Deputy Seán Power was in possession. The Deputy indicated he wished to share time with Deputy Matt Brennan. The Deputies have ten minutes left between them.
Private Members' Business. - Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1991: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
This Bill proposes to enable emigrants of up to 15 years to register as electors and to vote at elections other than local government elections. Deputy O'Sullivan proposed postal voting and suggested that if the Minister for the Environment was unhappy with the integrity of the elections he would have the power to modify the relevant legislation. We have all experienced long delays in overseas postal deliveries. Candidates go through an agonising few hours at election counts as they await the white smoke from the returning officer. God only knows what might happen to candidates if they were depending on a few first preferences from New York or Boston. We could easily have a few by-elections before the full general election result was known.
During the debate last week I outlined my reasons for opposing this Bill and they were practical and administrative reasons. I have no doubt about Deputy O'Sullivan's good intentions in proposing this Bill but, like many other Deputies, not just on this side of the House I have serious reservations about the Bill.
To give voting rights to all Irish people who left during the past 15 years would give the vote to people in many countries throughout the world. The Governments of some of those countries have proved not to be friends of Ireland. In that atmosphere, surely it would be impossible for the Irish Government to guarantee that the election would be held in a fair and honest way. Since our entry to the EC our Government have constantly dealt with European Governments and during that period we built up a certain amount of trust with our European colleagues. There has been enormous co-operation between members and if voting rights were to be given to all Irish people who emigrated to EC countries we could guarantee the integrity of elections. I ask the Minister for the Environment to seriously consider granting the vote to all Irish people living in the European Community. However, I have to oppose the Bill proposed by Deputy O'Sullivan.
No Government has done more to stem the flow of emigration over the past few years than the present Government. They have confidence in the people and in the country and people are beginning to invest here. In the future we will have more industry and we will stop or at least slow down the flow of emigration. If any Minister would benefit from giving voting rights to our emigrants it would be the Minister for the Environment because of the numbers who have emigrated from County Mayo and from the western seaboard from Donegal to Kerry.
I was an emigrant for a number of years and I worked in the UK and in the US. I pay tribute to the many Irish people who have emigrated and to the work they have done in their adopted countries. They have contributed to building churches, schools and so on. When I emigrated to the US I worked in New York and I took part in all the activities. I played football in Gaelic Park, New York. Last summer I returned for the wedding of a niece and I was disappointed to see the condition of Gaelic Park as I had thought it might have improved over the years. The man with the lease on Gaelic Park had it for the past 50 years and it was renewed again last year. What has he done for the Irish emigrants in New York? He made a lot of money for himself, providing a few facilities for the Irish people there. I was saddened to see the way Irish emigrants were treated in Gaelic Park, New York. I saw excellent football and hurling games on second-class grounds. This man had made so much out of the Irish that he could have provided much better facilities.
It is a pity we are not providing them at home.
At the moment the Irish in New York do not have a dance hall or a meeting place except a pub. I visited 17 Irish pubs in New York and met many Irish emigrants working there. A number of them could not come home because they were there illegally. This Government have done something for illegal immigrants in the US over the past few years and I hope nearly all of them will get Green Cards to enable them to be there legally so that they will be able to come and go as they like. That is what this Government have been fighting for over the past few years and I am proud of their efforts.
Considerable work is being done for Irish emigrants in London, Birmingham and Manchester, particularly by Irish priests. An Irish emigrant in London need only contact the Irish Centre in Camden Town to get a place to stay. This is due to the great work Irish priests are doing in London, Birmingham and Manchester.
I thank Deputy Power for giving me the few minutes to speak. I reiterate that no Government have done more to stem the flow of emigration than this Government in the past three years.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Creed.
Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
I listened with interest to my constituency colleague who spoke about the great work being done by our emigrants in England and America. I agree but it is a bit obscene to state how great they are and not give them a say in how the country is run. Is it any wonder that people are cynical when no reference is made in speeches in the Houses of Parliament to the reasons people have left this country? It is disappointing that a constituency colleague of mine has taken that view because I am aware that Deputy Brennan is fully conscious of the extent of emigration from south Sligo, County Leitrim and the West.
That is the reason I visited them.
I am sorry he made such a paltry statement and did not urge that these people — most of whom want to return — be given a say in the way the country is run.
I agree in principle with the Bill because it is essential that our emigrants, even if some of them have been away for a number of years, be given a voice in this country and I compliment Deputy O'Sullivan and the Labour Party for bringing the Bill before the House. Even though there are a number of flaws in it, the vote should be given to emigrants.
I was an emigrant in the mid to late eighties. I see the Minister for the Environment shaking his head — perhaps he is saying to himself that I should never have come back, but I am here to stay.
We all wish that.
(Wexford): The Deputy got a good job.
The Deputy is very welcome.
Thank you. I will get elected on the Deputy's surplus the next time. In New York where I went to college a friend of mine, a French student, on one occasion voted in the French presidential election. He took a day off college to go to the French Consulate in New York with passport in hand to cast his vote. I have no doubt that that person was very proud, and felt very patriotic, that after two years living and working in the United States he could still exercise his franchise in the French presidential election. This led me to think about all the undocumented illegal Irish immigrants in New York — there are three or four times as many there now — who did not have a say in the way the country was run. What was worse, they did not have a vote in New York or anywhere else in America. The least we should do is to give them the vote in the country they left involuntarily. A number of the Fianna Fáil speakers have said that the problem is too great but I do not accept this. There will be logistical problems but I do not think that should be used as an excuse for not giving emigrants a vote.
