanted a vote in Ireland. They voted and played a part in their countries of adoption.
We should provide opportunities at home so that people do not have to emigrate. Deputy Connor launched into a tirade on the economy——
It was not a tirade. That is unfair.
Many people emigrated after the 1983-87 fiasco.
No, most of them went after 1987.
The point was made last night by Deputy McGinley that we seem to be controlling borrowing.
With unprecedented co-operation from an Opposition party.
Acting Chairman
There should be no interruptions. Everybody has an opportunity to speak.
Practical help should be given to our emigrants. We can say that £800,000 is being made available this year, as against £86,000 in 1984, to assist the organisations who help people who are living on the side of the road or in bad circumstances abroad, but what is needed is practical help. People who make a conscious decision to emigrate should be given advice and assistance. There are four different Departments working in this area — Education, Labour, Social Welfare and Foreign Affairs.
I do not want to suggest that there is an ulterior motive behind anybody's actions, but when parties or individuals draft Bills there is obviously some motive behind it, be it genuine concern for reform or possibly that the proposed legislation will be to their political advantage. I suspect that the latter is involved as far as this the Labour Party Bill is concerned. The thinking is probably that most emigrants who would qualify for a vote here are young people who feel bitter because they could not find a job at home, and therefore would be likely to vote against the Government of the day if they had the opportunity to do so. The Labour Party would be well advised to think twice before coming to that conclusion. Our emigrants are not fools. The majority of those who emigrated in recent years did so as a direct consequence of the economic disaster inflicted on the country by the Government of which the Labour Party were a vital part.
Last night Deputy Kavanagh criticised the Minister on the division of constituencies. If we are to get into that field, away from the emigrants, the Labour Party have nothing to be proud of. As part of a previous Government they were responsible for the famous "Tullymander" which sought to ensure a large number of extra Dáil seats. That point was mentioned last night and it has to be answered. In fact, it has the direct opposite effect. Even if the numerous flaws were removed from the present Bill, I am confident the proposers would bitterly regret having moved it.
I could almost have classed myself as an emigrant in mid-Cork back in 1977 when, as a city councillor, I found it necessary to contest a Dáil election where the boundaries included the Kerry and Limerick borders as well as University College, Cork, in the centre of the city. It ill behoves Deputy Kavanagh or anybody else to tell us that somebody is now getting it wrong.
We must look into the question of whether people living abroad really want to vote. It is worth noting that even at home, with convenient polling stations, there is usually a 70 per cent turnout who bother to exercise their franchise. When we take into account the youth of the emigrant population, I question the balance that would be left in this country if we extended the vote.
We must look at our system in isolation. Last night Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan, quite rightly, talked about various other nations and how they deal with the situation. We have a different, much more democratic, system in this country. In many cases a tiny fraction of the population decides the Members to be returned in any particular constituency. I mention that because of the proportion of people voting and the numbers of absent voters; we must bear in mind what extended voting would mean.
Last night the Labour Party near misses in the European elections were mentioned. Indeed, the matter went to the Supreme Court because, after counting many votes, there was only a tiny difference between the candidates. Deputy Spring also won an election by a matter of a few votes.
In 1982 I sat with two of my colleagues waiting to see who would win the last seat. When the transfers were counted down to the 11th and 12th votes out of 196,000 votes there were only five votes separating the candidates. I mention that as a specific example of how fine the balance is in our system. In the United Kingdom candidates generally win by 30,000 or 40,000 votes but they have a totally different system from ours. It is not good enough to quote how the United Kingdom deal with votes in regard to emigrants and to say that we should do the same.
The Minister mentioned the reality of the situation in dealing with transferable votes and how one's real choice is passed on. In 1982 in Cork, as I said, the 11th and 12th votes were being counted and it was a frightening experience for a politician to see how finely tuned the system was. What it means in relation to this is that we have had very close elections and a tiny handful of people could literally change the Government. Some people might say that is a good thing but it would not be democracy. We have a multi-seat constituency system, a transferable vote and the ultimate in proportional representation which we must bear in mind when making suggestions to extend the vote outside the country.
The Minister spoke about the practicality of the system. Perhaps we could introduce a two-tier system in which people outside the country would not have to register before a given date and could not be struck off the electoral register as hundreds of Irish people living at home are. They end up with no vote although they have never left the country. It is not spelt out in the Bill how we would deal with votes for emigrants but I presume that there would not be the same policing of the electorate. Different restrictions would apply to them. We tried the postal vote here and people claimed that there were enormous abuses in relation to it although I am not in a position to verify that.
