Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind members to turn off their mobile phones as they interfere with the sound system and we will not get coverage if there is interference with microphones and other equipment. Apologies have been received from Senator Ned O'Sullivan. The meeting has been convened for the purpose of consideration by the committee of matters relating to the consultation paper on the establishment of an electoral commission in Ireland. The committee will now discuss the matter. Is that agreed? Agreed. It is proposed that this part of our meeting will conclude at 5 p.m., if not previously concluded. There might not be a break between this part and the private meeting but we will deal with the matter when we get to it. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome from the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, and the Referendum Commission, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, who is also the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Peter Tyndall and Mr. Paddy Walsh; Ms Mairead Ahern, county registrar for Louth, and Mr. Fintan Murphy, country registrar for Mayo, who are representing returning officers; and Mr. Joseph Nugent, Mr. Conn Murray and Mr. Vincent Norton from the Local Government Management Agency, LGMA, and the County and City Managers Associations, CMMA.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person, persons or entity either by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

The opening statements may be published on the committee website after the conclusion of the meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed. I invite Mr. Seamus McCarthy to make his opening statement. He has approximately ten minutes, as was the case last week. I suggest to members that they take five minutes initially and then another five minutes for a supplementary question. There will not be time for a reply if they take ten minutes initially.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

On behalf of the Referendum Commission, I welcome the public consultation on the establishment of an electoral commission in Ireland and thank the committee for its invitation to contribute to this process. By way of background, a referendum commission is formally established at the discretion of the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, to carry out specific functions in relation to a particular referendum.

As members may be aware, the Chief Justice nominates the chairperson of the commission who is usually a serving judge of the High Court. The other members who are ex officioare the Clerk of the Dáil, the Clerk of the Seanad, the Ombudsman, Mr. Peter Tyndall, and the Comptroller and Auditor General or specified alternates in the event of a vacancy.

The current referendum commission, under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Kevin Cross, was established for the purposes of the marriage referendum and the age of presidential candidates referendum. The legislation governing the establishment of a referendum commission is the Referendum Act, 1998, as amended by the Referendum Act, 2001. Under the current legislation, the primary roles of the commission are to provide general explanations of the subject matter of a referendum proposal; to promote public awareness of the referendum; and to encourage the electorate to vote. The requirement under the 1998 Act to set out arguments for and against a particular referendum proposal was removed by the 2001 Act.

Funding for the commission is provided from the relevant departmental Vote and any unspent balance must be returned to the Department after each campaign. Each commission exists only for a set period and is disestablished subsequent to presentation of a formal report to the Minister and in any event within six months of polling day. As a result, commissions have often had limited time in which to prepare materials and advertising campaigns and have not had the time or the resources to undertake an ongoing or even a pre-planned programme to promote voter registration and turnout or an in-depth analysis of the factors that influence them.

Low voter turnout for constitutional referendums, especially of young voters, has been a matter of serious concern to previous referendum commissions. Turnout has varied considerably, with a high turnout often only occurring where the referendum coincides with national or local elections. However, some issues in themselves have also attracted a high turnout. For example, the turnout for the recent referendums was in excess of 60%, which was the highest since referendum commissions were established. On the other hand, the turnout for the children's rights referendum in 2012 was only around 33%, one of the lowest ever for a referendum.

The referendum commission is of the view that there is a clear and urgent need for an ongoing campaign, among young people in particular, to encourage voter registration and voting. In that regard, we consider that a single body with a permanent existence and the capacity to run an ongoing and well planned voter awareness campaign would be more effective than a body brought into existence a few weeks prior to a referendum and with a strictly limited remit. The current referendum commission endorses the position adopted by its predecessors that the solution to this problem is the transfer of all of the functions of the referendum commission to an independent electoral commission.

I will address a couple of issues in my capacity as Comptroller and Auditor General, separately from my ex officiomembership of the standards in public office and referendum commissions. They relate to questions Nos. 5 and 7 in the consultation paper. Because the electoral commission would be funded from money provided by the Oireachtas, it would be expected that the Comptroller and Auditor General would be appointed as the commission’s auditor. The consultation paper raises the issue as to whether the Comptroller and Auditor General could, or should, additionally be a member of the commission. If the electoral commission was statutorily or operationally obliged to adopt the annual accounts, it would create a clear conflict if one of its members was also the auditor. I note that in some jurisdictions the chief electoral officer is the Accounting Officer. In such cases, if responsibility for the preparation and presentation of the annual accounts was a personal responsibility of the Accounting Officer, rather than of the electoral commission as a whole, this conflict could be avoided. However, it is difficult to see how the Comptroller and Auditor General could participate as a member of the electoral commission with a broad remit and, at the same time, carry out examinations of the performance of the commission as provided for under section 9 of the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993.

I am happy to deal with these matters in more detail, as the committee requires.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call the Ombudsman to make his opening statement.

Mr. Peter Tyndall:

I am going to deliver the statement that would have been delivered by the chairman of the Standards in Public Office Commission, Mr. Justice O'Keeffe, who, unfortunately, cannot be with us today.

On behalf of the Standards in Public Office Commission, I welcome the opportunity given to the commission by the committee to make a formal submission setting out the views of the commission on this new venture, which is likely to have a profound impact on the electoral process in Ireland in the next few years.

I also welcome the opportunity to address members today, to answer any questions they may have and to contribute to the debate on the matter. Hopefully, our contributions will help the joint committee in making informed decisions on this very important matter.

The Standards in Public Office Commission is very much in favour of the establishment of an electoral commission to bring together under one umbrella all the functions and responsibilities of the electoral system. If, as seems to be the intention, the new electoral commission takes on functions such as maintaining the electoral register, managing elections and referendums, maintaining the register of political parties and the like, then, to the Standards in Public Office Commission, it seems to make perfect sense to transfer to the electoral commission the responsibilities under the electoral legislation that currently are under the control of the Standards in Public Office Commission.

