Deputy McCartan has ten minutes.
Private Members' Business. - Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1991: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I am very happy to contribute to this important debate. I congratulate the Labour Party, as has been done by Deputy Gilmore on behalf of my party, on having initiated this Bill to entitle to some extent those members of our community, who have been forced through economic disadvantage and Government mismanagement to live abroad, to have a say and involvement in our electoral processes here.
It is important and timely that this House address for the first time, in the context of a Bill, the right — as is extended to citizens of most other European countries — to participate in elections at home. Indeed it was one of the first matters raised in correspondence with me when I was first elected to this House in 1987. A constituent of mine, now living near Birmingham, wrote wondering why it was the City Hall there had been used as a polling station for the elections then being held in Italy in order that Italian emigrants could vote and have their voices heard. That emigrant wondered why he, an Irish citizen, living in the same city, could not be accommodated though there would be greater numbers of Irish citizens living there. It brought home graphically the fact that so many Irish citizens live abroad through no choice of theirs but rather out of economic necessity and have a strong desire to be linked to our democratic processes here. Yet we do nothing to accommodate them.
In approaching this issue it is important to lay down some basic principles. The first obvious one is that citizens of this country should not be disenfranchised simply because they have been forced to live abroad, temporarily or otherwise, through no fault of theirs but rather out of economic necessity. Any approach to a real democratic process should involve people in the process of elections rather than arbitrarily exclude them. Consequently, the premise of voting in any elections here should be based, first, on one's residence here as a citizen or, alternatively, based on that citizenship and temporary residence abroad.
The Fine Gael Party have partially addressed this principle in a recently published Bill by their spokesperson in this area, Deputy McGinley. They have not gone the distance I believe they should but at least have recognised the principle that emigrants, or citizens who live abroad, should be directly involved in some way in the electoral process, be recorded and recognised as such. To that extent that party also must be congratulated on what they sought to institute. Certainly what must be subjected to the strongest criticism on the part of anyone concerned with the democratic process in this House is the attitude of the Government parties — Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats — their rejection of it, as a Government, represented here by the Minister for the Environment last week, which is a disgrace to the concept of open, working democracy.
It is worth while to examine briefly the reasons the Minister contended the Government parties could not support the concept in principle of allowing emigrants to vote. In the first instance the Minister worried about the numbers, the probability, in some instances, that a combined vote of all emigrants in a constituency could elect a Deputy there. On the Minister's figures alone my constituency of Dublin North-East is one which could return, on an average of 7,000 emigrants per constituency, a Deputy to this House. Let me say that I would wholeheartedly welcome that simply because there are too many of my constituents forced to live abroad, seeking jobs not through any choice of theirs but rather out of necessity to fend for themselves and their families.
That scenario alone should force this House to seriously address the issue of emigration. Despite all the plausible rhetoric of the Minister for the Environment in the House last week I do not believe the Government have seriously examined the issue of emigrants' welfare. The first requirement — looking at that issue of the welfare of our emigrants — is not to go hawking around the chambers and corridors of Washington or elsewhere seeking extra visas or endeavouring to legalise those who are described as illegal immigrants there. The first requirement is to look at our economy, our job creation programmes, and ascertain what can be done to facilitate the early return of the vast majority of those who wish to remain at home and who should be facilitated here with the requisite job opportunities.
I do not believe we will ever be able to focus on that issue in a single-minded way until people are elected by those living abroad to stand in this House to argue their case. If so many of them are forced to leave Dublin North-East, or any other constituency, then let those constituencies return Members directly to this Chamber who will argue their cause forcibly. From the time I was elected to this House the Dublin North-East constituency has been represented by a Government Minister and one other member of Fianna Fáil. Throughout that period I never heard any Government representative in that constituency argue the emigrants' case or for a serious jobs creation programme that would facilitate their return to their constituency to make a livelihood there. Experience has shown that the words of the Minister for the Environment, expressing concerns for our emigrants, really do not carry any weight when one examines the record of this House and, indeed, within the constituencies about which he is so worried.
Furthermore, the Minister was worried about the constitutional issue: why cut off eligibility at 15 years as is proposed in the Bill? For example, what about the emigrant who is 15 years and a day abroad? If that is a matter of serious concern to the Minister it is one for debate here on Second Stage. If we accept the principle and are prepared to examine the Bill, let us examine what is an acceptable cut-off point. The Minister worried about taxation, about the contribution that might not be made to the State by an emigrant and wanted to link voting rights to taxation payments: in other words, an Irish version of the poll tax. My argument is this: if emigration is a voluntary act on the part of an emigrant, so be it. Perhaps then there is an argument for maintaining that the right to vote does not exist. But there is no basis for arguing that, when people are forced to leave this country through economic necessity, they have no right to vote simply because they pay their taxes elsewhere.
The Minister worried about the inability of the emigrant to apply the proportional representation system or to understand it, contending that in other countries where emigrants have the vote it is based on a single preference vote. In my view this represents another veiled attack by Fianna Fáil, in Government, on the whole concept of proportional representation. As has been said by other Members on this side of the House, it is an insult to the intelligence of our emigrant voters but, more particularly, is a repetition of the often-voiced attacks of Fianna Fáil over the years on the proportional representation system itself.
The Minister referred to postal voting and said it could not work. I would remind him that it has worked in many other instances in order to facilitate those members of our community — soldiers, members of the Garda Síochána and the disabled — who exercised their vote in that manner. I see no reason it cannot be extended, with ingenuity, to enfranchise our emigrants.
The introduction of this Bill has served one useful purpose, it has exposed the double-talk, double-thinking and double-dealing of the Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrats Government on this important issue. They have opposed it not on the basis that it is unworkable but rather because they are opposed in principle to the idea of giving our emigrants voting rights here.
I disagree entirely with the latter comments of Deputy McCartan, especially in regard to the position of my own party. Since the foundation of the Progressive Democrats five years ago, we have been extremely concerned about the plight of Irish people who have been forced through economic circumstances to emigrate, and seek a living overseas — in Britain, the United States, Australia and continental European countries.
We are also aware, of course, that some of the emigration in recent years is not entirely involuntary arising from the lack of employment opportunities here at home. Indeed, many younger people in particular, with good education and relatively good prospects in Ireland, have nonetheless decided to emigrate, particularly to Britain, because they see there the opportunity to make a better living for themselves because of the punitive income tax system in this country.
The social and economic policies of the Progressive Democrats are aimed at addressing the plight of both the voluntary and the involuntary emigrants. The whole thrust of our economic policies are to ensure that by getting Government spending under control, and bringing our industrial costs down to internationally competitive levels, we can revitalise the Irish economy, boost Irish exports and thereby create many extra employment opportunities here at home.