Last night Deputy McGinley pointed out how far round the world you would have to extend the vote which would include registering and checking people. Very often, in this kind of debate, we switch off when we get to the edge of the United Kingdom. Of course, if we adopt this Bill every continent will be involved. There is no point in saying that we could have an arrangement with the United Kingdom whereby they would check our voters; every single country where Irish people reside would have to have the means of checking the votes.
In the past the system was abused in many ways, including impersonation. People have worked to try to improve this situation. Of course it is very difficult to control. People have argued that our administrators abroad are entitled to vote but, if they do, they are under the personal supervision of a member of the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Another reason for not comparing Ireland to the countries listed is that, generally speaking, we tend to have an election every two years and seven months. Indeed we had three in 18 months in the early eighties. The Minister spelt out the practical difficulties last night of getting ballot papers to people, getting them back and trying to ensure that they are all counted. In the past the islands three miles off our coast were storm bound and the counting was held up with the result that they now vote early. I can imagine the returning officer in a constituency telling us that he was waiting for the last box from Honolulu and that he could not conclude the count. It is mind-boggling to think of the practical difficulties involved. It is not just a question of extending the vote to Washington or Birmingham, we must extend it to any country in which an Irish person has lived for 15 years.
That is the worst scenario.
It was quoted by the Deputy's colleague last night, not by me, and I thanked him for it because I would not have thought of it. Like Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan, I met our colleagues in the UK because I am on the inter-parliamentary body and I have been trying to get as much information as possible. Many people over there do not think it would be a good thing to extend the vote. Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan said that nobody had any interest in it. The main reason for not extending it, according to people in the United Kingdom, is that it would mean that the people had two votes, one in the British system and one in the Irish system. That is the principle of it and I am opposed to anybody having two votes. I am sure other difficulties mentioned last night will be dealt with by other speakers, but that is the main reason I oppose the Bill.
Fine Gael said the measure would put three Members into the Seanad. They will need to define practical methods of applying that but at least they have brought in something different. Like everybody else they are anxious to give some kind of recognition to people living abroad but they see the difficulties of enabling them to vote for Dáil Éireann. Figures for different constituencies and the possible imbalance were mentioned last night and I agree with what was said. We heard some fairly emotive speeches on this. Each speaker is entitled to pad out his speech but most of the contributions last night proposing this Bill did not deal with the Bill as such or its mechanisms but simply said that the Minister would work out methods of dealing with the proposals and the legislation could be brought in. I know I am paraphrasing but basically that is what was said. The Minister could work out the fine points and then implement the legislation. I am sure the Minister and his advisers do not believe it can be implemented or that it is practical.
The principle is the important thing.
Most of the speeches last night referred to how the Irish were victimised in the past, and how they had made good and so on. We all agree on that. None of us in this House would show any disrespect whatsoever to any of our emigrants in any country, and not just for political reasons. We express our concern by practical means, supplying cash where necessary and applying political muscle in the US and elsewhere. That is the kind of practical help we can give.
Last night speakers referred to the economic factor and to bringing borrowing under control. That is crucial. Many of our people have emigrated as a result of the doubling of the national debt, from £12.25 million to £24.75 million between 1983 to 1987. In 1983 and 1984 Cork — which you, Chairman, Deputy O'Sullivan and I represent — lost 5,700 jobs in 37 companies because of interest and inflation rates. The companies said they could not compete and so had to go to the wall.
Look at what is happening in the economy now.
I do not mind passing references but the subject matter is emigration.
I appreciate that but in fairness Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan said last night that the people he met abroad were from Cork North-Central and that they had to emigrate because of losing their jobs in Cork at that time. I have said how we can address the difficulties emigrants face and how we can work together as we did last week here on the agreement for the next three years or, better still, for ten years. That is how to work together for our young people and to get this country moving properly. We must put our minds to that. We sympathise with our emigrants and we wish to assist them. We have many means of doing that, including the British-Irish Parliamentary tier and so on. Ministers are working directly towards this end.
In the local context in which we are preparing for elections at the moment there are fairly restrictive guidelines. The register must be checked and people must be available to vote at the appointed place. Fines are laid down for giving false information, for fiddling with returns or voting twice for malpractice generally. The courts are there to deal with such matters. If somebody out in Guatemala or any place one likes to mention were to default in that way, what practical steps do we take to deal with that? How can we police those offences? How can we punish them? People might say it is only a small thing but it is a very big thing considering that five votes can decide who occupies a Dáil seat, as happened in the case of the Leader of one of the main Opposition parties. Every vote counts, probably more in the Irish context than in other elections because of the system we use. We have a reasonably small voting population. For historical reasons we have many emigrants and there is an imbalance. People should not be able to fiddle the voting system either at home or abroad.