The Public Offices Commission was established in 1995 with responsibility for one piece of legislation only, namely, the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995. Other responsibilities were subsequently added under the electoral legislation, which would more appropriately have been assigned to an electoral commission, had one existed in 1997 when the Electoral Act was applied. The Standards in Public Office Commission was established in 2001 and the functions conferred on the Public Offices Commission by the 1997 Act were conferred on the Standards in Public Office Commission. Perhaps the time is now right for the Standards in Public Office Commission or its successor, given the review of the ethics legislation, to revert to its original role of supervising political activity under the ethics legislation, including the additional responsibilities recently added under the lobbying legislation, rather than electoral matters which are more appropriate to an electoral commission.

It seems to the Standards in Public Office Commission that the timing of this review of the electoral processes, with the establishment of an electoral commission, is opportune as it coincides, as I mentioned, with the review of the ethics legislation that was announced last week. The public sector standards Bill will have implications for the staffing of the Standards in Public Office Commission but if certain of its functions under the electoral legislation are transferred to the new electoral commission, then the overall effect on the staffing complement should turn out to be neutral, given the additional responsibilities that are likely to be involved under the public sector standards Bill. It is important therefore, that both items of legislation are processed through the Oireachtas at the same time in order that it will be apparent to Members of the Oireachtas how decisions with regard to one item of legislation may have an effect on the other.

The Standards in Public Office Commission is available and would like to be engaged in the development of the new legislation on the setting up of the electoral commission and indeed in respect of the development of the new public sector standards Bill.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I now invite Ms Mairead Ahern, the country registrar for County Louth, to make her opening statement.

Ms Mairead Ahern:

I am Mairead Ahern and I am the county registrar and returning officer for counties Louth and Meath. I am accompanied by my colleague, Mr. Fintan Murphy, who is the returning officer in counties Mayo and Roscommon at present, because we are doubling up. We welcome the opportunity to address the joint committee in the deliberations concerning the implementation of the Government commitment on an electoral commission, an area in which returning officers play a key role on the operational side. I believe members have had the opportunity to hear the opinions of academics and others on the many matters they are considering. I believe I am correct in suggesting they all are in broad agreement that the actual running of the electoral events nationally is competently carried out by the returning officers. Our opening statement, which we forwarded to the joint committee previously, sets out our position. We believe firmly in the electoral process as it operates at present. In our opinion, no process could be more transparent. Each voter is presented with a ballot paper and from the time that this ballot paper enters the ballot box, it is completely secure. Each vote cast then is brought under escort to its count centre and from there, the ballot papers are in full view of the public until such time as a count is finalised. Occasionally, complaints are made as to the length of time taken until a final result is announced. Returning officers are meticulous in ensuring that a count is completely accurate and this can take some time. However, the benefit is that once concluded, there can be no doubt as to the accuracy of the result and we consider this to be a result worth waiting for. This system has stood the test of time and regardless of whether the overarching body is a Department or an electoral commission, we argue there is no case for changing what is working well on the ground.

While other aspects of the issues being addressed by the committee do not fall within our remit, we believe an electoral commission could result in substantial improvements on the issue of voter registration. There is an ongoing problem with voter registration and voters can, naturally, be upset when they attend at a polling station and discover that, through no fault of their own, they are not listed on the register. Despite the Trojan work carried out by local authorities and the Department in their efforts to have members of the public check the register, how many of us actually do so? Registers are complex documents and local authority staff are under immense pressure to ensure they are accurate. This is extremely difficulty and labour-intensive work and the area is completely under-resourced. Various models such as a rolling register, a nationally compiled register or changing the methodology for compiling the register to incorporate PPS numbers must be examined. It is an overwhelming task and dedicated, experienced staff are required to deal with it. It would be a step forward if, under the auspices of an electoral commission, permanent or full-time staff who could access appropriate databases for the purposes of constantly updating the register were allocated.

We are of the view that consideration should be given to appointing at least one returning officer to the board of any electoral commission. We are willing to assist any committee or sub-committee set up for any purpose by a commission. Our unique and extensive experience qualifies us in all areas of the electoral system and we have a great deal to give when considering these aspects of the system.

We will be happy to answer questions members may wish to pose or provide any further detail they require.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Mr. Nugent, CEO of the Local Government Management Agency, to make his opening statement.

Mr. Joseph Nugent:

The Local Government Management Agency, LGMA, the County and City Management Association, CCMA, and local authorities generally are appreciative of the opportunity to make a submission on the Government’s consultation paper on the establishment of an electoral commission in Ireland. I am joined by Mr. Conn Murray, chief executive of Limerick City and County Council, and Mr. Vincent Norton, executive manager in the office of the CEO of Dublin City Council. We intend to refer to the submissions we have made but also to that made by Deputy City Council on this issue.

As members are aware, local authorities have played a key role in the operation of the electoral system since the foundation of the State. The extensive knowledge and experience of local authorities, built up over so many years, are key elements in maintaining trust in the electoral processes. Members are well aware of the primary responsibilities of local authorities for, among other things, the maintenance of the electoral register, running local elections and the regulation of election spending at local level. Of most significance are the continued activities of local authorities in providing the direct and tangible link on the ground between the electorate and the voter and the electoral process as a whole. This local presence is a very significant factor in demonstrating the openness and transparency of the process, to which reference has been made, leading to the very high level of confidence of all stakeholders in the electoral system. Based on the experience of previous electoral change, the LGMA, the CCMA and local authorities are of the view that this continued local link is essential to maintain the public trust in the electoral system. In our written submission we proposed that the primary focus of an electoral commission be in the areas of electoral policy; oversight and audit; and promoting and maintaining confidence in the electoral system as a whole. We are also of the view that responsibility for the delivery of the operational aspects of the election process should be vested in the local authority system, where the foundations of a thriving functioning system of local democracy provide confidence in the electoral system in an individual's own area, consistent with the Government's policy document, Putting People First, which affirms local government as the primary means of providing public services at local level.