While the pace of economic recovery arising from the adoption of Progressive Democrats economic policies over the past couple of years is still not adequate, it is nevertheless worth pointing out that over the past three years a net 40,000 jobs have been created here, and all of those have arisen in the private sector.
Moreover, a further priority of our economic policies is to radically transform our tax system so that it will encourage enterprise, risk-taking and reward hard work. This Government have taken significant steps along that road, by bringing the standard rate of income tax down to 29 per cent and the upper rate to 52 per cent, and our goal, of course, is to reach 25 per cent and a single higher rate of income tax over the next two budgets in this Government.
Of course, merely realising these income tax rates of themselves will not be sufficient to boost enterprise and reward effort; in particular, the standard income tax rate of 25 per cent must apply to the broad band of income up to, and including, the average industrial wage.
Nevertheless, giant steps have been taken over the past few years to revitalise the Irish economy, and that recovery stems primarily from the adoption of our party's policies. Given the scale of our unemployment crisis, this does not go nearly far enough and we must redouble our efforts to make our economy ever more competitive and export orientated.
Sadly, it is inevitable, therefore, that many Irish people will continue to emigrate in search of a better way of life because of the scale of unemployment at home, and the needs of these emigrants are also reflected in our policies. The Progressive Democrats were particularly concerned, for instance, that Governments here were not lending any financial support to emigrant welfare in the United States, along the lines of the support given to Irish emigrant welfare centres in Britain.
We brought this concern of ours to the negotiations with our partners on the formation of the present Government in July 1989, and a specific commitment was agreed in the Programme for Government that financial support would be provided to immigrant groups in the United States, to be channelled through the consulates in consultation with the immigration working committees.
We were delighted therefore when the Government commenced that policy and agreed in the 1990 budget to provide £200,000 to support groups in the United States which are helping Irish immigrants with advice and assistance in finding work and accommodation.
The Progressive Democrats also support the principle of according voting rights to recently departed emigrants. This proposition was also considered in the negotiations on the formation of the present Government, but it was not possible for the two parties to agree that voting rights should be accorded because of the many complex issues which first needed to be examined and resolved, but it was agreed that the present Government would "examine the feasibility of granting voting rights to recent emigrants".
A detailed Government study of the feasibility of according rights has not yet been concluded and, therefore, it has not yet been possible for the Government collectively to consider all the issues involved. I, and my party, fully accept that this is an extraordinarily complex question, and one which touches on such fundamental matters as the constitutional rights of Irish citizens and the importance of avoiding discrimination as between different citizens; huge logistical problems in ensuring that any emigrant voting system would be operable in an efficient manner, and would also preclude the possibility of electoral abuse.
Many of these difficulties were outlined in detail by my Government colleague the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn, in his contribution to this debate last week and certainly the various difficulties which he outlined have to be taken into consideration by the Government and by this House when attempting to formulate a definitive attitude to this question.
For our part, the Progressive Democrats, when in Opposition, carried out detailed research on the feasibility of according voting rights to recent emigrants and we completed a study of the situation prevailing in the other member states of the Community.
As many people have already referred to in this debate, the situation is that emigrants from seven member states of the Community — Britain, France, Portugal, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Spain — do accord voting rights to emigrants on varying terms, while such a right is not yet available in Greece, Belgium, Denmark, Italy and Ireland.
Two of the seven countries which give votes to emigrants limit the privilege by time. In Britain the limit is 20 years, and in Germany it is ten years from the time of emigrating, but the other five countries have no restrictions based on how long it is since their emigrants have departed, or indeed if such citizens have ever even lived in the country.
Of course, voting entitlement for emigrants in those countries also varies in many other details. In France, for instance, there is no time limit for expatriate French citizens voting in the presidential election or in referenda, but there is no voting right for the national assembly. The place of voting is at the country's embassy, either directly or by proxy.
The situation in Spain is that all Spanish citizens living abroad are entitled to vote in all elections there, and it is not necessary to have previously lived in the country. All embassies of that country hold a register of electors which is updated on a yearly basis. In Luxembourg voters need to have a valid passport of that country, but previous residence in the country is not required.
It is quite clear from a brief perusal of the rules in the EC states which accord voting rights to emigrants that the qualification regulations vary widely. We also need to secure further information on how the emigrant voting provision has worked in elections in those countries. It would be interesting for instance, to know what percentage of the overall national electorate in recent elections has been emigrant voters, what approximate percentage of emigrants from these various countries exercise the franchise from overseas, and, whether the provision has run into any constitutional difficulties in any of these countries.
The Progressive Democrats believe nonetheless that the principle of according a right to vote in general elections here at home to recently departed emigrants is a valid aspiration, and one which all parties in this House should strive to facilitate by working to resolve the various logistical and other obstacles that undoubtedly exist, rather than simply putting the shutters up on this proposal.
Many fundamental matters have to be resolved. For instance, the constitutional provision of equal rights for all citizens, and how any voting rights accorded to our emigrants could affect their voting entitlements in their country of residence, need to be studied further. I know, too, that there is not any great consensus on how the parties in this House might give effect to the provision of votes for emigrants and that the Fine Gael Party have published a Bill suggesting the principle could be addressed by creating three additional seats in the Seanad for emigrant electors.
The Labour Party Bill before us would suggest that emigrants departed this country for up to 15 years would have votes in every constituency in this country, and certainly before taking this proposition on board it would be important that all parties in the House would give wider consideration to the electoral impact of such access to all 41 constituencies.
Another suggestion which our party briefly considered is the possibility of allocating a seat in the Dáil to our emigrants——
A Deputy
Big deal.
——and we have also considered various proposals within our own party as to the appropriate eligibility rules governing emigrant votes — whether it would be a five years or a ten years qualification or periods greater than this.
With a matter as complex as this and with so many fundamental implications, it is not simply enough to agree the principle therefore. We must also flesh out a reasonably workable legislative proposal before we can give serious consideration to changing the electoral system to accommodate emigrants. This is why the Progressive Democrats are voting against this Bill; it is far too inadequate in detail, and the fundamental changes it could bring to our electoral system have clearly not been thought through, nor has the sheer complexity of the issue been tackled in any detail.
Consideration of this issue should not ignore either the quickening pace of European integration, embodied in the 1992 programme for the creation of a Single Europe with free movement of people, goods, capital and services. In the process of deepening the integration of the Community, the issue of a "democratic deficit" of the present European Parliament will have to be addressed and, as citizens of a United Europe, the relationship between domestic legislatures and the European Parliament will obviously go through further significant and far-reaching change.
In Government, the Progressive Democrats will continue to press for a detailed scrutiny of this proposition with a view to reaching agreement on a set of practicable, workable and constitutional proposals, which, on the one hand will not offend the integrity of our electoral system, but at the same time will meet the principle in a meaningful way of according a presence in our democratic process to our recently departed emigrants. The Progressive Democrats believe this is a worth while and desirable goal.
