Mr. Mark Bassett:

On the point about EU law, the European treaties guarantee free movement of workers, for example. Someone who has exercised the right to free movement and moved to another member state no longer has the ability to vote in Irish elections because of residency rules. His or her right to vote is not recognised in the other member state. There is at least a possibility of an action being taken against Ireland on the grounds that there has been an unjustifiable restriction and that the exercising of free movement rights has been made less attractive because of our restrictive national law. I would much prefer to see a change in the law for the right reasons because it is consistent with the Constitution and a good idea, rather than a change in reaction to the stigma associated, perhaps, with the decision of a court - it could be in Luxembourg or the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg - to the effect that Ireland was out of step with its contemporaries. We have seen that Ireland is almost uniquely restrictive in its adherence to limitations of residency. There is the potential for a successful challenge in the European Court of Justice by somebody who has suffered detriment in exercising free movement rights.

With regard to the diaspora, the figure of 70 million is often mentioned. I imagine that quite a limited number of them would ever wish to exercise the right to vote in an election here. Very many of them will not be entitled to Irish citizenship but will instead just have an ancestral fondness for this island.

As the options paper sets out, we can expect a high level of participation in Northern Ireland. All of the evidence from non-resident citizens in other contexts suggests there is very often a limited take-up. I advocate to the committee that the idea of the swamping of an election is not one that should put off the consideration of a constitutional amendment.