The joint committee heard last week about the operation of the register of electors. Whereas there has been a general discussion about the register, there are, in effect, 31 separate and unconnected registers that are maintained by separate local registration authorities. The local authority sector has improved the customer service experience of the registration process through the delivery of a national register portal, www.checktheregister.ie., but this merely provides a single point of contact to the separate registers. For many years those involved in the local authority sector have been consistent in the view that improvements can be made and the removal of legislative barriers would facilitate significant improvements to the registration process through the establishment of a single national register of electors database, with the PPSN used as the unique identifier for electors; moving the register process from one static in nature to a rolling register, thereby removing the current annual deadline requirements; the new register to deliver online services, allowing electors to manage their personal electoral information, including on registration, address changes, etc.; the online process to streamline and simplify the current application procedures and forms and also provide opportunities to deliver contact details to electors for polling stations and the potential for transmission of polling cards electronically, where sought; and the delivery of a range of services for others authorised to access the register, including the development of a portal for returning officers to facilitate the printing of polling station books for election day; a portal for political parties to access local register data for individual areas and the Courts Service to meet jury service requirements.

Consistent with Government policy determining local authorities as the focal point for delivering services locally, the sector believes it can efficiently deliver the operational aspects of the electoral process within the policy parameters established by any new electoral commission. Additionally, with the enactment of necessary legislation in respect of the compilation of the electoral register, the local authority sector believes significant efficiencies can be delivered in the related processes.

At times, we take our electoral system for granted and, at times, when we reasonably criticise and call for changes, we ignore that, in general terms, the system works. There would, therefore, be a major risk in taking a big bang approach. We believe change should be made through a series of small developments within the framework of an agreed programme of transformation. Our democracy works on the back of public trust, and open debate on change of the type taking place here today should be encouraged. This consultative process is warmly welcome. We are happy to take further questions in this regard.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the representatives from the various bodies. It is good to have present all the bodies that may have a role in future electoral commissions. There seems to be a broad consensus around the need for an electoral commission and my party is in favour of this. That there is not a uniform means to deal with referenda and that there are problems with the register of electors and the oversight of the electoral and political processes has troubled us for a long time and we would like to see them improved.

The major difference between the CCMA and the other bodies is that it still sees a major role for local government in the electoral process, which I am inclined to go along with. If the role of local authorities is abolished, there will be problems. However, Ms Ahern referred to the integrity of the process and I share her view on trust in the current process at the point where people enter the polling station and put their ballot paper in a box. I have never had any reason to think otherwise but problems arise in respect of people who do not feel the need to vote, those who are not aware they can vote, those who do not know how to vote and those who can vote several times. I have highlighted the latter issue many times. I raised the case of 27 people being registered to a derelict house in County Monaghan prior to the second last local government election. That is far from satisfactory but the issue played itself out. I have seen similar examples that were not as bad as but we need to prevent a scenario where people are registered multiple times. The current system does not address that.

No matter how thorough officials are or how good the system is, if the electoral register is not correct, the process will be flawed. We have asked many times for PPS numbers to be used to register voters. I raised this with the previous Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Mr. Hogan, a number of times and he said there were approximately 6.5 million PPS numbers in the State.

This includes PPS numbers for people who have died, people who have returned to their countries of origin and Irish people who have emigrated. A rolling register would appear to be the way forward. The current registration system, in terms of the times when a person can register and the September and December deadlines in relation to the draft register and appeals system, is very restrictive. I would like to hear the views of the other delegates on what Mr. Nugent had to say and on my commentary in relation to local government.

The local government system worked well. I believe that where possible, local government should continue to play a significant role in the electoral process. The system falls down because we no longer have rate collectors on the ground, with rates now being paid by way of electronic transfer. As we also no longer have rent collectors the intelligence system in relation to the register of electors is also not as good. Town councillors, rate collectors and rent collectors played a major role in terms of feeding into that process. The fact that political parties no longer have as large a membership on the ground as was the case in decades gone by is also a significant problem.

In regard to the conduct and management of elections and referenda, in the delegates' view which of these functions should be transferred as soon as possible to a commission, if it is agreed that one should be established, and what functions should remain with the local authorities? Members of other commissions such as the ad hocboundary commission and referenda commissions are appointed by the Minister. Who should appoint the members of the proposed electoral commission bearing in mind the need for integrity and for the people to have trust in it? Politics is a competitive game. That is the nature of the democratic process. Who should appoint the members of the electoral commission? Should this be done by the Minister or the Public Appointments Commission? If we are agreed that we should move to an electoral commission to deal with all of the issues outlined should this be done in one fell swoop or over, perhaps, a five or ten year period?

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Were the Deputy's questions directed to a particular witness?

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to hear the views of Mr. Tyndall and Mr. McCarthy on the question in relation to the role of local government. I have heard with Mr. Nugent had to say. While I agree to a large extent with what he said, I am a little conflicted because local government is now so different. That is not to suggest it is better. It is different now in terms of it no longer having rate collectors. It is a fact of life that we now have fewer councillors and intelligence gatherers on the ground.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

In regard to local government functions, this is probably not a matter with which the Referendum Commission or Standards in Public Office Commission would have been much engaged. We have not taken a public view in regard to how an electoral commission would function at local government level. In regard to the sequence of functions to be transferred and the timing of transfer, a big bang is very high risk. Having a clear model for transfer of functions and a phased gearing up of an electoral commission is probably a much safer approach. Some functions will be easier to transfer than others. Incorporation of Referendum Commission functions and the creation of a permanent referendum management focus in an electoral commission could probably be done relatively easily. In terms of what the Referendum Commission has done in the past, that would probably be something that could be an early transfer.