Thankfully many of our recent emigrants have been able to maintain close contacts with their homeland, made possible in particular by the availability of cheap and accessible air travel. Many of these people, too, are acquiring skills and talents overseas which will be invaluable to the further development of this country. The maintenance of as many links as possible, therefore, is of value to both the emigrant community and also to this country. Direct links for our emigrants right into this Dáil Chamber would help ensure that our recently departed emigrants would continue to have a role, a voice and an influence on social and economic affairs in their native country.
That is a laudable aim and, notwithstanding the many weighty and complex obstacles which do lie in the way of realising it, it should not be beyond the ingenuity of our political system to accommodate this goal, and the Progressive Democrats will continue to strive to achieve that. We believe this is an area on which all-party consensus should be sought prior to the submission of a Bill, particularly as this Bill would not work.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Michael Barrett and Deputy Jacob.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I believe I am qualified to speak on any aspect of emigration and the plight of Irish emigrants as I emigrated to England in 1954 and worked there for ten years before returning to Ireland in 1964.
I left Ireland at a time when the first Coalition Government had taken office. There was vast emigration from Ireland at that time. Therefore, this Government cannot be blamed for the problem of emigration, it existed long before that. The parties on the opposite side of the House also had the opportunity to rectify this problem.
This Government have lived up to their responsibilities to the Irish people who have emigrated. I am aware that special measures have been adopted to deal with the difficulties being experienced by Irish emigrants. The Government are committed to the provision of assistance and back-up services to emigrants to ensure their welfare needs are safeguarded. The Irish Embassy in London has been charged with monitoring the problems facing Irish emigrants in England. They liaise with the various welfare and advice centres there to ensure that financial assistance is provided to Irish emigrants.
This is a vast change to the forties, fifties and sixties when Irish people who went to England had to find their own way and had nowhere to turn to. At that time the Irish centres in London and Birmingham helped Irish emigrants by putting them up in accommodation on a temporary basis until such time as they could obtain permanent accommodation. The county associations in Britain have done a tremendous job for Irish emigrants, as have the many Irish chaplains who went to London during those years to work with Irish emigrants. I am referring in particular to Bishop Eamon Casey, the Bishop of Galway, who did tremendous work in London for Irish emigrants by setting up a housing agency where Irish emigrants could get advice on how to purchase houses. Father Michael Cleary, who is very well known to people in this country, was sent to London to meet Irish emigrants at stations and find accommodation for them. He did a very good job in that regard.
This Bill proposes to give Irish emigrants the right to vote in all elections in this country. I agree with the Minister that the Bill is not workable due to its constitutional implications, which he outlined in great detail. The present position is that, with the exception of the parts where there are Irish communities, there is no direct Irish news media in most parts of England and the United States. A limited number of newsagencies in certain areas of London stock an English edition of the Irish daily newspapers and Sunday newspapers. Many Irish people who have been living in England for a few years have adapted to life in that country and have voting rights there. I have never heard any Irish person say they were concerned because they did not have the right to vote in Irish elections.
Having heard most of the contributions by Members on the Opposition benches, I have come to the conclusion that many of them have little or no knowledge of the plight of Irish emigrants in England.
I spent a year and a half there.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Kemmy who worked on the buildings in London for a number of years——
We all did.
——made an interesting contribution last night. Deputy Gerry Reynolds said he had spent a short while there. However, anyone who went to London during the time about which I am speaking was said to have gone to London to get the correct time. Most Deputies have probably had occasion to visit England but I do not believe they have sufficient knowledge of emigration. I have lived there and I know what it is all about. The Government have provided finance to ensure that there is adequate information and welfare services for Irish emigrants. This is an indication of the Government's concern for Irish people who have emigrated.
While some emigrants never settled down in the countries to which they emigrated a large percentage of Irish emigrants have done very well for themselves in their adopted countries. I know many Irish people who were unskilled when they emigrated but they learned trades and in some cases set up their own businesses. Many other Irish emigrants furthered their education in England.
This Bill proposes that Irish people who have emigrated within the past 15 years should have the right to be registered to vote in all elections other than local elections held in this country. It also proposes that voting should be by way of postal vote. The Bill makes no reference to the implications of this proposal. All these issues are ignored and no reference is made to the safeguarding of elections. All these safeguards and implications should have been referred to in the Bill.
Serious reservations have been expressed about the postal voting system. It has been established that if this system were to be used in the future additional safeguards would have to be provided. It is difficult to know the thinking behind this Bill in so far as the compilation of a register of voters for Irish emigrants is concerned. I say this because I am aware that some Irish emigrants move around on a frequent basis. Some of them can work in as many as ten different cities and towns in one year. I am referring in particular to Irishmen who work for construction companies. These people could be registered for voting purposes in many cities and towns. This means that these persons' votes could be used by other people unless safeguards are included in the Bill. There are no safeguards in this Bill to cover any abuses which might arise in this area. If a postal voting system is devised for Irish emigrants it would be important that the ballot paper get to the person it is intended for, and that person should be able to vote in secret and should be free from any influence or undue pressure.
From my experience and knowledge of emigration, I find it difficult to understand how a person who has left Ireland for, say, five years would have an up to date knowledge of the political situation here. The position would be even worse for people who left Ireland 15 years ago. Irish people who have lived in England for a number of years are entitled to vote there. Up to some years ago Irish people living in England did not have the right to vote in elections there. For quite a while an influential lobby there considered that the granting of voting rights to foreigners was inappropriate. Thankfully this has changed and all people resident in England for a certain period are entitled to vote in elections there. I would be interested to know how many Irish people living outside Ireland would like to have voting rights in two countries.
As I said at the outset, the problem of emigration has existed for many years under successive Governments. It is a very difficult problem to resolve. It is very sad for parents who rear and educate their children to see them emigrate as there are not sufficient jobs for them in Ireland. This Government have done more than any other Government to resolve this problem. A number of new jobs have been created — I think a figure of 40,000 was mentioned by the Minister — but many of these have been cancelled out by an increase in the number of redundancies. The recent lay-offs and threat of redundancies in factories in Ballyhaunis and Kiltimagh are clearly due to factors outside the control of Irish Government. These are English-based industries and due to the bad economic situation in England the parent company there directed what action was to be taken by the management in this country. In conclusion, I agree with the Minister in what he said about the Bill, that is that the homework has not been done. There are very serious and complex issues which have not been taken on board and for that reason the Bill is not workable in its present form.
The Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1991, which proposes to provide for the registration of certain emigrants as postal voters is, I am certain, a genuine expression of concern for Irish emigrants. In focusing on the issue of emigration, it naturally arouses a variety of emotions and concerns related to the fact of emigration, on the one hand, and concern for the well-being of Irish citizens abroad on the other hand. I accept the underlying concern for emigrants which stimulated the drafting of this Bill. I also believe it is a very important and significant issue with which we have wrestled and which we have considered for quite some time and I very much welcome the opportunity we have now to debate openly this issue and to consider all the ramifications and practicalities related to it.