The question of extending the vote to non-nationals residing here has been dealt with in other circumstances and any possible improvements in the system have been brought about here. There is a will here to extend the franchise. Many people lose their vote here because, for instance, they are hospitalised at election time. We have not been able to deal satisfactorily with that aspect. Up to two or three years ago many people who were incapable of leaving their homes were prevented from voting but nobody bothered about that. It was not an emotive issue.
Last month we were checking draft registers. This may not mean much to the uninitiated but for those of us involved in politics it is a fairly serious business. We get the draft register of the electorate in each of our constituencies and we have to check it and ensure that people are registered thereon. Would there be such a system abroad if we could extend the franchise?
In conclusion, our aim must be to ensure that we provide an environment in which fewer people are forced to emigrate and that those who have emigrated get every possible assistance — financial support or support of any type they may seek — and any guidance they need, and that we continue the good work that has been done in this regard, particularly in the recent past. We would be conscious of our people and would be there to help them. I echo a point made by another speaker last night. If it is sacrosanct that our emigrants should get the vote, why do we decide that after 15 years and three months they are not entitled to a vote? If it is critically important to get a vote, what suddenly changes after 15 years and three months? If the principle is right it should be there for all time.
On behalf of The Workers' Party I welcome this measure and express our support for the principle of the Bill. The Workers' Party were the first party to raise this issue and press for the provision of postal votes for emigrants. I have a copy of a statement issued by Deputy Tomás Mac Giolla on 8 February 1983 in which he called for a postal vote for emigrants in the European elections which were then due. It is worth recalling that in 1983 the European Parliament passed a motion calling for the provision of postal voting facilities, and that the parliament spokesman on a uniform electoral system, Mr. Seitlinger visited Ireland to discuss the matter with the Dáil parties. At that time only The Workers' Party supported the implementation of the European Parliament resolution and it was mainly opposed by the Fine Gael/Labour Government and the main Opposition party, Fianna Fáil. I welcome the change in attitude since then.
I understand that all parties in the House, other than Fianna Fáil, have expressed their support for the principle of giving emigrants votes in some form or another. The provision of votes for citizens living abroad is now very much the norm in democratic countries. It is not at all unusual to see advertisements in Irish newspapers inviting citizens of the US, the UK or Germany, resident here, to apply for postal votes for their elections. Why should we not extend similar facilities to our people living abroad?
The recent history of this State shows that Fianna Fáil have always been the last to come out in support of reforms in almost every area of Irish life. Once again they are displaying their essentially conservative nature by opposing this Bill. This is all the more extraordinary, given the way in which this country has been afflicted by emigration over such a long period. There is probably no other country in the world on which emigration has such a major impact, stretching over two centuries.
Emigration has had a major impact not just on our economy but on almost all aspects of Irish life. There is surely not a family in this country which does not have members or relatives living abroad. Its impact has always been felt on our culture, on our way of talking, on our literature, drama, music and song. Those who grew up in the sixties and seventies hear horror stories of mass emigration during the thirties and fifties, and we thanked God that at least those terrible times were over. Little did we know that emigration would return again in the eighties on a level as bad or worse than anything seen in the earlier decades. Little could we have believed that in the eighties some 200,000 people, or more than 5 per cent of the population, would again be forced to emigrate because of economic need. There is surely no greater indictment of our record as an independent state than that after 70 years of self-government emigration has continued at such a rate.
I should have mentioned at the beginning that I wish to share my time with Deputy Bell.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Over the past number of decades ritual expressions of concern about the welfare of our emigrants have become part of our political culture. Unfortunately they have been nothing more than a ritual — the Government Minister appearing for the St. Patrick's Day parade in New York, or an occasional ministerial speech to a county association in London, a few special programmes on RTE, and the odd plea to the US to give us a few more visas. We, as a society have assured emigrants that we still consider them to be part of the great Irish family, that we want them to retain their Irish culture and identity, and that we hope they will come back some day to make a contribution to Irish society. However, we have not done anything that would help them maintain their cultural or political links with us. The provision of postal votes for our emigrants would be one of the most effective ways of ensuring the retention of links with the home country. It would ensure that emigrants would still have a voice in the way in which the country is run and it would also ensure that Governments, and political parties, could not ignore the issue of emigration and the economic factors which led to it.