This morning I showed a group of 24 fifth year college girls from Dublin around the building. While viewing the Seanad I asked them about their interest in politics and how many of them would vote in a general election if they had a vote. Ten replied that they would while 14 said they would not exercise their franchise. I asked them the reasons and they replied they felt they would have to emigrate in two or three years' time and asked why should they bother getting involved in the political process if they would not be here pursuing a career. I found that extremely sad. This is an indication of the level of cynicism among the young generation, but until we clean up our act and are realistic, this will continue to be the case. Unfortunately, it will get worse. If people do not take part in the democratic process, what are we left with? That is a very serious question and it is one which we, as elected representatives, must act upon immediately.
Coming as I do from a political family I have always had an interest in politics. I recall a young Fianna Fáil Deputy from Galway West, Deputy Fahey, now Minister of State with responsibility for Youth Affairs and Sport, spouting about the injustices being done to our emigrants, that no one was doing anything about the problem, that he was going to be their saviour——
That is for sure.
——and that he was going to bring them back to Galway, Leitrim, Tipperary by the plane load. Not only did he say he would do this, but he went to New York to hold a big meeting with the then Mayor of New York, Mayor Koch. Following this meeting it was stated in the Irish newspapers there and the national newspapers here, that Mayor Koch would provide medical facilities at a cheap rate for undocumented illegal immigrants in the New York area. I have no doubt that that was a political exercise in cynicism. However, when poor unfortunate illegal immigrants went to avail of these cheap medical facilities, they were unable to find them. What it did do, however, was appease their families in Ireland who thought that Deputy Fahey was a great man to do all this for our emigrants. I am sorry to have to say this when Deputy Fahey is not in the House, but there has not been a squeak out of him during this debate. I wonder if he, too, has turned his back on the people he told he would be their saviour.
He will be the saviour of 16 year olds now.
The Minister is aware of the extent of emigration and County Mayo, no more than County Leitrim, has survived the ravages of emigration. There were 32 boys in my class in national school in 1973. Of these, two are living in County Leitrim today, 20 have emigrated and ten work in this country. I have no doubt that 70 per cent of those who have left have done so involuntarily. The reason they emigrated involuntarily was lack of work. It is a sad reflection that that position has been ongoing and worsening. The least we could do is give them a say in the election of some part of the Oireachtas. I am not saying that will stop emigration or that they will be happy with that, but it is a recognition, a sign that we have not forgotten them and know they want to come back. As politicians, we are seen as doing nothing but talk. The Minister has a chance to take some action. He is a great man for saying what action should be taken but nothing happens. If emigrants were given the vote, the Minister might pass out Deputy Mary O'Rourke in the leadership polls. Many people from Mayo would be interested in seeing him attain that high office.
I am high enough.
Mná na hÉireann will never be forgiven.
A number of people have emigrated voluntarily because they could get jobs in the EC at a better rate than we could offer here. Another factor is the tax regime. People are attracted by the availability of jobs, the incentive to work and value for money. There is no incentive when one pays more than 50p in the £ in tax. The Government will have to look hard at that issue.
I support in principle the giving of votes to emigrants. Young Fine Gael recently carried out a survey in 25 centres around the country. The survey revealed that 73 per cent of those questioned were in favour of giving the vote to emigrants, while 26 per cent were against; 46 per cent of those in favour wanted the vote given to emigrants who left five years ago; 15 per cent wanted the vote given to those who left ten years ago; 5 per cent favoured votes for those who left 15 years ago and 34 per cent were for giving votes to emigrants indefinitely. That reflects what people are feeling. I know polls are taken very seriously on the other side of the House. The Government's case is an exercise in political expediency. People will remember that Fianna Fáil championed the just cause of emigrants while they were in Opposition but in Government they are doing everything possible to stop emigrants having a say in the running of the country.
I thank Deputy Reynolds for sharing his time and I compliment the Labour Party on a very worthwhile contribution to the affairs of this House and to the well-being of the hundreds of thousands of emigrants who have been forced to seek employment elsewhere. Successive Governments over the years have failed to provide and adequate standard of living in this country, thereby forcing people to emigrate. It is regrettable that this Bill has evoked such a response from the Government. It is a typical knee jerk reactionary response from a Government who assume a monopoly of wisdom in regard to all things that are right and good for this country.
A principle is involved which most other EC countires recognise by granting their citizens in exile the right to vote in elections for their national parliaments. It is regrettable that this principle is not recognised by the Government. I admit there would be difficulties in framing tight legislation to cater for huge numbers of emigrants, but that is no reason for the defeatist attitude of the Government. These people are anxious to contribute to a new society here which would offer all its citizens a job and a decent standard of living.
It is particularly ironic that a party such as Fianna Fáil should oppose this right in principle. That party for many years used the emigrant issue for political advantage. I do not have to remind the House of the electioneering campaign in 1987 when billboards were used which proclaimed that the only growth in the economy in previous years was the growth in numbers of people leaving the country. Deputy Reynolds referred to the antics of Deputy Fahey during those years, travelling abroad and cultivating the support of emigrant groups. They are now dashing the hopes they raised. Those who live in glasshouses should not throw stones. No party used the emigration issue so cynically as Fianna Fáil and their colleagues, who are now Progressive Democrats, in the years 1983 to 1987. It is noteworthy that in the years since that cocktail was mixed to form a minority Fianna Fáil Government we have witnessed the highest levels of emigration.