There is a distinction between heavy spend areas and regulatory-type functions. Starting with regulatory-type functions may be less problematic than moving a programme like central oversight of the electoral register. That would probably be a big project which would involve an IT requirement and significant logistics to make it work.

On the final question about who should appoint members of the commission, my colleagues and I areex officio members of commissions and that makes it easy to ensure there is no political interference or political question around the persons who are involved in the commissions. I suppose there could be an element of continuing that type of appointment to the commission and there are other models in the administrative system whereby people are ex officio members of a commission or of a similar structure. Whether that gives the right blend of skills and experience and perspectives is a question and maybe it is a blended appointment structure. Mr. Tyndall may have other observations.

Mr. Peter Tyndall:

I will respond to Deputy Stanley's point about the political nature of the process to be overseen by the commission. I take the view of having an independent appointment process so that if members are not ex officio, they would be appointed by some process that would be accountable to the Oireachtas rather than to an individual government of the day. It is inevitable that given the contested nature of some of the decisions that will be taken on issues like boundaries and so on, it clearly is better to find a way of ensuring people are appointed without any suggestion that their independence is tainted. I am sure anyone who took on the role would behave independently, but it is best to appoint such persons in a way that simply removes the possibility of the suggestion that they are other than independent.

On the question of the transfer of functions, I agree with the suggestions. The particular issue of concern to me is that the staff currently providing support to the electoral aspects of SIPO and also to the Referendum Commission are engaged also in the business of ethics. Separate ethics legislation is going through and it will be very important that in managing transition, the two processes are run in parallel to avoid them tripping over each other, so to speak, in practice. I re-emphasise the point made by Mr. McCarthy in his presentation on behalf of the referendum commission. On the business of promoting voter registration and promoting voter participation, I refer to a hugely successful exercise in the most recent referendum which was partly driven by the context of the referendum and partly driven - I hope - by the work of the commission. Having that work undertaken on an ongoing basis seems to be important. I agree that as well as the regulatory functions being an early part of the focus of any new body, I also see promotion of registration and promotion of participation being an early part, with some of the larger functions transferring as the new body became more mature.

That said, I would not want to see the process being over-extended because once the process of transition starts, the staff currently engaged in those tasks will be looking to their futures and I am sure that something that extended over many years would have a destabilising and perhaps demoralising effect. Therefore, it needs to be done in a phased way and over a set period, but not an over-extended one.

Mr. Fintan Murphy:

I would share the views of Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Tyndall in respect of the positives of the electoral commission and how it might commence its work in that there are clearly identifiable modules that are currently carrying out work under the auspices of the Standards in Public Office Commission or the Department. Those regulatory functions would constitute a far easier transfer than some of the other matters.

In terms of what returning officers meet daily in election events vis-à-visthe electoral register, like many issues, it is not simple and the solution is not simple either. However, there is a willingness all round, in the new environment in which we find ourselves with social media and other methods of communication, to improve the accuracy of the electoral register. At the previous referendum, through the efforts of the Referendum Commission and many other agencies, there was a big turnout, not least because of the question that was asked. The electoral register can be improved immeasurably and we do not have to wait for the finality of an electoral commission to do that.

I have been working closely with local authorities over the past 19 years on 31 different registers, but the authorities are extremely willing and able to embrace new technology to try to improve the effectiveness of voter registration. There are positives and negatives in this. One of the negatives, as pointed out by Deputy Stanley, is the reduced intelligence on the ground compared with days gone by. In our main statement we have suggested that whatever about potential difficulties in utilising PPS numbers, we should definitely consider that option. The register would certainly benefit from being able to utilise PPS numbers in some way. However, there are data protection and other issues involved and I would not be qualified to decide how they would be dealt with definitively. That said, I believe those issues should be dealt with and it is my understanding that legislation will be required.

Voter registration is a big issue. Regulatory transfer of functions is much easier to attend to than the greater matters of transfer to an electoral commission. I agree with Mr. Tyndall that the methodology should be both phased and deadlined. It is up to the body here and perhaps the commission itself how that would take place. On appointments, my view echoes that of other speakers, namely, that any appointments to an electoral commission will have greater legitimacy if they are completely independent. For that, we would welcome some form of independent oversight by the Houses of the Oireachtas rather than the Government. Again, that is an issue that must be decided down the road.

Mr. Conn Murray:

In response to Deputy Stanley, I would agree that it must remain as local as possible in terms of politics. The connectivity we referred to in our submission is extremely important as we go forward. That said, there are issues and concerns pertaining to the current process around the register itself. The incident referred to, while not acceptable, is more the exception than the rule. The reality we face, in the context of timelines currently imposed, leaves us in a very difficult position when faced with a substantial increase in the number of people who wish to register at the last minute.

Dublin City faced more of that than other areas with the recent referendum.

That is all very good, but the increase in the number seeking to register presents challenges. We have recommended and suggested that the move to a rolling register would remove those timeline pressures and give a greater chance of having the accuracy that is necessary for any referendum or election. In addition, we have made much of the proposal for a unique identifier. The lack of a unique identifier in the current electoral system means that registration authorities have no way of cross-checking registrations within the relevant jurisdiction or outside of it. This can lead to duplication and election fraud. We need a change in the legislative process to enable improvements in the register. There is no lack of willingness or expertise to respond to the issues that have been referred to here, but that requires change. I welcome the fact this discussion is taking place and hope it will lead to that type of change.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not believe there is any danger of a big bang approach, considering the fact that this debate is happening at this stage in the electoral cycle and that the Minister has stated that getting the commission up and running is the main issue. I would completely echo the points that have been made. However, this does not mean that the process must continue as it is indefinitely. We must decide on what process will be followed, what will be included and within what timeframe. We must have certainty on this and make it clear. While inevitably there is a concentration on the electoral register, the establishment of an independent electoral commission is a much bigger enterprise, but we can learn lessons from good examples in other countries similar in size to Ireland.