There are technical problems in any system designed to provide postal voting for emigrants, and steps must be taken to ensure that it is not abused. The Labour Party in this Bill have set out one possible procedure which may or may not be the best method. The most important thing at this stage is to secure support for the principle of giving the vote to emigrants. We can on Committee Stage consider in detail the Labour Party proposals. I urge the Government to reconsider their opposition to the Bill. I urge them not to oppose it at the end of Second Stage but to introduce whatever amendments they wish on Committee Stage. If we do not move soon there is every possibility that the European Community will force us to move, at least in relation to European elections, because our existing postal voting system is so restricted and not available to emigrants.
Many of those who leave Ireland do not qualify for inclusion in the register of the new country of residence for several years, although they may remain on the Irish electoral register for some time. As there is not a general postal voting system here they are effectively disenfranchised in European elections and denied a say in the composition of the European Parliament which is taking on an increasingly important and powerful role. A case to the European Court could well result in a decision which would force the Irish Government to provide postal voting facilities.
There are two main reasons why the Government are opposed to granting postal voting to our emigrants. The main reason is the fear that those who have been driven out of their own country by the Government's disastrous economic policies will not be favourably disposed to those in power and will vote for Opposition parties rather than the Government. There may also be a fear that when our emigrants see how politics operate in other countries and when they see a political system where the electorate is offered a real choice between the parties of the left and the right, they will no longer be impressed by the phoney difference between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael.
This modest proposal to grant postal votes to those who emigrated within the previous 15 years and had applied for inclusion on the electoral register in the constituency of former residence has to be considered against the likelihood that emigration will continue at a substantial level in the immediate future. Indeed, emigration has been and remains a fundamental part of right wing economic and political strategy. Over the years we have seen some conservative politicians praise emigration and state that the Government were not at all worried that 40,000 people were emigrating each year. We saw right wing academics like Dr. Edward Walshe, the President of the University of Limerick, positively encouraging people to emigrate.
Government Ministers would privately admit that their entire economic strategy would be thrown into chaos if emigration ended or was even substantially reduced. Hence the note of panic in recent Government statements accompanying the worsening monthly unemployment figures, which try to blame returning emigrants. Indeed, a most telling indictment of the Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrats Programme for Government is that it included just five lines on emigrants' welfare and not one line on how emigration might be stopped, despite it being agreed in a year in which 45,000 people emigrated.
The Government, and the other parties of the right, see emigrants not as a loss but as a potential drain on resources if they remain at home. They see emigration as a pressure valve taking the pressure off them to create jobs, to provide housing, education, health services and social welfare. They know that many of those who are now emigrating would, if they remained at home, seek fundamental economic, social and political changes in the structure of our society, changes which would threaten the privileged position of the small elite who control so much of the wealth, run the economy and exercise such a disproportionate influence over Irish life.
It is wrong that successive Governments did nothing to discourage the mass exodus of those who could and should have such a role to play in the development of the country. Apart from the humanitarian considerations, economic sense dictates that having spent so much public money in educating young people, we should harness their talents and expertise by providing jobs at home. Some of those who emigrate return but many more are lost to the country forever. Hundreds of thousands of those who have emigrated are still working in Britain or the United States. Emigration will continue to be a feature of Irish life as long as the Government insist on relying on the same policies which have proven to be so unsuccessful in the past.
We have to look at the political consequences of emigration. In my view it has reinforced conservatism in this country. Very often it has been the people with ideas, the people who wanted change and the people with get up and go who did just that — they got up and left. Many of them are to be found in the trade union movements in the countries to which they have emigrated, in particular the United Kingdom and the United States, where they have become involved in politics, generally in the politics of change. Very few Irish emigrants have become involved in conservative politics in countries abroad. In every generation the State has sent the people who could have brought about social and economic change, and who could have demanded it.
Emigration has often been referred to as an escape valve for the social pressures which inevitably build up from poverty and unemployment. It was convenient for Governments to let this happen because it was a case of out of sight, out of mind. A government could have all the advantages of emigration — money sent home, tourism generated and a leg in the door of the politics of other states, in particular the United States — but none of the disadvantages because when an emigrant stepped on the boat or plane he or she lost his or her political rights.
This Bill is about political rights. We may feel concerned or sentimental about emigration but we cannot ignore the fact that our emigrants still have political rights in this State. These political rights are based on two things, the circumstances which caused those people to emigrate and the economic and social circumstances. I would emphasise at this point that it has not always been economic circumstances which forces people to emigrate but rather a sense of despair at the social conservatism which has existed in this country, some of which was evident after the divorce referendum some years ago. Second, since most emigrants, even those who have been away for a very long time, want to return, they have a political right to a say on the shape of the country in which they ultimately hope to live. These political rights will not be ignored by the emigrants themselves.