On Sunday week last I placed on a plane at Dublin Airport one of my six children who went to join her sister who is one year older and who had to leave her native country to take up employment in continental Europe. Having been one of the young Irish people who was involved in the wave of emigration in the late fifties and early sixties, I hope passionately that, as I and thousands like me, were able to return home and make a life for ourselves in Ireland, with the uplift in the Irish economy during the great Lemass era, my children and their contemporaries will also be able to return in similar circumstances and take back home with them the valuable experience which they will hopefully glean in their foreign workplace.
Yesterday I spent the day in London, together with three colleagues from this House, where we met with British Members of Parliament and the British Minister for Social Services for the purpose of endeavouring to improve the lot of our people who have emigrated to Britain, both those who departed recently and those who left these shores many years ago. In so far as emigration and the welfare of emigrants is concerned, I truly believe that these are live issues within our current electoral system. Our emigrants are well represented by their families who remain resident here. I certainly believe they are part of my constituency and I will continue to represent them to the best of my ability on all those issues.
For me one of the great disappointments of the magnificent economic improvements which has been effected in the past few years is that it has not had the effect of creating jobs on the scale that is required at this time. The Bill seeks to extend the electoral register for all elections other than local elections to Irish citizens who were ordinarily resident in Ireland within a period of 15 years prior to the relevant election. This is a very short Bill and in essence it is a Bill about a Bill, in that it imposes upon the Minister for the Environment the obligation to devise and produce to the House a series of regulations and other legislative requirements to give effect to the specific intention described earlier. It is, as the Minister has indicated, a Bill dealing only with the issue of principle and does not concern itself with the minutiae of implementation. While I would not deny that the House is entitled to deal with this issue in this way, I think it is only in the small details of implementation that one can fully comprehend the practicalities upon which the issue of principle can be addressed.
The Programme for Government addressed this issue of principle and the feasibility of extending voting rights to recent emigrants. Rightly, it called for an examination of the issues involved and, as the Minister has said, this examination has been undertaken. Leaving aside emotional aspirations which we all feel, it is only when one considers how they might be achieved that a complete picture emerges. I also have thought carefully on this matter.
There are a number of fairly obvious major questions involved: the practical difficulties, for example, of establishing a register of emigrant voters and ensuring that each is a legitimate person entitled to be registered. If the principle of equal treatment for citizens underlies this Bill then we must face the reality that while it might be relatively easier to provide for large groupings of qualified persons under the Bill, as in the United Kingdom, or even some areas within the United States it is a daunting task to consider applying the provisions equally and fairly to other Irish citizens spread throughout the far reaches of the world. The task of receiving, vetting and providing for the voting rights of what the Minister judged to be at least 250,000 people, but which I believe must surely be many times more than this, would be enormous.
The tremendous complexity of providing a secure system to ensure that all votes received are legitimate must surely be conceded by all Members of this House. Equally, the effect which such votes could have on the outcome of elections in all constituencies, given the proportional representation system, must concern us if we were even slightly concerned that some votes were not validly cast. While we may be assured that our system, and its regulation, is well managed, we are not so foolish as to think that it is foolproof and incapable of manipulation by those who put their minds to it. We can deal with those situations at home but how can we seriously believe that any postal voting system or, indeed, any other system which the Bill allows the Minister to introduce, could be so securely established? This is not a small matter of detail but rather a matter of great import, affecting the credibility and integrity of our electoral system.
I know also that there are question marks over the constitutionality of the implied definition in this Bill of citizen or enfranchised person which may be the subject of challenge. If the franchise is offered to others as per the formula applied by the United States, then we might well have a situation where the number of the electorate living abroad exceeded that of those living at home. I am certain that the supporters of this Bill would cringe from any such situation, and in that I cite the example and danger of dealing with the principle without due consideration for the widespread implications of these proposals.
This difficulty could equally surface from a constitutional challenge to the threshold for eligibility defined under this Bill, with some people eligible by one day and others ineligible by one day. The arbitrary nature of the cut-off point, which has no particular logic over any other threshold, opens doors to such challenges and accusations in regard to, simply, poor or ill-conceived legislation. I am very concerned about these matters.
It is very appropriate that this House should have the opportunity to examine this issue. The House should consider the ramifications and implications of operating an external voting register for emigrants. I am glad to have had the opportunity of contributing to this debate and comprehending some of the myriad of issues which result from it. Overall, it is a Bill about a principle which defies practical application and also, I believe, it is suspect in its appropriateness within our democratic electoral system.
It is clearly evident that the proposers have not had the capacity to foresee those practicalities or implications which this debate has shown up. When they are exposed to examination, they clearly point to the impracticality of the proposals. When, on top of the points I have already referred to, one imposes the complexity of our proportional representation system of election, with many candidates with a variety of different perspectives, and representing many different stances on issues, the complexity of the problem, and the implications for our home electorate and taxpayers, it makes the proposals unacceptable.
I should be grateful if the Deputy will now please bring this speech to a close.
I welcome the debate because it has given us another opportunity to consider issues related to the problem of emigration. I hope our political direction and economic growth will speedily diminish the requirement for involuntary emigration in future.
I wish to share time with my colleagues, Deputies Kenny and Deenihan.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
One impression I got listening to the debate particularly the contributions on the Government side, is that scripts have been circulated to certain Members of the Government side——
That is not true.
The Members in question do not seem to be au fait with the contents of the Bill because I know that a number of them are extremely articulate in their own right. However, in relation to the presentation on this matter there seems to be a centrally handed down Government policy and centrally disseminated Government scripts. I hope I am wrong but that is my impression.
They are not that well organised at the moment.
I also have the impression that many of the sentiments expressed are not genuine. I saw the crocodile tears being shed, particularly on the other side of the House. The Minister for Energy, Deputy Molloy who has now left the House, went on at length to in some way validate the position of the Progressive Democrats. He said the Progressive Democrats believe, nonetheless, that the principle of according a right to vote in general elections at home to recently departed emigrants is a valid aspiration. The Bill does that, it is about principles and that is how our legislation operates. The Second Stage of a Bill is simply a declaration of principle. We have had disagreements before in relation to minutiae in the judicial separation Act and the Child Care Bill but, ultimately, we arrived at a civilised arrangement of putting such matters of agreed principle into special committees to iron out the legislative difficulties. Deputy Jacob said that this was a Bill without a principle. This Bill has a fundamental principle of giving the franchise to people who have recently emigrated.
I did not say that.
It is a matter of conjecture and debate when we talk about people who left five, ten or 15 years ago. Deputy Jacob said that the Bill did not have a principle.