The most damning indictment of this Government's attitude to emigrants is that they have tied them into the arithmetic of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. That programme assumes for the purposes of balancing the books that the present rate of emigration will continue. It is cold comfort to the many thousands of young people in second and third level institutions who have some sense of idealism and hope. The Government are not solely responsible for the programme. It is regrettable that the social partners saw fit to budget for emigration at unacceptable levels. They have sold the interests of generations to come.
The Government are bankrupt of ideas of how to deal with the problems of unemployment and emigration. They seem to accept without question the "Doheny and Nesbitt school of economics", "that you, you and you have no future in this country." The people have to leave because the Government want to balance the books. The sole achievement of the minority Fianna Fáil administration, which is now blinding them in Coalition was the balancing of the books. Presenting a balanced set of books to parents whose children are seeking employment here is cold comfort indeed.
We have seen a persistent refusal by the Government to recognise the poverty traps which are ensnaring many people. Indeed unemployment is forcing many of them to emigrate in despair of the Government having realistic policies to resolve those problems.
One has to question the Government's response to a Bill which seeks to recognise in principle the rights of people who have been forced to leave this country to vote in elections here and have a say in the formulation of policies they hope will lead to the creation of jobs and thus increase the possibility of their returning to this country. The reason is that the Government, of all Governments, have a lot to fear. The Government raised the expectations, for cynical political purposes, of thousands of emigrants and many people at home who have since been forced to emigrate. That is the reason, despite what was trotted out by the Minister.
We accept that there will be logistical problems. What is at stake this evening is the principle of the Bill. If we accept the principle we can then move forward to devise a scheme which will enable our emigrants by way of voting in Dáil elections to ultimately determine policies to be pursued here which may have a direct bearing on their future and the possibility of their returning to this country. Many speakers have touched on the human face of emigration. I suggest it has affected every family. In fact, two members of my family have emigrated in search of employment. The signs of emigration will be seen next weekend when generations of Irish people who were forced to emigrate participate in Saint Patrick's Day parades around the world. We will have a huge number of English registered cars off-loading from the car ferries at Rosslare and Cork. We will have a brief glimpse of those people before they return to the country which offered them employment opportunities when this country failed to do so.
The face of emigration can be seen in rural clubs, sporting, social and political. They have been denuded of a generation who had been educated and offered great hope. The irony is that we have spent millions of pounds of taxpayers' money educating our young people but we have failed to tap in to that potential. Without a blink we have cast them on the emigrant trail and in this debate the Government are refusing to give them a say in life in Ireland in the years ahead.
Cork North-West, my constituency, is a microcosm of life in rural Ireland. The constituency comprises medium sized market towns, small villages and a large rural population. I have had first hand experience in my capacity as a public representative, and in other capacities, of the blight of emigration across the constituency. I find it nauseating that the Government can sit here and lecture from on high that there is no hope for our people here and that the only route for them is emigration. That is the reality of the programme which the Government have concluded with the social partners.
Last weekend the Macroom branch of Young Fine Gael, whose membership ranges from second and third level students to young employed and unemployed people, carried out a survey. The first question asked if those questioned believed that Irish emigrants should be entitled to vote in Oireachtas elections. An overwhelming majority, 82 per cent of the people in Macroom, felt that those people should be given a right to vote. The second question — the Minister should take note of this, but I doubt if he will — asked whether the Government were doing enough to promote the welfare of Irish emigrants abroad and 84 per cent out of a sample of 350 people responded that the Government were not doing enough. When one sees Irish emigrants sleeping in cardboard boxes and thousands working illegally in the United States, and the Government throwing in the towel at home on the question of emigration and refusing to give a meaningful voice to emigrants, one despairs.
At the outset I complimented the Labour Party on the Bill but I have some reservations about it. It is too long a period to extend voting rights to those who emigrated 15 years ago. Many people who emigrated and lived abroad for 15 years do not have the intention of returning to the country and, therefore, it would be wrong to give them a voice in elections here. I see great difficulty in compiling accurate registers and putting the onus for them on local authorities. I favour a system of self registration by emigrants. I see great difficulties also in purely logistic terms in extending the provisions of the Bill to every emigrant. Perhaps a policy of registration at centres where we have consular offices would be more realistic. This would be better than offering a blanket extension of the franchise without detailed consideration of how it might work. My great fear is that at the end of the day the Labour Party Bill will do little for Irish emigrants. What TD does not claim to speak for Irish emigrants? All of us do. I would like to commend Deputy McGinley for his contribution. He suggested direct representation in the Oireachtas by giving three seats to representatives directly elected by emigrants and that would give greater clout and credibility to the emigrant causes. It would have a greater effect on policy and impact meaningfully on the question of emigration and the recognition of the rights of emigrants.
I appeal to the Minister to recognise, at this late stage, that there is a question of principle, the recognition of the rights of people who have been forced out of the country to make a meaningful contribution to Irish life by having a say in policy and having that say by the extension of voting rights to them.
(Wexford): I would like to share my time with Deputy Dan Wallace.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
(Wexford): This debate last week and again tonight in relation to voting rights for emigrants opens up the whole issue of emigrants and gives us an opportunity to reflect and to see that there is a real issue. It gives an opportunity to politicians from all sides to remember the plight of emigrants all over the world.