I echo what has been said in regard to returning officers. I have never doubted the results they have produced in an election. I have contested many elections and have always had confidence in the process, although it may take longer to get the final result and often there is not enough time for celebration on the day. There are good elements to our system and we should not lose them. Therefore, it is important to be thoughtful in regard to how we proceed.

I would like to know what will be the ultimate goal of the electoral commission and what will be included. I believe the issue of political funding should be part of the commission's remit and I see that as important in terms of building confidence. Professor Marsh said last week that the establishment of a referendum commission each time we are to hold a referendum is very wasteful of resources. The message he took from each of the reports was that they all felt they should have had more time. Therefore, the establishment of a permanent commission would be beneficial and probably less wasteful. It is important we consider what lessons we can learn from that.

I was interested in the point made regarding the potential conflict in the case of the Comptroller and Auditor General as the Accounting Officer. I would like to hear more on that matter because we must ensure that when we set something up it has been properly thought out. We often understate the turnout at elections and referendums due to the duplication on the register. Sometimes we count the full register, while many of those on the register can only vote in local elections. However, duplication is the main issue. I would like to see a greater use of postal voting whereby, for example, people on holidays who do not want to be disenfranchised can vote. There are many issues we could raise regarding how things could be done differently.

The Houses of the Oireachtas Commission is not a perfect entity and not all groups are represented on it.

There are whole sections of the Oireachtas that are not part of it. In the Dáil neither Sinn Féin nor the Technical Group, for example, has any representation on it. There must be a wider aspect but I take the point about the commission not being exclusively under the remit of the Government. The remit would have to be broadened to make sure that it is inclusive.

In regard to SIPO, a lot of what has happened in SIPO has been positive but I would like to see it have greater teeth in terms of sanctions. I could point to several instances where there has been flagrant abuse of the limits. It is up to people to make complaints after the event but people do not complain. It is not the nature of things and when the battle is over then it is over. That reality will not come as a surprise to most of us who have contested an election. In order to have confidence in the system then one must have meaningful sanctions that ensure the process is as fair as possible.

I am interested in hearing about the timetable. People have said they do not want a big bang. What is a realistic timeline for putting in place a comprehensive system? There will always be an element of adding things. Would a realistic timeline be five years? Do we need more time? What elements would the witnesses like to see added and in what order?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

I shall comment on a few of the points. I have no disagreement with any of the points made about ensuring the integrity of the register of electors. The committee may wish to get some information from the Department of Social Protection on its project for the development of a public services identity card. The project is under way and aims to provide an identity card for every citizen. The structure that will underpin the project, in terms of an individual identity number and the ability to link it with an image of a person, can be useful to the electoral register. There is probably scope, in the longer term, to synchronise the systems and even to have recognition in polling stations, etc., when people present their cards. The detail of that would be something that an electoral commission would negotiate with the Department. Even to understand the model might give the committee some idea about what it would recommend as ways forward in regard to that matter.

I referred to the conflict of interests in regard to the audit of an electoral commission. Under the Constitution it is my obligation, as Comptroller and Auditor General, to audit the accounts of all funds under the authority of the Oireachtas. Therefore, if funding is provided by the Oireachtas to an electoral commission then it would be expected that I would be the auditor of same. In order to ensure that I have independence, as the auditor, I cannot then be involved in decision-making about the application of funds. That is fundamentally the question.

The electoral commission, as envisaged, will be a spending body and there will be substantial funds going through same. The difference broadly between, let us say, SIPO or a referendum commission, is that there is normally a fairly small budget involved. In the case of SIPO it is a very small budget. There is also an Accounting Officer, separately, to account for that. Once one is the auditor who is tasked with reporting to Parliament, in regard to how resources are managed and applied, then it would not be consistent to be on the inside making the decisions and so on.

I was drawing a distinction between possibly putting a system in place with an Accounting Officer, where the commission would sit above the Accounting Officer level and would not necessarily be involved in the day-to-day resourcing decisions. A model could be crafted but when it comes down to performance and decisions being made about developing a major IT project to underpin voter registration and identification, I think it would be very difficult for someone on the commission also to be the auditor.

On the point about giving SIPO more teeth, I would certainly agree that we are not always in a position as a commission because we act within the law and within the parameters set down by Parliament.

On the point about spending limits, that refers to electoral spending where there are limits in place. There are strict rules around when the clock starts and stops ticking. It is generally recognised that there are ways of doing things early that give the impression of a campaign up and running and there is very little SIPO can do because it has to operate within the law as it stands. As to timelines, it depends on what one wants to do and what it is decided the electoral commission would achieve. Looking at the consultation paper, the experience elsewhere has been that this is a multi-year project. Any major IT project will be three to five years and that is generally the experience with large-scale projects. That timeline of three, four or five years is probably what one is looking at for a comprehensive shift and realignment of functions.

Mr. Peter Tyndall:

I will comment on the remarks about funding. At present, SIPO deals with both electoral funding and the ongoing funding of political parties. There is a question to be answered as to whether one would separate funding specifically related to expenditure in elections and ongoing funding of political parties. Given the proposals for the future of the ethics regime, there has been an argument that the ongoing funding fits with the ethics and the lobbying in that they all relate to ongoing political activity as opposed to election related activity, but that would have to be teased out in a detailed discussion because the proposal in the ethics legislation to set up a standards commissioner might well have an impact on the decision on where to locate the function of ongoing political party funding.

The Comptroller and Auditor General has spoken about the impact on his role of creating an electoral commission, the role of ex officio members and how that might transfer. Electoral commissions in some countries fall within the parliamentary ombudsman jurisdiction. Were it decided for the future, and that is another decision that will have to be made as part of the ongoing consideration of legislation to bring an electoral commission within the Ombudsman jurisdiction, that would have an impact on the possibility of an ex officiorole for the Ombudsman.

