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

This meeting has been convened to consider matters relating to the consultation paper on the establishment of an electoral commission in Ireland.

It is proposed that this part of the meeting will conclude at 3.30 p.m., unless previously concluded, and that there will be a break of about five minutes to allow witnesses for session 2 to take their places. Session 2 will conclude at 4.45 p.m., if not previously concluded, and the committee will then go into private session. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome Dr. Liam Weeks, department of government, University College Cork, Mr. Jimmy McMeel, principal officer at the Department of Finance, and Mr. Paul Lambert, solicitor and author of Data Protection Law in Ireland: Sources and Issues.

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 regard to a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are 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.

It is proposed that all the opening statements and any other documentation supplied be published on the committee website after the meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I invite Dr. Weeks to make his opening statement.

Dr. Liam Weeks:

The consultation paper has posed a considerable number of questions, some of which are secondary matters and cannot be answered in this statement. For example, issues concerning the cost of an electoral commission depend on the remit afforded to such a body. I am not in a position to answer all these questions, as issues such as the independence of the commission and how it is to be established are matters for powers higher than my own to decide. What I would like to discuss, however, are the functions that would be afforded to such a commission. For me, this is the key question.

Other experts have made presentations to the committee in recent weeks and have addressed a number of areas the commission could tackle. I will focus on one, the area of research and education. By research, I do not mean anodyne academic papers that no one reads but, rather, a monitoring of the system, whether it is fit for purpose, international best practice and so on.

The current process is an Irish solution that creates an Irish problem. I have observed elections in a number of countries, including transition democracies and the likes of Fiji, Samoa and Tonga, and noted that one of the first steps taken on the road to democracy is to adopt an electoral commission. Therefore, we in Ireland seem to be rather slow on the uptake.

The primary reason Ireland needs an electoral commission is to carry out research into the electoral process and to educate voters and the rest of the population about it. A commission is required to monitor the operation of the electoral process, which does not happen at present. Systems and processes evolve in other walks of life but in the area of elections they seem to stand still. For example, in the area of personal banking, there has been a movement from being able to withdraw money from the local branch only to being able to withdraw from any branch, and then there was a movement to ATMs and recently to online banking. Why is there no organisation monitoring the practice of elections in Ireland that could oversee a similar evolution?

We are using pretty much the same system for the past 100 years, with very little review of the process. For example, we must register at a police station, we must vote at a local school, we must still use pen and paper, and we are still using limited constituency sizes of three, four and five seats when it is known that proportional representation can be achieved only with constituencies of five seats or more. There is no reason we cannot have larger constituencies given the small size of Ireland. The recent European Parliament elections are an example. South Australia, with a territory eleven times larger than the island of Ireland, uses the same electoral system as we do and yet treats the state as a single constituency for elections to the federal Senate. Other areas in which the electoral rules have not evolved include the use of an inequitable arbitrary means of distributing surplus votes and the alphabetical listing of candidates on the ballot paper.

Tasmania, for example, uses Robson rotation. New Zealand uses the Meek method. Australia and Scotland use the WIG method. Are voters aware of all these methods? Are the administrators aware of them? Why is there no consideration of them or research into them? Australia is a fine example to mention. It uses the same electoral system as Ireland for federal, state, territorial and local government elections. It produces regular reports on the operation of the system and how it could be improved. Conferences are held regularly to discuss various aspects of the electoral process, from voter registration and lowering the minimum age to vote to the design of the ballot paper.

In Ireland, there has been a lot of talk recently about reform of the electoral system but its being specified in the Constitution is being used as an excuse to prevent change. However, there are a lot of aspects to the voting system that could be altered by simple legislation without the need for a referendum.

This has happened in Australia where the single transferable vote system was transformed into a de factoparty list system, even though it is still STV in name. This came about following representations by, among other groups, the federal electoral commission. I am not advocating such changes, but this is an example of the role such a body could take in Ireland to investigate such matters.

There is a vast range of areas that the proposed commission could look into and which I would be happy to discuss further, but the final issue to mention is voter education. Voters in Ireland are not told how to vote or how the electoral system operates. Do voters know the value of a third, fourth or fifth preference, or the value of casting preferences full stop? This is important because we know that the large volume of non-transferable votes, which was estimated by Seán Donnelly to be about 12% at the last election, can have an impact on the final outcome.

There could be voter education programs for the large non-Irish population entitled to vote at local and - for EU citizens - European Parliament elections. Similar programmes could take place for British citizens who can vote at Dáil elections. Likewise for the Travelling community - do we even know what proportion of the non-Irish and Travelling community vote at elections in Ireland?

Symptomatic of the failings of the current system is the severe lack of online public information about elections and election results in Ireland. Brief summaries are available on the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government's website for the last set of Dáil and local elections, but that is the limited extent of this coverage. Compared to that available for other countries, it is woefully inadequate. Ireland urgently needs an electoral commission.

Mr. Jimmy McMeel:

I thank the Chairman and other members of the joint committee for giving an opportunity to the Department of Finance to contribute to the discussion on the establishment of an electoral commission in Ireland. I would also like to wish the committee well in its deliberations.

My comments will be brief. The Department’s role in the electoral system is quite narrow and specific but it is an important one. I should explain that the costs for returning officers for the conduct of elections and referendums are paid directly from the Central Fund by the Department. The Department is responsible for the Central Fund and for drawing up the finance accounts, which are the annual accounts of that fund.

The Department supports the view that returning officers’ costs should continue to be charged to the Central Fund. The alternative of charging them to a Vote would not be appropriate or practical.

Because of the way the current system works, the Department has much of the accountability for election expenditure, even though its role in the system has been reduced since the establishment of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

The Department is suggesting that accountability for returning officer costs should transfer to the electoral commission. The costs would continue to be charged in aggregate to the Central Fund. However, the commission would make onwards disbursements to returning officers and would account for them. We think this would be a more transparent system compared to the current approach.