Gone are the days when emigrants made little or no political demands on this State. Today's emigrant is better educated, more informed, more confident and better organised. The Government may vote down this proposal next week but the issue of votes for emigrants will not go away. Emigrants themselves are compaigning for it and I believe they will not stop until they succeed.
Emigrants will not be impressed by the speech made by the Minister for the Environment yesterday evening when he offered several reasons this Bill should be voted down. First, he quoted the Constitution refuting the argument that the vote should apply to citizens who have emigrated within the past 15 years. He quoted the section of the Constitution which states that all citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law, but where does that leave the citizen who emigrated? Surely, he or she could equally claim under Article 41 of the Constitution that to deny them the right to vote is unconstitutional. Article 16.2 of the Constitution states that every citizen, without distinction of sex, who have reached the age of 18 years and who is not disqualified by law and complies with the provisions of the law relating to the election of Members of Dáil Eireann, shall have the right to vote at an election for Members of Dáil Éireann. At the very least this clearly enables the Legislature to enact laws which would include the right to vote for emigrants. I think, therefore, that the constitutional argument can be dispensed with.
The Minister's next argument was that the proposal would add 250,000 people to the electoral register and if the United States system was used, the number of non-resident voters could exceed those at home. What the Minister is really saying is that if we gave the vote to emigrants we would distort the outcome of elections. Deputy Dennehy referred to the same matter tonight but that is a very partisan political argument and cannot justify the denial of votes to emigrants. Indeed, it is an undemocratic argument to deny someone the vote because one fears how they will use it or how it will influence the outcome of elections. The reality, of course, is that not all emigrants would avail of the vote but they should have the right to that choice.
The Minister also questioned whether emigrants want the vote and suggested that some emigrants and emigrant organisations are fearful that if granted the right to vote here they may lose the right to vote in the United Kingdom — the one person, one vote principle, as the Minister put it, the one man, one vote principle. This is an important point, especially in the context of the European elections, but it can be resolved quite simply by permitting the emigrant to opt to vote either here or in the United Kingdom. That would not be impossible to administer given the state of modern technology.
The Minister's next argument is the converse of the no taxation without representation principle. He stated "from the practical viewpoint an emigrant's living standards are determined by conditions in the host country". He, therefore, concludes that the right to vote should be the host country, but this is a very debatable point. The emigrant, ultimately, may take the view that his or her present living standard and quality of life have been determined not by the host country but by unemployment and the conditions at home which forced him to leave. It is those conditions he politically wants to influence by having the vote so that he can return home to employment and a decent standard of living. There are many emigrants who have been fleeced by taxation in Ireland, robbed of their employment, forced to emigrate and lost the right to be represented where all this happened. Ultimately, it is the emigrants who should decide whether they wish to vote in their country of origin or in the host country.
Various practical reasons have been raised, such as the difficulty in printing ballot papers, getting them to the host countries on time and the integrity of the electoral process and so on. Let me offer one immediate practical proposal which could reduce some ot these practical difficulties. If we had Sunday voting there are many emigrants, especially in the United Kingdom, who would come home to vote. We know that a feature of recent emigration is the increased frequency of journeys home. Many emigrants could insure that their visit home would coincide with the weekend of an election, but this is not possible when elections are held mid-week.
For those who cannot make it home the answer lies in an extension of the postal voting system. What would be wrong with a system where emigrants would apply to be registered on a special emigrants register for each Dáil or Euro constituency and where a polling scheme could then be devised based on those registers and polling offices appointed in the normal way? If it is practical to set up polling stations with just one ballot box in private houses in remote parts of rural Ireland, surely it is possible to establish polling stations in the main centres of emigrant population staffed by embassy personnel or by other qualified personnel?
The difficulty which has been raised about the access of political parties and candidates to emigrant voters could be overcome by an extended system for postal canvassing. If the voter is on a register of electors, with an address on the register, then the voter will be reached by candidates or by political parties.
These are excuses for inactivity, not reasons to refuse emigrants the vote. I believe that what we have to deal with in the first place is the principle. Do we or do we not want to extend to emigrants, many of whom have been forced to leave because of the economic and social policies pursued by Governments, the right to have a political say in their homeland? There is a fundamental political rights issue involved. The Government should accept the principle of this Bill and not oppose it on Second Stage. The practical and administrative difficulties can be dealt with at a later stage.
I thank Deputy Gilmore for giving me some of his time and I am pleased that The Workers' Party have cooperated with us in this regard. I am sure it can be reciprocated.