I said that the Bill was about a principle.
Deputy Jacob agreed with the principle and, as that is the case, why not take it to its logical conclusion and allow us amend it on Committee Stage?
I hope Deputy Higgins will check what I said.
I agree with the Bill, it is good legislation and if people were freed from the strictures of a party Whip everybody would agree with it. However, it is fraught with difficulties and dangers for the Government. I listened to Deputy Michael Barrett who was very creative in regard to mathematics. He said that no Government had done more for jobs than his and he cited the Programme for National Recovery, the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and the programme for national development. He mentioned the creation of 40,000 new jobs but what good are they when there are as many jobs lost? There were 11,000 more people out of work last week than when Fianna Fáil took office in 1987.
Deputy Michael Barrett referred to my county, he knows it well as he comes from an adjacent county. He rightly instances the example of Farah in Ballyhaunis and in Kiltimagh where jobs were lost. Every job lost is a family lost to the community and the country. That is not the end of it for Mayo. In the last three weeks alone 1,000 people have been put on short time and these enterprises are teetering on the brink, unfortunately I am not optimistic about their long term survival.
Collectively, Members of the House should sit down in a depoliticised atmosphere and put this Bill into a special committee to examine its logistics. Surely, if Deputy Molloy was able to do the circuit of Europe and give examples of where this has worked, the necessary expertise and back-up should be there, by way of private back-up to the Progressive Democrats, in Government Departments or, collectively, to put all resources together and come up with a system which will work, even on an experimental basis.
Three weeks ago I sat with a neighbour of mine and his wife who had, that day, taken a taxi to Knock Airport. They had said goodbye to the last of their five children; as the man said: "In Mayo we buy three suits for the three "ations"— confirmation, graduation and emigration". One must see the look of disbelief and emptiness on the faces of people who have said goodbye to their last child to appreciate the full impact of emigration. The "Today Tonight" programme that night was about the merits of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. The Government side fleshed out the merits of the business expansion scheme and the other initiatives which were put in place and designed to put this country on a sound economic footing. Unfortunately, I could see that behind the benign expressions on their faces there was deep anger and resentment on their faces. In Mayo, over the last five years, as Archbishop Cassidy, Bishop Casey and Bishop Finnegan said, the county has been bled white by emigration. Tonight in the Visitors Gallery there are people from County Offaly, a county that won several All Irelands in hurling and football but now cannot field a decent county team.
There should be no reference to people in the Gallery.
That has been the pattern in Offaly, Mayo, Laois, Cork and Kerry. In view of the fact that we could not provide people with a job, a home or a decent measure of social welfare to live in dignity here we should at least give them some positive tie with home. We are asking that these people be given the right to vote in general elections.
There is no doubt — it has been acknowledged on all sides of the House — that one of the features of the Irish emigrant, in comparison with his counterpart in other countries, is an expectation that, some day, as Deputy Jacob said, that person will return. Their roots in foreign soil are tentative, put there in the hope and expectation — maybe a vainglorious hope — that some day they will come back. However, there is an unwillingness and inflexibility on the part of the Government to keep that flicker of hope alive because they are fundamentally afraid that, by acknowledging the right of emigrants to vote, we will have to establish their numbers which, in itself, is an admission of failure.
The Minister of State, Deputy Vincent Brady, has been asked time and again about the number of people who emigrated over the previous six months. He answers by giving a ridiculous inflow and outflow which is not a gauge or an accurate estimate, it is just a guess in relation to how many people departed these shores. We know that, conservatively over the last four or five years, at least 250,000 people have gone. They are the finest generation we have ever bred, they are not like the young uncut nuggets of years ago. They have AnCO, FAS and third level qualifications. They are trained, have top level skills and could be the future leaders of society here; yet they are plying their trades in other countries. They want to come back and retain ties.
Two weeks ago I asked the Taoiseach, as a gesture in relation to establishing accuracy, whether they would add one question to the census form asking how many people had left the household since the last census was taken in 1986. I was told that it would not be possible because of difficulty of memory recall. Obviously, the Government think the the head of a house hold suffers from that same affliction which affects members of the Government from time to time. We are asking that the Government face reality and do not run away from the backlash because that is, fundamentally, what they are afraid of.
Tonight members of the Government expressed the view that we could end up with more Deputies elected by Irish people outside the State than within the State. So what? Those people were born here and they feel they have the right to live here. We have failed them economically and socially and we are not prepared now to give them the fundamental right to say who should be running this country or to fulfil their aspirations to return here some day.
I welcome the Bill; it is a good Bill. I see nothing wrong with giving a husband in London the right to vote here, particularly when his wife and family are domiciled here, to establish how he feels about fundamental policies being undertaken by the Government or offered as alternatives by the Opposition. I am surprised that the Minister, Deputy Flynn, who comes from the same county as Deputy Kenny and I, a county that has been devastated by emigration, cannot see his way to making a gesture at least to accept this Bill on Second Stage and send it to an all-party committee to examine in detail. If we cannot reach agreement on its feasibility and practicality let us at least acknowledge that. Where there is a will there is a way; it can be done but, unfortunately, the will is not there.
I too welcome the opportunity to speak on this Private Members' Bill introduced by Deputy O'Sullivan on behalf of the Labour Party. I congratulate him on his initiative. I have always supported the principle of giving our emigrants a greater say in running this country. From my travels as a footballer and following that as a politician I have met many emigrants in England, Australia and America. They all had one thing in common, they felt they were not recognised in their own country and when they had left our shores they were forgotten. Some of them remarked, "out of sight, out of mind". They want to play a role in our country. They want some say in how their country is run. We have never given them the recognition or the opportunity to do that. The Bill in principle provides them with an opportunity to have a say in how their country is run.
The Bill should not be dismissed because a very important principle is involved. Our emigrants have the potential to make a major contribution to our country. As Deputy Higgins said, many of them have been very successful in the various countries to which they emigrated and made contributions in different ways to life in those countries. By attracting their interest, giving them recognition and a feeling they have a role to play and a contribution to make in our country, we can only enhance our reputation as a caring nation.
A Deputy on the other side of the House, I do not know who, said these people would not know who to vote for or how to vote because they are not well enough informed. Let me point out to the Minister, and his Deputies, that our people in America, England and other countries are better informed about what goes on in their local parishes than we are. If one wants to know who won last Sunday's local championship game one has only to ring up somebody in America because that person will know while a local individual may not. Our emigrants keep in touch through the provincial papers from here. One can judge that by the sale of local papers in places like the Bronx in New York. These people are well tuned in. They are looking at us tonight waiting for the result of this debate, and Fianna Fáil, who always claim to be the emigrants' party, the party concerned about their welfare, will let them down after the vote.