Deputy Creed talked about Fianna Fáil and political expediency and implied that Fianna Fáil had, in the past, used the plight of emigrants to gain some advantage. Recently I read about Deputy Jimmy Deenihan and others visiting emigrants in London and various parts of the United States to discuss with them their situation. There is nothing wrong with that. It is important for politicians, whether from this side of the House or the far side, to visit emigrants and keep in touch to see what improvements could be brought about. We should not apologise for that. There is no question of political expediency in this area.
I come from Wexford in the south east corner of Ireland. Rosslare has often been described as the gateway to Europe. It has been the gateway for many emigrants who have had to leave to find jobs. I, from time to time, visit London and other places to see how the young people from Wexford are getting on, to find out if they have jobs or if they are homeless. I go with a genuine interest to make sure that any concerns they might have are taken up and brought back here to this House and discussed with the relevant Ministers in an effort to improve their quality of life.
It is unfortunate that young people have to emigrate. Various Governments over the last number of years have provided a good, sound educational system here which has cost the taxpayer a substantial amount of money. It is therefore frustrating that so many well educated, talented young people that, if the jobs were available, we could have here in this country working to build a nation for the future, are giving their skills and talents to other countries. I do not think it is a big deal for the United States to say they will give us so many Donnelly visas or so many green cards. Those people who are in the United States are providing their skills and qualifications to build up that country. We should get a far greater amount and not have to go cap in hand. The United States should be providing visas because of the skills they are getting free of charge.
There are two types of emigration. There is voluntary emigration where people who are highly skilled and very talented take career breaks and go, usually to New York or to Sydney or to Perth, to take up jobs in nursing and other areas. Those people are well able to look after themselves and usually after a year or two they can return to Ireland and have no problem getting a job. It is the other area of involuntary emigration that is a problem. People are going to London with no education and no skills, and generally it is felt that up to 20 per cent of those people end up in difficulties, homeless on the streets of London, unable to find a job. Those are the people we must home in on to encourage them to return here and encourage employers here to employ, no matter what Government are in power.
The question of votes for emigrants is very interesting. There is no pattern of voting for emigrants across the various countries in the EC. For example, a British resident abroad for up to 20 years is entitled to be registered as an overseas elector and to vote at parliamentary and European Parliament elections. Electors are registered in the constituency where they last registered as UK electors, and voting by overseas electors is by proxy. There are 31,000 UK emigrants registered on the electoral system in the UK and this represents .03 per cent of the total electorate. There are much more than 31,000 UK emigrants around the world and there has not been a mad rush on the part of British people to get on the electoral register. That is interesting because British people are certainly very patriotic. Judging by those figures, however, they seem quite happy to vote, if possible, in the country where they live or not to vote at all.
The Federal Republic of Germany residents abroad are entitled to be registered as electors for up to ten years after emigrating and this has only applied since the recent parliamentary elections; voting in Germany for emigrants has happened only recently. It is by post and, again, 31,000 emigrants voted at the last general election in 1987. That is something like .07 per cent of the total electorate. Again this shows that there is no great interest on the part of people from Germany in going back or voting by post in their own country. In France they take a different line. Emigrants are only entitled to vote at presidential and European elections and in referenda, and no provision is made for voting by nationals abroad in parliamentary elections. This shows that the system varies from country to country. Italian emigrants can vote only at European elections and voting is in person at polling stations set up in the host country, usually at embassies. There are about 1.5 million Italian nationals living abroad and no arrangements are made for voting abroad by emigrants at parliamentary elections. Spanish residents abroad are entitled to be registered to vote at all elections. Portuguese emigrants may vote at parliamentary and European elections but not at presidential or local elections and they must register annually at local embassies. Voting, again, is by post. The Netherlands allows all its emigrants to vote at all elections except local elections. Again, voting is by post or by proxy. At the last general election very few people bothered to exercise this right and the total number of emigrants who voted at the last general election was 23,600.
In Luxembourg emigrants are entitled to vote at all elections, where voting is by post. Something in the region of 2,000 emigrants only voted in their last general election. In Belgium their emigrants may vote at European elections only. In Denmark emigrants are not entitled to vote in Danish elections but their civil servants are given that right. It seems strange that their civil servants posted abroad are entitled to vote while their ordinary Joe citizen is not entitled to vote in their elections. Greece allows their nationals resident abroad to vote in European elections only and not in parliamentary elections. Voting in European elections is done at their embassies where polling stations are established if it is considered by the relevant embassy that there are sufficient nationals resident in the country to so warrant. United States residents abroad are entitled to vote in US Federal elections. Approximately one million voters are entitled to vote under this provision, either in person or by post. In New Zealand, in order to be eligible for registration as an elector, a person must have resided there for a continuous period of one year. Continuous absence from that country for more than three years leads to removal of the names of those concerned from the register of electors. Canadian emigrants do not have a right to vote at all.
Therefore, it will clearly be seen that different countries worldwide have different systems. There is no pattern to suggest that even within the EC, of which we are a member, emigrants abroad would be entitled to vote in parliamentary elections. It is important that we examine the systems obtaining in other countries and, at some stage, perhaps take some of them on board. However, we should not enact hasty legislation just for the sake of giving emigrants a vote, thereafter encountering all sorts of problems and difficulties.