It was most interesting to hear the differences between Deputy Dennehy's and Deputy Gilmore's contributions. Deputy Gilmore was reflecting much more accurately than Deputy Dennehy the views, policy and main drive behind this proposed legislation. We are very pleased that The Workers' Party are supporting this Bill and I hope all the other parties will also support it, including the party in coalition with Fianna Fáil, who effectively indicated on many occasions that they would support giving the vote to emigrants. It will be interesting to see what happens on the vote next week.
I congratulate my colleague, Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan, on his work and effort in the preparation of this Bill. It was not an easy task and he has acquitted himself very well in producing his first Bill as spokesman.
Deputy Gilmore was right when he spoke about the principle of the vote. I can well understand that the Government are at all times reluctant to accept an Opposition Bill and would prefer to bring forward their own legislation. That would be normal tactics. On the other hand, the Government have, to their credit, accepted two Fine Gael Bills during the present Dáil. This is a very simple proposal which is being made complicated. I have never heard so many arguments being manufactured to complicate something which is not a complicated issue. It has been said, for example, that the vote is not given to any people outside the country. That is inaccurate since all serving Irish troops in the Lebanon and elsewhere in the Middle East have been able to vote at successive elections and a very high proportion of them have voted. I would accept that there is not a straight comparison between a battalion of Irish troops at one location in the Lebanon and a battalion of emigrants spread all over London, a city of 11 million people. If it can be done in one circumstance surely it can be done in the other.
Another argument which has been advanced is that there is the possibility of some form of fraud or dishonesty. That is a deplorable approach by a Minister whose Government have been responsible during the past four years for the high level of emigration. They are now saying that if they give a vote to these young people whom they have forced out of the country they will act in a dishonest way. Being dishonest in terms of voting is nothing new. People have broken the rules in every election since the State was founded. People have been prosecuted for trying to vote on more than one occasion, as the Government parties and the Opposition parties know. I do not see the difference between giving an emigrant a postal vote and giving a person a vote at home. I do not see how we can accuse people of being dishonest before we accept the principle of giving them a vote.
There is no reason people could not be asked to produce a passport. Most Irish citizens living abroad still hold their Irish passports. There is no reason the returning officer in most countries could not be the Irish Embassy or the Consulate. It would be quite easy to organise.
It was also said that there might be delays in getting the ballot papers back. I never heard such ridiculous nonsense. We live at a time of high technology satellite recording and worldwide publication in the media of events as they are happening. We were able to see the war in the Middle East taking place day by day and hour by hour, yet it is said that emigrants cannot have a vote because we might not be able to get the ballot papers back in time. How low can we stoop to deprive emigrants of a constitutional right?
Sunday voting would facilitate people at home and abroad. The Minister in the course of the debate responded in a positive way to that proposal.
There is also the question of the right of Irish people abroad to vote in European elections. I believe it will not be long before the European Parliament ensure that every citizen of a member state has the right to vote. I was on the losing side of the argument made by Deputy Dennehy. I polled almost 86,000 votes and finished up losing by ten. If the emigrants had had a vote, I would have won. The year before last my wife and I, together with other people from my native town, Drogheda, went to a function which we organised in a pub in London. There were supposed to be about 50 people coming but when we arrived the place was packed to the doors. It was a full house. We organised the same function last year, together with other public representatives in Drogheda, at a larger location where 1,000 people turned up. There were many young people and quite a number who were not so young. They came because they wanted to meet each other and to meet us. They came because we went to the trouble of travelling there to indicate to them that we had not forgotten about them. We did not go for their votes since they did not have votes. My guess is that if they did have the vote there would not have been many Deputies in this Chamber that night because the bulk of them would have been in that function room. The people who attended would have had the right to decide what was to happen in Louth and in Meath and in the Minister's constituency where there is the highest level of emigration.
I have on occasions been in the Minister's constituency doing some fishing and talking to people who have come home from America, Canada and the United Kingdom. They all asked why they could not have a vote, the same right Americans have in American elections or other Europeans have in their national or European elections. I could not give them an answer. We now have an opportunity to give them that right by passing this simple and uncomplicated Bill. I would like to thank Deputy Gilmore for giving me some of his time.
In conclusion, this is a unique opportunity for us to indicate to our emigrant sons and daughters that we have not forgotten them. I have two children in London, and they came home to vote in the last election. Of course, they may have had a greater interest than most.
Who did they vote for?
They voted for Michael Bell or at least that is what they told me. If they had stayed away I would have been beaten by 12 votes instead of ten in the European elections. If ten more people had come home, or if ten more people had a vote I might now, like a number of other people here, be in the European Parliament.