I would endorse the issue about the need for sanctions with more teeth. The current regime probably is designed in a way that makes it very difficult to enforce it actively. One would hope that any regime could be more actively enforced to deal with the kind of issues that Deputy Catherine Murphy was properly raising.

On a timeline, it seems that a lot of it relates to when a referendum may be held in the next Oireachtas and when the next set of elections might be held. It appears as though it would be helpful, for instance, to put in place some aspects of a referendum process before a referendum might take place under the auspices of a new Dáil. This is probably a consideration. I would have said three to five years as a timeline, with the latter figure on the outside because it would be good to see something in place.

To revert to the matter of appointments, I picked up on the issue of the current Oireachtas arrangements perhaps not being seen to be all-encompassing in respect of the various political parties. However, it appears that fundamentally there should be an objective appointments process to public bodies and that appointments should subsequently be ratified by the Oireachtas in order that they would be perceived as being owned by it but undertaken in an objective and neutral fashion. This would provide greater confidence in the new arrangements. I have probably dealt with the elements that should be included. As I stated, neither the Standards in Public Office Commission nor the Referendum Commission has taken a view on the role of local government. It did not fall within our broad remit and it did not seem to be appropriate to comment. Therefore, the ongoing points being made by representatives of local government probably have more relevance than anything it would be appropriate for us to say.

Mr. Paddy Walsh:

For Deputy Catherine Murphy's information, as long ago as 2003 the Standards in Public Office Commission raised the issue of election spending and the election period and what it was appropriate to cover. As the Deputy probably is aware, it covers the period from the date on which an election is called until polling day, whereas a lot of money is front-loaded in the weeks in advance of that period. In particular, when it is known that an election will take place, there will be a lot of front-loading. As I said, the commission raised this issue as long ago as 2003. It is also important to note that during the years the commission has raised the issue of the absence of teeth in the electoral legislation. It can write to individuals about various aspects of what we suspect they are doing, but they can ignore us completely and there is no sanction for their failing to respond to us. Obviously, we will suggest to any electoral commission that were it to consider all of the recommendations made in the past 12 years, it would be starting from a good point to be encompassed in any new legislation.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

On the point raised by Deputy Catherine Murphy about political funding, Mr. Tyndall has referred to the distinction to be drawn in respect of ongoing political funding, about which I made a quick analysis this morning. It is running at approximately €13 million to €14 million per year for the parliamentary leaders allowance, Electoral Act funding and funding to Independents.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will Mr. McCarthy confirm that the figure for State funding for political parties is €13 million per year?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It is €13 million to €14 million.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Through the party leaders allowance and the-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Through the party leaders allowance and funding povided under section 17 of the Electoral Act, 1997. Expenditure on the parliamentary leaders allowance, Electoral Act funding and payments to Independents amount to approximately €7 million, €5.5 million and €800,000, respectively. The figures are relatively stable year on year. When one considers the moneys that go through the finance accounts and which come from the Exchequer, they include returning officers' expenses, the reimbursement of expenses to candidates and election postal charges. If one adds in Referendum Commission costs when referendums are held, the variance is incredible. It varies from €15.5 million in 2013 to €65 million in 2011, when there was a general election. It reflects the number of elections. In 2011 there was a general election and a presidential election and referendums were held on the same day as the presidential election.

There are other instances when two referendums have taken place in the same year and then there are European and local elections to consider. The position is quite variable but the amount involved comes in at between €15 million and €65 million.

One of the things that have struck me, as both an auditor and a member of SIPO, is the complexity of the onus on political parties and public representatives to account for the moneys they receive as a result of the fact that such moneys come under several guises and have to be accounted for discretely under separate guises. There is a clear distinction between ongoing political funding for administrative purposes and moneys that are spent in the course of electoral campaigning, which is not funded from the public purse. I think and I hope that the accounting for political parties, which will kick in with effect from this year and which will be reported from 2016, will bring a bit more clarity to the entire exercise involving the provision of public funding and the accounting for that. There will need to be a distinction in the accounting between moneys for administrative, normal and ongoing purposes and campaign funding. The guidelines that have been issued by SIPO require that kind of distinction to be made. As stated, comprehensive reporting by political parties will be a major step forward in terms of knowing what is spent and how it is spent.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In Mr. McCarthy's estimation, what is the cost to the Exchequer of the holding of a referendum?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

In terms of the direct spend through the Exchequer, I think it is of the order of €15 million to €15.5 million. However, there may also be local authority expenditure involved. If there is only one referendum in a particular year, there are obviously costs associated with maintaining the register and also the preparations relating to holding it. The funding from the Exchequer is, as already stated, approximately €15 million. In 2014, the Exchequer paid out in the region of €28 million in respect of the European and local elections.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does anyone else wish to contribute to the debate on those points raised by Deputy Catherine Murphy?

Mr. Joseph Nugent:

In the context of identity, prior to taking up my current role I served for five years as head of the Passport Service. It is interesting that many of the issues associated with public identity are also emerging here. I concur with Deputy Catherine Murphy in respect of the need to associate some of those other initiatives that are under way - whether it is the public services card or whatever - with what is being done. At this point, none of the initiatives in question tackles all the issues at hand. I have a public services card but, for example, it does not indicate one's citizenship. This is relevant in the context that one's entitlement to vote in different types of elections is very different. Notwithstanding that, there are sensitivities involved in using people's PPS numbers. We all accept this to be the case. If it is decided to use those numbers, we must ensure they will only be used within the confines of the trust the electorate bestows upon us. PPS numbers are invaluable not just for the purpose of mitigating against people appearing on more than one register but also because they allow for that linkage to death events that would be recorded by the General Register Office and the automatic processing of related materials.