There has been mention of postal voting in many countries. I think it was in the 1985 local elections a postal voting system was introduced here for certain categories of people. One could not contend that it was totally successful. Indeed I understand it was later abolished.
The question one must ask is whether Irish emigrants want a vote at Irish elections. At the annual meeting in 1989 of the Federation of Irish Societies — the primary body representing Irish organisations in the United Kingdom — a proposal calling for votes in Dáil elections for a number of different reasons, probably the main one being that there was a certain amount of apprehension that an extension of the Irish vote to emigrants could call into question their right to vote in United Kingdom elections. It is important to take into account what one of the major Irish societies representing Irish organisations in the United Kingdom is saying to us. They appreciate the fact that they have a vote in Britain, enjoy a good standard of living, whether by way of wages, housing or lower taxation. We should listen to what such organisations in the United Kingdom and other countries have to say. We should discuss with them frankly the positive and/or negative elements of allowing them the right to vote in Irish elections.
In the emigrants' advice, information and counselling service annual report, 1989 — a 20 page document — there was no mention of the right of emigrants to vote or the need for young emigrants abroad to have a vote here. Rather they were concerned that there be proper counselling services made available to our emigrants whether in England, New York or elsewhere. More importantly, they highlighted the lack of services here for people intending to emigrate who may not have the requisite education or skills or to whom it may not be of any advantage to emigrate. I know that is not the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment. Rather I would view it as being the responsibility of the Minister for Social Welfare, possibly also of the Minister for Labour — to make more resources available for the establishment and maintenance of counselling centres here to advise young people whether it may or may not be in their best interests to emigrate. I have witnessed some young people emigrate from my county who returned within a week or two, having found there was nothing in London for them. They discovered that the cost of accommodation was in excess of what they could afford, the social welfare system totally inadequate and their chances of finding suitable accommodation practically nil.
It is wrong for Deputy Creed to say that politicians use emigrants. I have been a public representative for the past eight or nine years and spend most weekends — as I am sure do many other Members on the far side of the House — visiting companies, seeking jobs for young people, endeavouring to have them facilitated whether on a short or long term basis. I contend it is important that we continue to fulfil that role.
Our economy is developing along the right lines with low interest rates and inflation but that inprovement has not been reflected in the number of jobs created by industrialists. It appears to me that industrialists tend to cream off massive profits and do not re-invest in the creation of jobs. I contend it is the responsibility of the Government of the day — regardless of which party or parties are in power — to create the proper climate for job creation when, in turn, pressure should be exerted on industrialists to create additional jobs to reflect that improved climate. In some areas that is not taking place. I contend there are employers who, if pushed, could create a substantial number of jobs but they do not appear to be interested in so doing.
I hope that this debate this evening will make us all reflect on the possibility that we may have many emigrants abroad who could be better off at home. It would be my hope also that there would be additional resources made available to the counselling services to improve the lot of emigrants.
Whatever about the Labour Party Bill the Fine Gael idea of giving emigrants three Senators to represent them was not well thought out and would do nothing for them. It would be my hope that we can put all our heads together so that many of our young people at present abroad on whose education much money has been expended by successive Government, could return home, get gainful employment and help build our economy in the way we would all like to see it develop over the next decade. I find it frustrating at times to observe so many of our young talented people abroad.
In his remarks the Minister for the Environment outlined the problems he envisages in giving voting rights to our emigrants. I contend the Bill before us has not been well thought out. Nonetheless at some stage in the future perhaps the Government of the day, the Opposition parties and our people abroad representiting emigrants whether in London, New York, Sydney or elsewhere can put their heads together and examine the possibility of affording them voting rights in the future. Perhaps we could begin, as did some other countries, by giving voting rights in European elections and continue from there.
What is most important is that we develop jobs for our many emigrants, when we would not be talking about voting rights but rather jobs for them, expecting them to remain and work here.
I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words on this Bill and to take up some points made earlier, particularly by Deputy Creed. It is a pity he adopted the approach he did to the Bill because we can all point fingers when it comes to emigration. From Cobh, in my constituency, emigrants left to go to the United States in very large numbers; these were sad scenes at that time. Many of those who emigrated were not heard of for many years and many of them did not have an opportunity to return and meet their families again. At least, today we do not have that problem. Communications have improved and contact with parents and people at home is much better.
Involuntary emigration is an emotional subject and one that directly affects many households throughout the country. For this reason there is an obligation on us as Members of the Oireachtas to deal with emigration in a balanced level headed way and at all times to be careful about the manner in which we speak on matters related to emigration.
The welfare of emigrants, whether voluntary or involuntary, must be the concern of all us us and our efforts must be directed towards advancing their interests in practical and constructive way. We owe it to them to avoid hyping up the situation in one direction or another. Above all, we must avoid turning the question of emigration into an unnecessary controversy between the parties to be exploited for partisan advantage.
Shame.
This is why the action of the Labour Party in choosing to introduce this Bill at the present time is so regrettable. They have brought in a Bill which has not been properly thought out, which does not deal in a meaningful way with the very serious and complex issues arising and which contains none of the implementation measures which are essential in an electoral Bill of this kind.
Electoral arrangements vitally effect the interests of all parties. Indeed, they provide the essential underpinning for the institutions of State and Government. Any major changes which have fundamental implications for the electoral process must, therefore, be approached with caution. There has been a tradition that substantive changes in the electoral law should proceed on the basis of broad, general agreement.