The Deputy might have lost by 20 votes.
This indicates the power of the vote and how our emigrants could change the whole situation. They could change the situation dramatically in this House if they had a vote.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. It was interesting to hear the contributions from the various Deputies. I am sorry that Deputy Bell did not have a little more time as he appeared to have much more to say. The Deputy referred to the European elections but I was not too sure when the elections were over whether he was beaten by ten or 40 votes. The Deputy said ten votes but I will take him at his word.
The official record holder will confirm what I said.
If it is any consolation to the Deputy I can assure him that the man who beat him is doing an excellent job and proving a wonderful ambassador for the country. In that case, I think the best horse won.
Last night I listened to the Labour Party spokesperson, Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan, propose the extension of voting rights to emigrants. He said the Bill would rectify a situation which had been allowed to continue for far too long and also contained powers to curb any abuse. The Deputy described the exodus of thousands of our people and, in fairness to him, he acknowledged that the problem has been with us for almost 150 years. Listening to some of the other Deputies one might be forgiven for thinking that the problems only began in 1987. It is very common for Members on the Opposition benches to lacerate the Government and accuse them of being the cause of the dreadful exodus of our people. History shows that emigration was with us even when we did not have our own Government. It is a fact of life, whether we like it or not and regardless of what party or parties were in office, and it is still with us. The Labour Party, Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrates — even if in a different form — all had the opportunity to govern during the past 20 years and we must accept that we have failed to prevent enforced emigration.
There will always be voluntary emigration. I am not sure that there are statistics available in this regard but I am quite convinced that the number of people emigrating of their own free will has increased dramatically in the past few years. More people are educated today and they are anxious to travel and experience life in other parts of the world. While everyone would accept that voluntary emigration is a good thing and can prove a valuable and pleasant experience, enforced emigration is a traumatic experience. We are all familiar with the situation. I expect there are few people who have not had a member of their family or a relation who has had to emigrate. Deputy Bell mentioned that two of his children are working in London. If nothing else, this debate indicates the seriousness of the Government in dealing with the problem of emigration and that we are prepared to tackle the problems our emigrants face when they leave our shores.
As I have said, we have all had some experience of emigration we have seen men leaving their wives and families in search of work so as to put bread on the table or the young man or young woman unable to find their first job going away in search of their first pay packet. When the Government took office in 1987 they recognised the seriousnes of the situation and immediately set about creating a climate which would be conducive to job creation and thus stem the emigration trail. There is no doubt but that we have been successful in creating that climate and thousands of new jobs have come on stream. However, though they have not been as plentiful as we would have wished, our policies are paying dividends and the rate of emigration has fallen substantially. We are familiar with the case of people who emigrated and have now returned home — people who travelled to London or New York in search of work and possibly enjoyed a few years of fruitful employment. While the economies in Britain and the United States boomed during the second half of the eighties they are experiencing a slow down at present and jobs that were previously so plentiful have dried up in recent times leaving some of our people with no option but to return home.
It has to be accepted also that the new confidence prevailing in Ireland is proving to be a major incentive for people to return home. The Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn, indicated in his contribution last night the two major ways the Government are showing their concern for emigrants. First and most important is the Government commitment to remove as far as possible the root causes of involuntary emigration; second, to provide emigrants with the practical support and back up facilities they need. The majority of our emigrants are still travelling to Britain and our embassy in London ensures us that the various welfare and advice centres are providing support for the work being carried out for the good of these emigrants. Our Government were not found wanting when it came to advising our American friends in Congress of the most beneficial legislation for our emigrants. We sought to improve the advice and welfare services available to Irish men and women on their arrival in the States. Our Government provided hard cash in that respect.
We must closely examine this Private Members' Bill which proposes to extend voting rights to all emigrants provided they have not been gone for more than 15 years. As my colleague, Deputy Dennehy, mentioned it is hard to understand how you could put a time limit of 15 years on those eligible to vote. If, say, a man who emigrated many years ago comes home for a week's holiday, does that mean he can start afresh.
He must put his name on the register of electors. The 15 year limit can be removed but the figure would be massive.
I congratulate Deputy O'Sullivan on producing this Bill and showing his concern for our emigrants. I do not think for one moment that anyone, no matter on what side of the House he is sitting, would take for granted our citizens who have emigrated through no fault of their own. Nevertheless we have to be practical. Last night Deputy McGinley outlined the difficulties he could see with this Bill but despite his reservations he was still prepared to support it at this stage.
There is nothing wrong with this Bill that a number of amendments could not put right.
