Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this report, which was brought forward by the Chairman of the Joint Committee on European Affairs. Everybody agrees the issue is, and should be, under review and that some efforts need to be made by a commission to examine the feasibility and logistics of including the wider electorate. There are, of course, implications. The committee discussed this at length. Different countries, including those throughout the European Union, have different requirements and varying means of dealing with the issue.

It was suggested during the debate by the committee that there would be no appreciable effect on the outcome of elections if the vote were extended to all Irish people overseas in a general election. Of course, that is not necessarily the case because there would be an impact on an election outcome. Depending on which end of the spectrum one is standing, this could be good or bad; we do not know how it would work. I disagreed with the suggestion put forward by an expert that the impact would be negligible. It could be quite considerable, particularly in a closely fought general election in which 1%, or a fraction of a percentage, of a vote count would make a difference. That said, the principle still needs to be examined with a view to extending the franchise to people outside the country, be it over a specified period or longer period, with the objective of having registration on an annual basis. That seems to be a possibility.

Presidential elections need to be examined in the first instance as they are the most appropriate in this regard. The Minister of State mentioned potential obstacles. They are not beyond resolution. They were examined by the committee. It was felt in the final analysis that there were sufficient grounds, bearing in mind all the practicalities and possibilities, to try to come up with a proposal that would be logical, effective, acceptable and in consort with the Constitution.

The European Commission was very anxious to move forward with this legislation on the grounds of restriction of freedom of movement. I am afraid that some developments in Europe in the meantime seem to indicate to me that freedom of movement is not always allowed throughout the Union. I am a strong supporter of the European concept and project and will remain so but I believe some of the sights we have seen across Europe since the publication of this report are not reassuring. I refer, of course, to the treatment of refugees and to those who are known as economic migrants. There seems to be a bias against the latter, as if economic migration were a serious transgression of some description. We should be very familiar with the concept in this country. Our people needed to emigrate for economic reasons and they were glad of the opportunity. At a recent meeting in Luxembourg, I expressed the opinion that economic migration was not a cardinal sin or international transgression of any description but a matter of necessity for many people. It was a necessity for us. I stated I did not see the logic of isolating economic immigrants and of the restriction of their movement and of the right to move throughout the European Union, even though they are not European citizens. The images of razor wire preventing people from crossing from one state into another do not necessarily reside particularly easily with any of us, nor should they. Although I am a strong supporter of all the European concepts and the European project in general, I am certainly not a supporter of what leads to that kind of imagery. When the European Union is issuing instructions and expressing opinions, collectively or individually across Europe, it should take account of the need to apply the principles that it espouses to itself also. Former Commissioner Peter Sutherland has expressed strong views on this subject, as have many Members of this House. It would be wrong to allow this occasion to pass without commenting on it.

On the recommendation of the Commission, we are going in the right direction. I do not know how the international element of the register would be checked. I expressed this view during the discussions of the committee. For as long as I have been around, we have not been able to check the register properly in this country. This has been the case for at least 40 years. I do not know how it will happen eventually if there is to be an international aspect to the register. It is essential that we find a means of ensuring the electoral register is updated regularly and systematically and that, in the event of an extension of voting rights to citizens in Northern Ireland, across Europe or elsewhere abroad, for whatever purpose, be it short or long term, the manner of its compilation will be a major consideration. The logistics will have to be dealt with if the proposal is to be successful.

The electoral commission has already been referred to. I am sorry Deputy Timmy Dooley has left the House. He stated that we need electoral reform and that the Parliament needs greater powers. Over the years, it has come to my attention that when parties that have been in government, particularly those in government for a long time, find themselves in opposition, for whatever reason, they always believe it would be a great idea to give more power to the Parliament and less to the Executive. I do not know why this is the case. The Acting Chairman, Deputy Seán Kenny, and I have seen times come and go in which parties' enthusiasm for this concept seemed to wane somewhat when they found themselves back in government, for one reason or another.

Fianna Fáil has stated that if it is returned to Government after the next general election it will extend further powers to the Parliament. I take that with the proverbial grain of salt for the simple reason that it did little in that regard when in government for a lengthy period prior to the election of this Government. It could be said that Members of this House had less power than ever before during the period when Fianna Fáil was in government and that what little power was available to them was diminished on a regular basis. I do not propose to, nor should I in this particular context, go into the detail of all the reasons I hold that view. However, should the opportunity to do so present in the future, I will take it.

Lest people listening in to this debate would think that the current Administration restricts the rights of the Opposition and prohibits this Parliament from doing its work, I must point out that it does not. The level of participation by this Parliament in terms of debates, committee meetings - including pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills - and debates on finance and social welfare Bills has been far greater than that of any other Parliament in the history of this State. This type of participation was not a feature of previous Administrations.

In regard to people complaining about their inability to get replies in this House, I have raised a number of questions in this House over the past few years. Under the previous Administration, it was very unusual if I did not get, on a daily basis, 14 or 15 refusals of replies to what were legitimate parliamentary questions, the answers to which I knew were readily available in the respective Departments. I refute the allegation that the current Administration has restricted the democratic process of this Parliament; it has not.

See this speech in context