On this occasion the Labour Party would appear to have carried out no consultations before bringing forward the present measure, either with the other parties in this House or with responsible organisations representing emigrants. Clearly they did not consult their former partners in Government who have introduced their own Bill providing for a radically different form of representation for emigrants.
The Labour Party have had a long history of involvement in public representation and, at this stage, have had substantial experience in Government. They must have known beyond a shadow of doubt that this Bill which they are sponsoring could not hope to succeed. They must have realised that, in its present form, the Bill simply could not be accepted by the Oireachtas. Despite this, they have chosen to go ahead with the measure, thereby heightening expectations among certain categories of emigrants, expectations which the party must have known could only be dashed.
It is disappointing that they have chosen to go ahead with this action. I am not in the business of speculating in regard to motivation. Their action may or may not be connected with forthcoming elections and rivalry between the groups on the left.
In his speech, the Minister for the Environment set out a series of questions which would have to be addressed in any proposal to extend voting rights to citizens permanently resident outside the State. These questions were echoed and, indeed, augmented in contributions by other Members, particularly, let it be said, by Deputy McGinley. These questions include the numbers involved and what cut-off point, if any, could be safely adopted; what is the real attitude of emigrants, particularly those in the United Kingdom who already possess the right to vote in British elections and would, presumably, wish to continue to have this right; the "one man one vote" issue in relation to emigrants in Britain; the question of taxation and representation; the constitutional questions, particularly the question of equal treatment of different categories of citizens; the implications for our particular and rather unique electoral system; the administrative arrangements having regard particularly to the very short time scale applying at Dáil elections; and the preservation of the integrity of elections and how any abuse that might arise abroad could be prevented or remedied.
Unfortunately it must be said that the responses we have had from the promoters of the Bill cannot be said to have dealt with these questions in anything like an adequate way. They either have not dealt with the arguments at all or have dealt with them in the very selective and partial way. They have avoided the central argument altogether. So far as I am concerned, the central question is, could our unique and delicately balanced electoral system withstand the addition of a very large, and at present unknowable, number of electors, electors who would be resident abroad, perhaps permanently, and to one degree or another out of touch with issues and policies here, electors who would vote outside the country without the security arrangements that apply in polling stations here, without the supervision of candidates and personation agents or of our trusted electoral officials and effectively outside the reach of our courts?
In my view, enactment of this Bill would place an overwhelming strain on our electoral system, would change it utterly and destroy the faith our people have in its fairness and integrity. Is that what the Labour Party want?
If we are serious about extending the franchise as proposed by the Bill, if we want to make the kind of provision for voting by citizens abroad that apply in the United States, in the United Kingdom or in some European countries, we must approach the matter in a business-like way and adopt the kind of electoral systems they have in the United States, the United Kingdom or on the continent — an electoral system which would be sturdy enough to withstand the kind of pressures that would be placed on it. If the Opposition are serious about this and are prepared to examine it realistically and objectively in the context of a revised electoral system, then I think they will find us ready to look at the matter in a very open way.
Supporters of the Bill have glided over the question raised in relation to taxation. The point here is that, if the Bill is passed, overseas electors could determine the composition of Government here and, thus, the political, social and economic policies which would be followed. Yet, these electors would pay no taxes here. In other words, they would determine policies: we would pay for them.
They have not said what would happen to Irish emigrants in Britain who have full voting rights in British elections. Would they be required to repudiate their voting rights in Britain and would co-operation be established between the electoral authorities here and in Britain to ensure that emigrants would vote in one country only? I expect Deputy O'Sullivan in his reply will address this matter.
The mechanics of voting, including the prevention of abuse, have been dismissed as of no importance. As Deputy Gilmore said our emigrants could fly home at weekends if we had our elections on Sundays. Deputy Bell referred to the fact that we give voting rights to our 600 troops in the Lebanon. To compare the situation in Lebanon with that of our emigrants is not facing reality.
If we are sincere about this, there are other priorities for our emigrants. Deputy O'Sullivan is on record as saying that when he contacted emigrants this issue was not a priority with them. This is a stated fact by the Deputy himself and I admire him for making it, but there are areas and issues which need to be addressed. The needs of our emigrants in Britain, which were never attended to before by any Government, have been taken on board by this Government. In this regard I want to compliment the organisations abroad who highlighted the serious problems being experienced by many of our emigrants. The Government have responded to these problems.
The Government have been unfairly criticised by some Deputies who wished to gloss over the fact that when their party were in Government emigration was rampant. The economic policies pursued by those people at that time contributed in a very substantial way to emigration. We should get together and deal with this issue constructively to see what assistance we can give emigrants either by enabling them to return home to good, sound jobs or guaranteeing them assistance from the State wherever they are.
With the permission of the House I propose to give five minutes of my time to Deputy Kemmy and ten minutes to Deputy McCartan.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
While reading the Minister's most recent speech on the subject of establishing what is basically a fundamental right to vote for Irish emigrants, I was struck by the way in which it absolutely and scandalously ignored the research on the subject of emigration and the information available from emigrants and, in particular, by its insulting and patronising imputation of motives to our emigrants. I listened to a speaker who said the Labour Party are being opportunistic in relation to this legislation. By training I am a sociologist and I ran the first course on the sociology of emigration in this country. I have researched the subject for almost 20 years. Only last year I visited Brent and other places to talk to emigrants about their welfare and where voting rights, as a demand, figure in these different issues.