Issues of timing must be given careful consideration. Clearly, the Electoral Acts, as amended, provide timelines for certain existing parameters and infrastructures. For example, registration authorities and the timelines relating to the register are defined. When drafting legislation, therefore, one would need to be very careful to ensure it does not fall foul of the problems associated with commencement of new provisions and that all the necessary infrastructure to facilitate a new regime, whatever that might be, would be put in place. I return to the point I made in my opening contribution in respect of people referring to "the register". There are 31 unconnected registers as matters stand. This would seem to be an appropriate place to start in the context of examining the relevant issues to discover how one might provide the legislative authority to bring all those registers together into something that is more coherent and also, through the introduction of a unique identifier, how one might assist in that process.

With the pressures associated with deadlines, a rolling register is a key element associated with removing the impediments to the current process.

Mr. Vincent Norton:

On the registration process, Dublin City Council is probably one of the few local authorities that still use inspectors to go around and check the register. We find now increasingly that there is difficulty accessing premises. There are many gated communities and very often we do not get that access. An online facility is required at this stage in order that people can communicate with the local authority or the registration authority to register their intention to vote. We firmly believe that minimal legislative change would facilitate that and this would make it much easier for people to vote. That is one element of what the committee is considering but the registration process has been an issue of concern to many of its members. Minimal change will allow that to take place. Combined with a rolling register, that would make it much easier for people to get on the register.

Deputy Murphy made an important point about postal votes because, increasingly, people are away on holiday, working or in hospital and cannot vote and they increasingly ask for a postal vote, which is not available to them. That is something else the committee could consider in its deliberations on the process.

Terry Brennan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for not being present for the presentations but we had three divisions in the Seanad and, therefore, I was late. I am not sure who the county manager or the county registrar was at the time but I met a guy at a meeting either before the previous general election or the previous local elections but he had voted nine or ten times in Northern Ireland. He had spent the day visiting polling stations in various parts of Northern Ireland. He was registered in County Louth and when I checked the then most recent supplementary register, his name was on it for County Louth and I discovered he was on the register five times in the county. I know he only had one vote where he lived. This happens more often than we think, particularly in Border counties, for whatever reason. Using PPS numbers is the only way to ensure this cannot happen whereby a number corresponds to a name. The person to whom I referred still lives in County Louth and I am sure he has only one vote now. Had I not been at a meeting and identified him with the help of a rates collector, I would not have known about this. I asked the rates collector whether this person was a chubby guy with a curly head and he said he was. He was on the register five times. We must stop this.

I refer to the issue of people living away from home. My children do not live at home. They did not have their bums on seats until they were off the register in County Louth. I blame that on a person locally who was keeping the register up to date. Depending on one's politics, one could be removed from the register. That is the reality. I know people on the register who are married with families in London and Belfast. I hope I have never done a bad turn against anyone and I do not intend reporting them but there has to be some way to ensure this does not happen.

I know of a family coming home in six weeks. If they were still on the register, they could vote. What I have described is the reality and it is happening.

When somebody dies, a public representative should be able to let the local authority know. I do not believe anybody would give false information on a death maliciously. We must ensure the registers are more up to date. I believe the only way to eliminate much of what is occurring is to use a PPS or PRSI number. If a person is away from home and has not used his PPS number for years, this should provoke the local authority into asking where that individual was for the years in question. I describe the reality. I know people married with families in London who are still on the local register. I do not know who is to blame and whether it is a result of party-political broadcasting. Perhaps that is the reason. In so far as we can, we should maintain the registers. We all have a contribution to make. We should have a more up-to-date register throughout the country. I am not singling out County Louth because conditions are very good there.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would any of the witnesses like to respond to that?

Mr. Vincent Norton:

At present, it is a question of a household return in respect of voting on the register. Very often, one finds the head of the household will make the return even though people are away. What we look for is individual responsibility for registering to vote, using the PPS number. What we do in Dublin city is obtain dates of birth. Very often we can do searches to ensure there is no duplication. However, the ideal response is to use a PPS number and individual registration.

Terry Brennan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the big problem with using the PPS number? Does everybody have one?

Mr. Vincent Norton:

Everyone has a PPS number. The issue concerns data protection. We have seen the issues this has raised in other areas. If there were responsibility to submit the PPS number according to an arrangement whereby it would not be held but used initially only for verification, that would be the way around the problem.

Caít Keane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Like Senator Brennan, I apologise as I was detained in the Seanad. The delegation is very welcome. This debate was had before. The recommendations in the Geary Institute report give some food for thought on how we should proceed.

Some very good submissions have been made. A very good feature of this committee is that it can consider submissions by outside bodies, academics and others. Given that politicians are in the middle of the issue, they may be the worst people to consider it. Therefore, outside views and views from academia are useful. I thank the people who are not here today who made submissions. I will not mention any names.

I fully agree on the views expressed regarding PPS numbers. The savings would be minimal if they were taken from local authorities. I would like to see an analysis to determine what the savings would be, if anything. I was a member of South Dublin County Council for 25 years. That local authority was one of the first to become very modern in its use of IT. Local authorities are now well able to become even more modern and link in with any relevant national body.

Lest the witnesses get me wrong, I must welcome the formation of the electoral commission. It is very necessary but it is not necessary for the full role of local authorities to be subsumed under it. The roles of each body should be defined absolutely. I have spoken all my life — I will not change now — about the devolution of functions to local authorities. Too many tasks are centralised and we must have devolution of functions. Who better to know people on the ground than those in local authorities? Senator Brennan referred to duplication. The rate collectors of long ago knew everybody. Staff in local authorities and local councillors are knowledgeable and there is all the local information. If there is too much centralisation, all that will be lost.

I note there was a good submission from the Association of Irish Local Government, AILG, on these issues, including on what would be lost if everything was to be centralised. Some things should and must be centralised. A single co-ordinating body is a necessity. Other than that, administration can be managed locally but oversight should be centralised. In my experience, everything in local government has been above reproach.