Our record as regards emigrant welfare has been very bad. Apart from the Catholic Church, the county associations and Irish societies throughout the world, no one has taken any real interest in the welfare of Irish emigrants up to quite recently. Successive Governments have ignored our emigrants and, I am sure, were only too glad to see people leaving this country because that served as a safety valve. Governments would not have to pay them social welfare, or spend money on educating them or on health and other services.
A start was made in the 1983-87 period when the DÍON committee were established in England by Deputy Ruairí Quinn. The committee allocate grants to organisations involved in emigrant welfare. While the present allocation of £500,000 is welcome it is grossly inadequate to meet the needs of the many young emigrants who require shelter and other outreach services as do some of our adult emigrants who went to England in the forties and fifties. As the Minister is aware, DÍON cannot provide accommodation and accommodation is the major problem facing many emigrants.
The Government recognised the need to provide finance for emigrants in America last year and I welcome the grant that was made available. It was welcomed by the Catholic charities in New York who have a very successful outreach programme. The Minister referred to a major question in America, immigration reform. since 1982 an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 Irish emigrants have gone illegally to America. Immigration reform has been on the agenda there since November 1986 when Congressman Brian Donnelly introduced a special amendment to the 1986 Emigration Reform and Control Act which made so many visas available to the 35 countries that were adversely affected by the 1965 Act and which included Ireland. Ireland fared well out of that programme. However, one thing the programme proved was that there was a major problem in America regarding undocumented Irish immigrants. Over one million people applied for those visas, presented a bureaucratic nightmare and proved there was need for further reform. I am glad to say the Government persevered and Deputy Peter Barry and the Fine Gael immigration committee travelled to America to lobby. With groups like the IIRM and the Catholic charities in New York we succeeded in getting reform in November 1990 through the Morrison Bill which will provide 48,000 visas over the next three years for undocumented Irish. This should help solve the problem.
Mention has been made about voting rights for emigrants in other EC countries. Citizens of Spain, France, Germany, Luxembourg and the UK who are living abroad may vote in different ways. Greek and Italian citizens living abroad must return home to vote. The Italian State provides financial assistance for its emigrants to do this. Portuguese citizens living abroad may vote by post for candidates who specifically represent them. There are four representatives for Portuguese emigrants in the Portuguese Parliament. Denmark and Belgium have comparatively restrictive voting practices in parliamentary elections, Belgium more so than Denmark which gives the vote to such categories as non-resident citizens such as students and people abroad for health reasons.
Ireland is the only country which does not allow its emigrants to vote in the European Parliament elections. Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal allow their emigrants to vote by post. Denmark, Greece and Italy allow their emigrants to vote through their embassy in the country of residence and the Netherlands and UK allow their emigrants to vote by proxy. Therefore, we are away behind other European countries in the provision of a voting right to our emigrants.
The Fine Gael proposal tonight may not satisfy organisations like Glór an Deoraí, the IIRM, the Episcopal Council or the action group for Irish youth in England. Our proposal is a recognition of the principle of giving the vote to emigrants. By giving three Seanad seats to our emigrants they could have a permanent voice in the Oireachtas so that they could air their views and highlight their problems. We could have a seat for England, one for mainland Europe and one for the US. I agree with Deputy Higgins that it is still not too late to establish a special commission or a special interparliamentary committee to examine the principle and to face up to some of the problems introduced as obstacles to this Bill by speakers on the other side of the House.
Our Constitution promises to cherish the children of the nation equally. That is not the case and has never been the case.
I noted that during the recent Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis they purported to be the party of change to meet the changing structures of the nineties and to make way for a modern Ireland in the next century. I know there are pragmatic people on the Government benches, including members of the Progressive Democrats. There is no reason that pragmatism cannot be brought to bear on this problem in the context of the change the party purport to have gone through.
I examined the Bill in some detail and the net point is whether we, as elected legislators, agree that those who leave the country or are forced to leave should have the right to vote in elections here. There are aspects of the Bill proposed by Deputy O'Sullivan which would cause administrative difficulties. I am not sure whether this Bill resulted from a Labour Party internal discussion during which Deputy Spring as Leader might have said "what should we produce that might be topical in the context of the local elections?" In other words, this is a vote catching Bill. It is a long ball on the backline.
That is disgraceful. It is terrible.
I support it, although there are administrative difficulties in it. I do not want to see the Minister, Deputy Flynn, flying over Alice Springs in the Government jet where he has other Deputies canvassing for support all over the world.
He will be watching you in his own backyard.
I quite understand that. For 50 years Fianna Fáil have allowed people in the hidden Ireland to emigrate. They even had them trained to the extent that they departed railway stations all over the country and threw their caps in the air and shouted "Up Dev". Now the Minister, Deputy Flynn, in his pragmatism and in his authority as Minister for the Environment is entitled to say on behalf of the Government that they accept the Second Stage of this Bill. Why not accept it and form an all-party committee on the lines proposed by Deputy Spring and Deputy O'Sullivan and examine all the systems in operation in other countries in Europe and elsewhere, call in any specialists necessary and come back in 18 months or two years with an agreed formula, an agreed trial system where those who have left or have been forced to leave will have the right to vote here.
Will the lady with the perfect Connemara accent who talks on the television about Máire thall i San Francisco be able to ring her up and say: "Tá súil agam go ngabhfaidh tú amach agus go dtabharfaidh tú do vóta do Fhine Gael" nó rud éigin mar sin. I hope that happens. In the context of the rebuilding of Kuwait, American firms are ringing skilled foremen and skilled workers who were forced to leave this country to learn their trade. They are now being offered any wage they like to take on major contracts in Kuwait. It is a pity that when these emigrants return here they will be taxed on their money instead of being allowed to bring it in for business purposes which would benefit our economy.
Prior to the 1987 election I met an elderly voter outside a rural polling station who told me that he had voted for something like 50 years and that he was a supporter of Fianna Fáil. As he was telling me this, a young person passed and I asked him if he was going to vote and he replied "To hell with that crowd". If young people are central to the democratic system it is imperative that the Government of the day see to it that they become part of the system and that they will be able to vote here even when they are forced to leave, or leave for experience, or better jobs or because of lack of economic progress at home. They should have the right inherent in the principle of this Labour Party Bill. There should be some system where such people can exercise the democratic right they are supposed to have under a Constitution which is supposed to cherish all the children of the nation equally. Are they the children of the nation only when they are at home?