I want to be perfectly clear about what has been suggested in this House by the Minister for the Environment. On Tuesday, 7 February 1989 both Deputy De Rossa and I put down questions to the Minister asking him where he stood on the issue of voting rights for emigrants. Both Deputy De Rossa and I pursued the issue with the Minister on that occasion by way of supplementary questions. When I asked him about the basic right to vote — volume 386, columns 1455-58 of the Official Report refers — the Minister again and again made the allegation that the postal vote, as he called it then, would be abused by emigrants. When I asked the Minister if he could give the House a commitment to review the manner in which this issue has been examined by our partners in the European Community so that we would not be left in the absurd position, perhaps during the Irish Presidency, of having the only emigrants not able to vote within the Community, he replied: "Our experience in this matter has not been good". When Deputy Tomás Mac Giolla suggested that he did not trust the Irish voter the Minister replied "not abroad but at home" and the Taoiseach intervened to say "We never trusted them more".
The message was the same throughout that exchange. The Minister took refuge in the Draper case which had been succeeded by amending legislation in relation to electoral law. When I asked him about the right to vote, the Minister stated: "I am saying to the Deputy that, if voting were to take place outside the State... it would be impossible to police properly and, consequently, it would not be in the best interests of the electoral system". That was a comprehensive string of insults about our emigrants to whom the former President de Valera used to address his message as muintir na hÉireann thar lear on St. Patrick's Day.
Last week the Minister added to this the changes which have taken place in his thinking during those two years. He suggested that our emigrants do not understand proportional representation, they would be confused, they would not know enough about local news, they would not know enough about the candidates and maybe their votes might have an effect. Rarely has there ever been put on the record of this House such a string of inaccurate assertions concerning our emigrants and their motives. His advisers brought him back to John Stuart Mill who said "No votes without taxation". One of the Minister's predecessors in office, a man who served as both Taoiseach and President of this country, used to record every year under invisible exports in this House emigrants' remittances. One can add to that the money saved by shipping the social welfare problem — our emigrants — abroad. When Peadar O'Donnell, that magnificent, concerned writer about emigration, was asked by the former President de Valera "Would one million not have emigrated under your scheme as well?" he replied, "They would not be the same million".
As we celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Easter Rising it is interesting to note that we in this House are not voting on detail and practicalities but are voting to deny people whom we would like to regard as part of the Irish family the right to vote. Speakers on the opposite bench do not have the courage to stand up and say they are afraid to give them the right to vote. What we are hearing is a kind of modern day elaboration of what used to be the emigrant's prayer.
In his speech the Minister made interesting assertions about emigrants. He said, for example, that there is no age breakdown to migration. My students, after a week studying the subject, know that the major emigration incidence has always been between the age cohort of 15 to 19 and 20 to 24 years. We know that during the fifties the loss was as high as 60 per cent in some rural parishes, that in 1955, 55,000 people emigrated and that in 1985 we reached the second highest figure in the history of the State.
There is no need to try to obscure the realities of emigration. It has been studied by Stacia Crickley, Professor Damien Hannon and countless scholars. Two years ago when the discredited economies of Mrs. Thatcher was breaking out here people did not speak about emigration at all — they called it labour mobility. There was a kind of sleight of hand to suggest that it was really movement within a labour market until research showed that the highly skilled graduate accounted for less than 20 per cent of the total migration and that the most vulnerable people in the emigrant stream were those between 16 and 18 years who were urban-sourced and who left places like Dublin, as rural people had in the fifties, without social welfare provision here and in the expectation of social welfare provision in Britain.
We know the realities of emigration. What we offered them was climatology, "We are creating a climate for investment and we hope all you will come back". The Minister's speech last week was riddled with ignorance about emigration. All reasonable research has concluded the same thing about emigration over the past 20 years — it is circular migration. By this I mean people do not leave for all time once they leave home but rather they come and go all the time for different festivals, family events and so forth. To suggest that that circulatory pattern of migration deprives them of knowledge of the reasons for their forced exile from this country or knowledge of their country is a compounded insult on a pile of insults. Indeed it comes well from the Minister for the Environment whose colleague, the Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, has consistently refused to have political and social studies introduced in the classroom which would ensure that people would know their citizenship rights.
The Minister seems to think that if we were as big as America we could afford to accede to the right. He said in his speech that the United States is entitled to give the right to its citizens that we are now going to refuse because only 1 per cent are involved. Is the argument about the right or is it about the percentage? Will the Minister make up his mind? He then goes on to say that 611,941 people in Britain claimed an Irish connection and would it not be dreadful if they considered themselves Irish and demanded the right to vote?
Last year at one conference after another in Britain all the expert opinion suggested that what we were dealing with in Britain, to which the Minister referred, was a new concept which was not simply assimilation, that after assimilation you acquired the right to vote, but what you were dealing with in multiracial Britain was a recognition of ethnicity and nationality, of cultural background, of a plurality of cultures, and the people did not need, as it were, to wipe out their historic experience so as to acquire rights in the place to which they had been driven by market forces. The Minister flies against all of that as well. I tell the Deputy who spoke a few moments ago that it is the Minister who seeks to divide the emigrant community by saying: you had better be careful, keep your head down in Britain or you will lose what you have if we at home give you rights.
