Dr. Theresa Reidy:

On the question of what we would like to see in the Bill, the functions are worthy of further attention. The Deputy highlighted those that we homed in on. It is important that there be a type of election audit or evaluation at each election, not just of the election day process itself but of the whole electoral cycle, including the operation and organisation of the event. This would involve rolling research.

That connects to the Deputy's question on what would be good in terms of referendum or election research. It is important that we learn about how voters engage with politics and what information is useful for them. We need to do this over a couple of periods. We must engage with voters at the start of the process, prior to election or referendum day, and after the day with a view to enhancing the processes and practices thereafter. This would not have to be done at every electoral event, but we should ensure that it was done reasonably regularly and that the commission had the independence to do so.

Regarding what is good in terms of voter participation, it is crucial that there be a function specifically related to voter participation at all electoral events, not just at referendums. This would connect with the voter registration processes and involve ongoing voter information and education on, in general, the political system, the electoral events in question and the roles of the people being elected. We have good practices in this area. The Referendum Commission has been doing this work quite well in recent times, but it should be done at all election events. Participation should be understood broadly. We would want to encourage people to become involved in politics and see candidacy supports and a role for candidacy. Our colleagues who work in the fields of equality, diversity and inclusion are keen to see this dimension being understood in terms of participation in voting and standing for election. This relates to a recurring theme.

We should leave the Bill sufficiently open so that the electoral commission could evolve this work itself by trialling different techniques. This would particularly be the case around what works to mobilise voters. The commission would be able to try different techniques, evaluate them and roll them out if they have been successful or trial something else if they have not. For example, many techniques have been tried in France around contacting voters, including by text, to let them know where their respective polling stations are and what times those are open. Some of that has worked well whereas some has not. We want the electoral commission to have the autonomy to trial techniques, evaluate them and move on.

A great deal of good referendum research has been done. It is obvious to us that every referendum should be evaluated, not just the ones where the Government did not get the results it believed it would. It would be good if an evaluation was an automatic decision of the electoral commission. Referendums have started working well, as shown by some of the Referendum Commission's research. There is a strong core, but an evaluation needs to happen at every referendum.

I do not know the operating budgets of electoral commissions off the top of my head, but we have examined this issue previously and spoken to committee members. Internationally, the Canadian electoral commission is considered the exemplar, but it is a very large commission, covers diverse territories and is probably not the best model for Ireland to consider. Rather, we should probably consider the Electoral Commission of New Zealand. It has a relatively small staff and works with local authorities. When discussing budgets, we must remember that the model envisaged in this Bill, albeit a good one, would involve a great deal of this work being done by local authorities.

Budgets are involved in that too, so the total cost of electoral administration would be considerably greater than just what is included in the budget for the electoral commission.