Emigration today is different to what it was in the fifties. No longer does one see the signs "No Irish, no Blacks, no dogs" but in Cricklewood, Kilburn and so on, one sees umpteen young people queueing for work with sub-contractors. Many of them are going to building sites without any experience and without public liability insurance cover, with all the inherent dangers involved. We owe it to these people to give them the right to cast a vote here. If the Government accept the Second Stage of this Bill it will be possible to form an all-party committee. The Fine Gael Party proposed in Deputy McGinley's Bill a system whereby three elected Senators from the emigrant constituencies would be returned to the Seanad with a distinct and unequivocal voice for emigrants. That would do away with many difficulties that might arise in terms of people getting here for voting purposes, in terms of keeping a Government alive in crucial votes, and so on. If Fianna Fáil are big enough, open enough and generous enough, they should in their pragmatism, in their drive towards the nineties, in their drive towards the next century——
Is the Deputy going to join us then?
I have no intention of joining you. They should say in the words of the President "Come dance with me in Ireland" or "Come vote with us in Ireland". The Minister should give them that chance and we will see how they like him for having sent them away. The Minister in his pragmatism should be open enough and generous enough to accept the Second Stage of the Bill and allow an all party committee to be set up to deal with the intricacies and complexities the Minister has pointed out. If that happens it would be for the good of everybody and for the country. In that context I support the Bill.
The Minister for the Environment said that this Bill at best purports to deal with the issue of principle, that all the essential arrangements had been ignored, that the implications of the arrangement were ignored and that on a matter as serious as this we cannot divorce a principle from the practicalities. We should talk about the practicalities of the Bill and not about the horrors of emigration about which we all know. The Minister listed a range of issues which have been addressed in considering this or any proposal to extend voting rights to persons permanently resident outside the State. The Minister invited supporters of the Bill to spell out exactly how these issues will be dealt with. The questions asked by the Minister included the numbers involved, what cut off point, if any, could be safely adopted, what is the real attitude of immigrants particularly those in the UK who already possess the right to vote in British elections, the one man one vote issue in relation to immigrants in Britain, the question of taxation and representation, the constitutional question and, particularly, equal treatment for different categories of citizens. The implications for our particular and rather unique electoral system are great.
Let us take, for instance, an area of Boston with, say, 100 voters who would be voting for people all over Ireland. What would we do if it was proved that something had gone wrong at the polling station? With the PR system a couple of votes can change the outcome of an election and we would have no control over the system in such areas? The question of the administrative arrangements, having regard to the short timescale which applies in the case of Dáil elections, also needs to be addressed. If the Government were to fall today there would be an election within three weeks. How would we get around that problem? The integrity of elections must be preserved and of how any abuse which might arise abroad could be prevented and remedied must also be addressed.
Those are serious questions on which there should be informed and constructive debate but, unfortunately, the Opposition have come up with no answers. There has been much talk about the great arrangements other EC countries have made to allow their emigrants to vote but we are indebted to Deputy Browne for putting the facts on the record. It is clear that the arrangements they have made are neither marvellous nor widespread despite what has been said on the other side of the House. Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece and Italy have made no arrangements to allow their citizens abroad to vote in parliamentary elections. The arrangements made by Germany cater for 0.07 per cent of the total electorate; while the figure stands at 1 per cent in Luxembourg; 0.2 per cent in the Netherlands; 2 per cent in Portugal; 0.5 per cent in Spain, and 0.03 per cent in the United Kingdom. In contrasting the arrangements proposed in the Bill would cater for 10 per cent of the electorate in our case. It is interesting to note that if we were to combine the figures for benefit under the arrangements made by all other EC countries, the total number involved would not be significantly higher than the number who would be catered for under the arrangements proposed in this Bill.
It is worth noting the attitude of the Fine Gael Party to this Bill. Some of their speakers have made a convincing and comprehensive case against acceptance of the Bill. Clearly, they regard it as impractical, flawed and unworkable. They themselves have proposed that we adopt a different approach, yet they propose to support the Bill. This is yet another great example of Fine Gael trying to have it both ways.
We are for the principle of votes for our emigrants.
Then put forward a proper view on the matter.
There are many ways of doing this.
If they want to play a constructive role in this House they should make up their minds and act accordingly. If they are of the view that the Bill is impractical and unworkable they should oppose it. If they consider it to be a good Bill they should withdraw their own Bill and support this measure.
It is a good principle.
They have argued against it as they see the problems with it.
Have you heard the Progressive Democrats.?
The Minister has been accused of misrepresenting the position of the Federation of Irish Societies on the matter of votes for our emigrants. We have been told that they did not reject such a proposal at their conference in 1989 but rather deferred discussion on the matter. However, a report of the meeting indicates that the motion was defeated. Semantics apart, no matter what way one looks at it, it does not denote a burning ambition for voting rights for our people abroad. It should be noted that it is the emigrants themselves, and not the Minister, who have expressed apprehension about this proposal.
In conclusion it is clear that the Labour Party did not do their homework on the Bill and, as it stands, it is little more than a declaration of principle.
What about the principle?
The interests of our emigrants are best served by providing practical support and back up and not by way of half baked measures or fine rhetoric. I oppose the Bill.
With the permission of the House, I would like to share some three minutes of my time with Deputy Garland.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I wish to thank Deputy Spring and the House for affording me this opportunity to comment on the Bill. I am sure Deputy Stafford is correct when he says that the number of emigrants who would be entitled to vote on foot of this Bill would represent about 10 per cent of the total electorate. Indeed, that may even be an understatement. I think the point he was trying to make in comparing this percentage with the figures in other countries was that the matter is much easier to control when numbers are small. I accept that but is this not an indication of the bankruptcy of thought among his party who have been in Government for the bulk of the last 70 years——
That is not true.
——during which time a huge percentage of our people have been forced to emigrate? However all other parties in the House, with the exception of one, have contributed to this problem as they formed part of Governments who were unable to stem the flow of emigration.
Having said that, I support the Bill which may need to be amended. The figure of 15 years is a little too high and ten years might be more appropriate. Having listened to the Minister's response I must say that I found it most inadequate. He offered every conceivable excuse for not accepting the Bill. Indeed, the Government have a long history of rejecting Private Members' Bills. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency Bill has still not reached this House even though the Fine Gael Bill was rejected in December 1989. The same will probably happen in this case despite the Minister's promise to do something.
This is a reasonably good Bill and deserves the support of the House. It can always be amended on Committee Stage.
I am glad to have this opportunity to conclude this debate. It would appear from the numbers in the House that this Bill will be defeated when we go through the lobbies in some ten or 12 minutes time but I believe that it is only a matter of time before the House reconsiders the question of voting rights for our emigrants. I have no doubt whether it is brought in by the Labour Party, Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil that on the next occasion there will be a decision to grant voting rights to our emigrants. I am very confident of this and wish to compliment my colleague, Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan, for the work he has done in preparing the legislation and for bringing it before the House. I believe that in due course he will be recognised as the man who pioneered the cause of voting rights for our emigrants. Despite the inevitable defeat tonight for this Bill I am convinced — it may well not be the present Minister for the Environment or the Taoiseach who will be responsible — that the tide is now unstoppable in relation to the granting of voting rights to our emigrants.