There are issues concerning household versus individual registration. The PPS number has to be used because there is no other identifiable method. However, we ran into trouble in using it before when it was recommended that it be used for water charges purposes. It must be held for a specific purpose and this is such a purpose.

The accuracy of the electoral register is often called into question. Councillors, Deputies and Senators have pointed to inaccuracies. It should be publicised that it is not necessary to de-register in one county before a person registers in another. One can move house from one county to another, which is a feature of greater mobility. I compliment the checktheregister.iewebsite which has moved on a lot from where it was when I started off.

The link with birth, marriage and death records is necessary. When a person dies, if a red flag were to pop up, the record could be removed from the electoral register. The rip.iewebsite provides another record. I attended Eoghan Culligan's funeral and it put everything into perspective.

Enhancing participation in elections should be a national issue. If the electoral commission did not enhance participation, it should be sacked straightaway.

The absence of centralised data is a problem. I receive emails to obtain data for tallies. The commission should have a role in that regard. These are historical records, but it is left to Mr. Seán Donnelly in elections.orgor Mr. Chris Took in electionsireland.orgto provide them. Incidentally, I could not open Mr. Took's submission because of the way it had been saved in WARC, rather than in a pdf file or Word. I will have to take up that matter with the IT unit. These websites do the work a national body should be doing in the case of historical election records. Their work should be aided because they know how to do it.

The Constituency Commission should remain because it is independent and does work that could not be left to others. SIPO should be amalgamated in some way with the commission because two bodies are not needed to do the work.

We should not throw the baby out with the bath water. We could lose more than we would gain by taking something away from local authorities. Local councils would do the work better if they had more IT staff and a good programme for checking the electoral register. I would be careful about centralising everything because we are seeking devolution.

Tony McLoughlin (Sligo-North Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The delegates are very welcome. I support what previous speakers said about PPS numbers. I have raised both here and in the Dáil the issue of abuse concerning draft electoral registers. At the last local elections in my constituency quite a number of people who were registered were not living in the country.

The draft register arrived at very late stage. These people who were working in Canada, the US, Australia and various other places were on the register. Certain people examined the matter closely to ensure they did not vote. In the past, rate collectors looked at this. I know it has been said that the system is different in Dublin but it is very difficult in the country to know who is on the register. It is vitally important.

I represent Sligo-North Leitrim. This constituency will now include Sligo, Leitrim, west Cavan and south Donegal. After the next election, I will, hopefully, be representing four counties. There is no justification for splitting because I have seen what has happened in Leitrim over the years. There has been a history there over the years because it was suitable for the constituency to be broken up, regardless of whether part of it went to Roscommon and the other part went to Sligo. All of Leitrim is now back in the constituency but it also includes west Cavan and south Donegal. These people feel that they are totally disenfranchised by being put in a different constituency. It is also very difficult for us as public representatives. Could the witnesses give us their comments on that?

It is vitally important that the draft register be examined as well because significant abuses are occurring. Deputy Troy mentioned a person voting on nine occasions. It is our business as public representatives to see that people are registered. The problem is that come election day, people who want to vote are not on the register.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

In respect of the PPS number, Senator Keane mentioned the register of births, marriages and deaths. There is already an automated system based on the PPS number whereby deaths notified to the registrar feed automatically into the system in the Department of Social Protection and payments are stopped fairly quickly. The HSE uses that information as well. More than 30 services take the information and automatically feed it in using data matching techniques but one must have a unique identifier that can link the two databases. There is clearly a consensus here that as a control mechanism, it is certainly a way forward. Talking to the Department about the public services identity card may be worthwhile for this committee's deliberations.

Mr. Joseph Nugent:

To follow up on Mr. McCarthy's comments, all local authorities routinely receive the death event notification but in the absence of the unique identifier, there are limits to what we can do. Clearly, every effort is made is to try to match as best we can but, ultimately, the absence of that direct linkage with the PPS number is a barrier.

I appreciate Senator Keane's agreement about the need for local involvement in this. I will provide an anecdote involving a friend of mine whose father was bereaved and whose polling card had been pulled locally as a result of that local awareness, which was referred by Senator Keane and Deputy McLoughlin. That local effort and knowledge are certainly very valuable and important elements of the process. In our view, centralising that and taking away some of that local knowledge will not address trust and provide the support one would want.

Ms Mairead Ahern:

Some of the most disappointed voters who appear at polling stations on the day are new Irish citizens. Some people may not be aware of what I mean, but there is an L mark beside their name on the list. This means they can only vote in the local elections. Some of these people have recently gone through the Irish citizenship ceremony. I wonder whether it would be possible for those people to be notified and for that database to be available to the local authorities to verify the change of status.

Caít Keane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A big problem that has occurred in the past relates to people arriving at polling stations only to find they are not on the register, having been removed from it for no good reason other than that they were not at home when someone called or whatever. That has been a problem. There should be double checks and balances such that when a name is actually clicked off the list, the person is gone. That is a major problem as well.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a good point. Do the witnesses wish to make any closing statements? No. I thank them kindly for their assistance this afternoon. This will help us greatly in deliberating on the issue.

I have some comments on the Standards in Public Office Commission. I stood in several elections before I became a Deputy. I remember in 2002 the Kelly judgment delayed the time by which forms had to go back. I wish to put on record my appreciation for the people I dealt with in trying to meet deadlines. They offered all types of assistance. Mr. Walsh might have been one of those concerned. It was a major leap to go from virtually no declarations to filling out forms, meeting various limits and getting peace commissioners to sign documents. I appreciate the effort that people go to in offices like SIPO as well as their professionalism and that of the local authorities.

We have been lucky in my area in that the register of electors is fairly accurate. There are various traditional reasons for that. When people are in an area where public services are good, they tend not to appreciate where the system may not be as good. That is no reflection on the people concerned. Perhaps the system itself may not be as uniform as it should be. I thank the witnesses very much for their assistance. They are free to go.