I find that difficult to accept. However, I suppose if I were on that side of the House and the party were at 23 per cent, I would be trying to pull a few rabbits out of the hat, but I do not know whether it will work.
The Deputy will find out in June.
I would not be making political statements like that.
Another major fault of the Bill is that the implementation arrangements were completely ignored. I see the implementation of the Bill as being the most difficult aspect of it. We have to accept that our emigrants are right around the world, are in 150 or 160 countries, as Deputy McGinley mentioned last night. Possibly 250,000 Irish people have emigrated during the past 15 years. It would be a very difficult job to try to include them on our registers in the 41 constituencies. Would we have to create a new job for embassies locating Irish people to put them on the register?
We need to create jobs some place.
The Deputy's own leader was not too long in office when he created about 50 jobs, although there were only about 30.
That is the way the world is going to go.
Would Deputy Reynolds reserve himself for his own contribution and allow Deputy Power to make his? The Deputy has to contain his emotions in this House, unfortunately.
There will be time for vision and revision.
Deputy Power should address the Chair. Otherwise he may not get the same receptive ear.
You will get a very receptive ear from the Chair.
If Irish emigrants in London had a vote here, when it came to a European election they would be in a position to elect, maybe, Deputy Bell and some other member from England. It is something that the Europeans would not be too happy with that any man would be given an opportunity to elect members from two different countries.
In his address last night the Minister stated that the Federation of Irish Societies in 1989 rejected a proposal to give the vote to Irish emigrants in Dáil elections and while our intentions here might be good — and I am sure they are — we would have to accept the federation's view on it. Although we would like to think in the House here that we are very much in touch with the emigrants, I am sure the federation would be a little bit closer to them.
Earlier I mentioned compiling the register. It is not something that we should dismiss very easily. It would be a very difficult job to do. All one has to do is listen to radio programmes, for example, at Christmas time and hear requests coming in from some of the Irish people who have emigrated to know that they are living in every corner of the world. It would be almost impossible to compile a register that would give all our emigrants a chance to vote. Another worry I would have is the cost. Who would we pay to compile the register? Who would we pay to run the election? Where would the voting take place?
In the home constituency the onus is on the emigrant to register.
What would happen when it comes to voting in an election?
He votes in his home constituency. It is in the Bill.
I am not happy with it. This is my opportunity to express my reservations. I have a number of reservations, and that is one of them. I am delighted to hear that Deputy Bell was in London a few times during the last few years. When it came to running an election and canvassing our emigrants we would have to travel a little further than London. The integrity of the elections is another serious issue which must be addressed. As Deputy Bell said, we have found it very difficult to keep our elections straight here and to keep people from voting more than once.
That Deputy's party have more of a problem with that than the rest of us. The Taoiseach's own election agent created difficulties in that area.
If there is any party that will have difficulties in elections in the future, it is Deputy Shatter's party; one only has to look at the way opinion polls are going. Deputy Shatter should not crow too loudly.
We must accept that the Garda have played a major part in ensuring that our elections are run smoothly and properly. If voting were to take place in various centres around the world we could not expect the same sort of co-operation from the police forces there. We could not expect a foreign force to show the same interest as our own Garda. If the boot were on the other foot and we were to allow Australians in this country to vote in an Australian election, I am sure we would not go out of our way to prevent any abuses at the polling booths.
I should have mentioned earlier, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that I wanted to share some of my time on Tuesday night next with Deputy Brennan.
Is the House agreed? Agreed.
Thank you very much. The Minister stated last night that any abuses that might take place would be outside the reach of our courts and there would be no way we could remedy a problem like that. When the security is not available to the polling station it would be only natural to expect that people would abuse the system.
I would have to oppose this Bill purely for practical and administrative purposes. While I have to compliment Deputy O'Sullivan on introducing this Bill, it is obvious that he has not studied the practicalities of it. It is just not feasible to allow our emigants to vote. No matter how good his intentions, I feel that for our emigrants the main priority is to return home and our main aim here as a Government should be to provide a climate that would attract our people back home again. We have been lucky that when things were very bad here and there were no jobs to be found there was always the chance of a job in London, New York or Boston.
Deputy Bell mentioned that a number of our people outside the country are entitled to vote. He mentioned in particular our troops abroad. The troops in the Lebanon have a facility where they can vote in an election. There is no comparison between our emigrants and the troops, in that the troops could easily be accounted for, being in a very confined area, whereas it would be a big job trying to locate emigrants. Deputy Bell found it difficult to accept defeat in the last European election and is convinced in his own mind that if the emigrants had a vote he would be in Brussels or Strasbourg tonight and not in Dublin.
Debate adjourned.