Unfortunately, the contribution of the Minister for the Environment to this Bill was disappointing and insensitive to the rights of Irish people living abroad. The Minister will be remembered by our emigrants as the person who was not even prepared to look at the question of voting rights for them. Not only were Members of this House disappointed but the many Irish communities in London, Birmingham and in the United States were just as disappointed with the attitude he took to this Bill last Tuesday night week. They had looked for some signal — if we are to believe what the Taoiseach had to say over the weekend — that the Fianna Fáil Party were prepared to look at the question of modernising our social structures. I would suggest that we start with the people who have emigrated, most of whom have left through no choice of their own. Unfortunately, there is no good news for them in this debate tonight other than the fact that the debate has now begun in this Chamber.
I hope this matter will be before the House again in the not too distant future and that there will be a majority on that occasion in favour of granting voting rights to our citizens abroad. Many Fianna Fáil Members are themselves returned emigrants and while they were obviously whipped into line, many of them would love to support this Bill tonight.
The Minister for the Environment stated in his contribution that the cause of involuntary emigration was the lack of job opportunities in this country. We would all agree. He stated that the only solution to involuntary emigration lay in the pursuit of vigorous policies which would turn the economy around and thus remove the root cause. Obviously we accept that. The Minister, however, will have to accept that no improvement has taken place in the quality of life or in national confidence since 1987 and the rate of emigration has been increasing substantially. There has also been a drastic rise in the number of unemployed. It must be accepted that the problem of emigration will remain for the foreseeable future at the rate of about 15,000 people per annum.
The Labour Party tried in this Bill to address in a serious manner an issue which is of concern to emigrant groups in Britain, the United States and elsewhere. Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats in their Programme for Government committed themselves to examining the feasibility of granting voting rights to recent emigrants. The Minister for the Environment in his speech last Tuesday stated that the Programme for Government indicated that the feasibility of granting voting rights to recent emigrants would be examined and that this has been done. This evening the Minister for Energy said that a detailed Government study of the feasibility of according rights has not yet been concluded and, therefore, it has not yet been possible for the Government collectively to consider all of the issues involved.
Send for the Minister for Communications.
Let us not get any more confused. I will have to ask the Taoiseach at the earliest opportunity to put the record straight on behalf of the Government and to tell us if the study has been completed and what is happening. Considering the week the Government have had, perhaps we are expecting too much in seeking clarity on matters like this. The Minister for Energy, speaking on behalf of the Progressive Democrats, seemed in 90 per cent of his speech to support the principle of this Bill but because of obvious constraints within Government, his party cannot support it. I would ask some Government spokesperson to clarify at an early opportunity what exactly has been happening since this commitment. I assume the commitment was freely entered into by the Fianna Fáil Party and the Progressive Democrats, although I have the distinct impression that the Progressive Democrats were a little more serious about the contents of the Programme for Government than Fianna Fáil.
The Minister for the Environment felt that the Government were already helping emigrants in a practical manner by funding in Britain and the United States. Tremendous work is being done by the DÍON committee and others. It is ironic that when Deputy Ruairí Quinn, then Minister for Labour, proposed in the mid-eighties supporting our emigrants, the Fianna Fáil Party derided the idea on the basis that it would be paying people to leave this country and was totally unnecessary. It has turned out to be one of the more imaginative and well thought out schemes by any Government and that support is much appreciated by emigrants. They would like more than the £500,000 which is being given. This House would support any increase in the allocation to the DÍON committee to assist in their tremendous work. That work is not getting any easier.
On a visit to London last October with the then President elect, Mrs. Robinson, we visited some of the centres and the accommodation in which some of our young emigrants are living. People would be appalled at the lack of facilities and the sub-human conditions in which these people are living in North London and elsewhere. All of us should be embarrassed at the condition of the squats where these people are living. In some cases they are considered to be the lucky ones; others do not have a roof over their heads in that country. If increased funding can be provided, this should be done.
The Minister also claimed that there was no great lobby among emigrant organisations to extend the voting system. That is not the message which members of my party have received. I would ask the Minister to reflect on this matter when he makes contact with emigrant groups. They see it as a way of staying in touch with this country. The Minister mentioned the old adage "no taxation without representation". I am surprised that a Minister from the west should ignore the fact that so much unsolicited money has been sent back there by emigrants over the past 50 or 60 years. This fact should be recognised by the Minister. He should also recognise that emigration has been a safety net in relation to the Government's failures.
The question of numbers has been used by the Minister as a defence against the introduction of this legislation. That is a matter which can be overcome. Many countries are able to organise voting abroad and I do not see why the Minister and his able officials should not be able to introduce a suitable system.
The Minister also believes that PR is not suitable as a voting system for our emigrants. His comments were insulting to the intellect of our emigrants, especially the comment that the lower preference votes are unlikely to be cast with the same consideration and care. Ironically the Minister forgets that all the emigrants who have left Ireland since 1986 are still included in the 1986 census figures on which the recent Dáil constituency revision is based. If the revision had taken account of the scale of emigration in that time there would be six fewer seats in this House. The Minister's arguments fails completely.
The Labour Party regret the Minister's attitude and his dismissal of the basic right of the citizen. The Government have lost a unique opportunity to do something constructive and worthwhile for thousands of our citizens who have been forced to live outside this country through no fault of their own. The Government will regret the loss of this opportunity.
In bringing this Bill before the Dáil the Labour Party decided to take a constructive and courageous step with regard to our emigrants living abroad. Emigration, especially the forced emigration which has been a feature of Irish economic and social life for the last few years, is an uprooting and alienating process. Many of our emigrants end up stateless people unable to vote in the country of which they are citizens, and unable to vote in the country in which they are resident. We in the Labour Party see no reason Irish citizens should be deprived of one of the most basic rights of any citizen simply because they have been forced to live abroad.
Ireland is one of the few remaining countries in the European Community which disenfranchises its emigrants. If the Government accept our Bill, this will bring Ireland into line with our EC partners who have provided voting rights for their emigrants in some or all of their elections.
Most Deputies are familiar with the principal features of this Bill. The Fianna Fáil Party are missing a glorious opportunity to correct a weakness in our voting system in relation to citizens who have been forced to emigrate. We have been alerted to the possibility of a constitutional challenge. I do not believe we should be intimidated. We are legislators with the right to legislate. I believe that many Fianna Fáil people who spoke against the Bill support the principle in it and most of their constituents would support that principle. The Minister for the Environment will regret this rejection which he is leading on behalf of Fianna Fáil. It is a sad day for our emigrants but at least we can tell them that their battle is being fought in the Irish Parliament. I believe it will be won in the near future.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 66.
Tá
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Bell, Michael.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Garland, Rober.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, Pat.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Howlin and Flanagan; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.
Question declared lost.