Again, there is a nonsensical abuse of Article 40.1 in relation to equality of rights, treating citizens equally and as regards voting. Why does the Minister and his advisers not address that issue in relation to the disabled? For example, the blind person who has to be accompanied to the polling station does not enjoy the exact same right when voting on a Braille ballot paper. You cannot have it every way. What the Minister does in his patronising language is to misquote. The Federation of Irish Societies in 1989 did not vote to make this demand. They deferred the vote at that meeting. Yet, this evening there has been a blatant distortion of what took place at their annual meeting. One could go on.
What is really outrageous is the Minister's statement in his speech — I ask all families in this country who are touched by emigration to remember this forever for this Minister and this Government— when he said, "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". What basis is there for that statement? The only background one can get to it is the consistent arrogance of the Minister in relation to this question, but he precedes it by the great giveaway. He stated in his speech: "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". The Minister's suggestion is that over there in single voting, first-past-the-post Britain, people would not only have lost touch with the candidates but would have lost touch with the voting system and they would throw into chaos the system that had made them and their fathers and mothers emigrate. I thought for a while I was listening to D'Aubisson in Salvador or Christiani explaining why peasant women cannot have votes. I hope it is never forgotten an masla do mhuintir na hÉireann, do na daoine atá díbeartha as an tír seo, agus nach ndéanfaidh siad dearmad go deo ar an Aire ná ar an Rialtas nach raibh sásta fiú amháin buncheart an vóta — nílimid ag caint faoi na sonraí a bheag nó a mhór — a thabhairt dóibh in a dtír féin in ar chuir teip eacnamaíochta iachall orthu í a fhágáil ar imirce.
This Bill is an attempt to reach out and build a bridge to our emigrants. Unfortunately for too long our emigrants have been out of sight and out of mind as far as this House is concerned. Most of them are forced out by unemployment, poverty or social ills. Occasionally Ministers pay lip-service to them. They speak about them as if they are some vague immortal group out there. Usually on St. Patrick's Day or when a premier from another country comes to visit this House we glorify our emigrants in some vague way that bears no relation whatever to reality. The reality is we have turned our backs on our emigrants.
In his speech the Minister spoke about the financial assistance we give to emigrant agencies in other parts of the world. That is nonsense. We give a mere pittance to these agencies. Our embassies and their staff do their best, but they are not emigrant agencies. In my experience emigrants who go abroad, mainly to Britain, never contact our embassy or an emigrant agency, and rarely do they contact employment agencies. They go abroad to work, not to contact embassies or employment agencies.
I know a little about emigration. My mother was one of 15 children from County Clare, 14 of whom emigrated to America. She was the only one who stayed behind in Ireland. That must constitute a record. I emigrated to London in 1957 and worked on many building sites there with thousands of fellow emigrants. Most of the people I worked with were Irish. Indeed, many of them came from the Minister's county — I am sorry he has left the House. The County Mayo emigrants in London had an incantation which burned an indelible imprint on my mind. They used to say: "Mayo, God help us". That was the conditioned reflex, the Pavlovian response, the west of Ireland lament that I heard. These people had been abandoned by the politicians and by this country and most of them had given up hope of ever returning and finding employment here. As I mentioned, those words have echoed in my mind down the years. They were nothing more than a sad summing up of the position. Donal McCauley, a friend of mine, wrote about these people later in An Irish Navvy. I do not know if the Minister ever read that book, but it would be worth his while to read it some time.
I am disappointed in the Minister's response to this Bill and to the overtures of Deputy O'Sullivan. He has closed the door on our emigrants. As Deputy Higgins has pointed out, the Minister fears the consequences of giving a vote to our emigrants. He fears that some of the people who have gone abroad — to use words well known to him — might be contaminated by alien ideas or foreign philosophies and if they come back here or got a postal vote they might vote for Labour as most of them do in Britain. That is the thinking behind the Minister's statement. The Minister also said in his speech that if we gave a vote to these emigrants the total emigrant vote would exceed the vote of the people at home. What a terrible indictment, what a terrible reflection on any Minister or any Government. Surely that is a terrible statement to make in this House.
The Minister talked about realism and the policies of the Government in creating employment. He also said that our emigrants rarely contribute to the Exchequer of this country, but in the past that certainly was not true. We owe a great deal, as Deputy O'Sullivan said, to the hard-earned pounds and dollars of our emigrants who worked on building sites and in factories to support their families at home.
The Minister tried to explain the difference between emigrant groups in Britain and merely succeeded in creating a smokescreen of rhetoric and evasion. There is no justification for his attitude. Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan admitted that this is not a perfect Bill but it is an honest attempt to build an electroal link with our emigrants. Deputy O'Sullivan deserves the congratulations of the House — and of our emigrants — for introducing this Bill. The Minister is concerned about counting heads, numbers rather than principles.
I must ask you, Deputy Kemmy to finish now and you will have six minutes remaining tomorrow evening.
I have given those six minutes to Deputy McCartan.
I understood that you had ten minutes and that Deputy McCartan would have five minutes.
No, five and ten minutes. I am magnanimous, as usual, towards The Worker's Party. I will finish in ten seconds. The Minister was dishonest in using numbers to justify his position. In other words, he was saying that if we had 1 per cent of our population abroad we would allow them to vote. Right and truth are never established by merely counting heads.
Debate adjourned.