Based on our experience, we also consider that an electoral commission framework around returning officers would enable a greater level of co-ordination among returning officers. This would allow them to resolve common issues and deal with logistical matters on a collective basis. It might even facilitate greater efficiencies in the conduct of elections and referendums.

To summarise, the Department of Finance position is that the electoral commission should have a role in the financial arrangements for the conduct of elections and referendums, and should have accountability in that respect.

Mr. Paul Lambert:

I thank the Chairman and other members of the joint committee for the invitation to contribute to their deliberations. I understand that one of the matters arising relates to the issue of data protection and the possible use of PPSN numbers for the purpose of compiling a central or rolling register of electors by the new electoral commission. I would therefore like to make some broad comments on that.

In the documentation so far, it appears that there has been no very detailed examination of the data protection issues. The comments concerning data protection have been quite broad and headline in nature, so there is an opportunity to expand on that in more detail, not only with the electoral commission itself when it is established, but also in the ongoing process. I would also endorse the comments of the previous data protection commissioner on these issues.

One of the starting points for this type of discussion concerns alternatives. While we are thinking of PPS numbers, we should also ask whether there is anything else we might think of as solutions to some of the concerns and problems that arise. Some of these have been mentioned already, such as matching, consent and computer identifiers. There may be other solutions to some of the problems as well, however, so we should not just leap forward and go straight to creating a new exemption for data protection usage.

If, after looking at those alternatives, there is an issue about considering PPS numbers, we should examine what the justification for that is. However it is defined and elaborated upon, we should also ensure that it is clear, justified and limited so that what is intended for one purpose is not so openended that it can be used for other purposes or justifications, or effectively become an example of mission creep whereby other unintended consequences can arise down the road.

While some issues and concerns have been raised in the discussion, it is important to separate these different purposes and consider each one individually. At the end of the day, purpose No. 1 might be justified but purposes Nos. 4, 5 and 6 may not be. Therefore, each activity and purpose requires individualised consideration.

Principles to bear in mind from the perspective of data protection include data minimisation and proportionality. While we can create an exemption we should not necessarily leap to the widest exemption possible. There should be a proportionality to what it is we are creating in an exemption, if there is to be an exemption.

There are other separate matters to bear in mind, some of which have been briefly flagged. There is a strong argument that the PPSN should not appear on the register itself and may not, or should not, be attached to the register. There are also issues of verification and identification. If we are creating an exemption for creating the register, that is quite separate and distinct from using the PPSN for identification purposes on polling day. There is a strong argument against relying on PPSN for purely identification purposes on election day. That is an example of where we should put some detail into separating the problems and possible data protection issues and purposes for individualised consideration.

Security is always an issue, particularly nowadays, concerning personal data protection, but it is a particular issue in terms of PPSN also. A separate issue is that of marketing. If there is a central register, it should not be available to people for marketing purposes. The ability of individual citizens to opt out of marketing purposes should be contained in or continued over into a central register.

Utilising PPSN per seis not necessarily a magic bullet for all the various issues and concerns that can arise concerning the register.

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

I thank the witnesses for their comments. We will now take questions from members of the committee. We will have ten minute contributions split evenly between questions and answers. I remind members that if they use their full ten minutes to make statements, there will not be time for the witnesses to respond. We will begin with Deputy Stanley.

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

I thank the panel for their presentations, including their views on some of the matters that have been taxing us recently. I note that there is broad agreement among the three panellists on the need for a commission to be established. It is certainly a view that I would share.

As regards Dr. Weeks's statement on proportional representation, is he suggesting that constituencies should comprise five seats or seven seats or should we just have a national or provincial list system? Perhaps he could explain the rationale behind that. We see substantial shifts that everyone in all parties are casualties or benefactors of, depending on which way it works out.

Ad hocchanges are made by boundary commissions, whereby county boundaries are chewed up, maybe for good reasons. In addition, there may be a completely new geography from one election to the next, with five-seater constituencies being turned into three-seaters. It appears to me to be precarious. Dr. Weeks might explain how he would bed that down.

It would be easier to have a more fixed boundary if an area were bigger as that would be easier to tweak.

In his comments on the Department of Finance, Mr. McMeel seems to be suggesting that the electoral commission would handle the funding and co-ordinate it. Obviously, that would be of benefit. He also said the electoral commission would have a co-ordinating role in respect of returning officers, which makes some sense. What is the role of local authorities in terms of elections from the perspective of the Department of Finance? Do they have a role at all? I hope they have as they are local government.

On the vexed question of PPS numbers, it was stated that less intrusive alternatives to those should be explored such as consent or computer identifiers. Can that be explained? Can Mr. Lambert state whether methods used in other countries have been considered? Are there any obvious ones that could be used as an identifier or any simple examples? The address-based system we have here is not working as one can see on picking up any register. Some people are not on it who should be while others are on it several times. Some people are on it who should not be. Its accuracy is very poor. Mr. Lambert said that, obviously, one's PPS number should not appear on the register and I agree with that. I can see good reason for not using it for verification on voting day. As such, is Mr. Lambert suggesting that other simple forms of identity such as a driving licence or passport be used? Certainly, one problem I have come across is that some people have neither. There is a general acceptance that people have bank accounts, driving licences and passports, but we all know people who do not have any of those forms of identification.

What are the views of the witnesses on a rolling register that one can join at any time. As has been said, the system is very restrictive with people having to go Garda stations. Should peace commissioners be allowed to verify that Joe Bloggs is who he says and that he lives at such an address? Are there other ways of handling the verification process?

Dr. Liam Weeks:

On proportional representation, it is not my role to advocate a particular system but it is a role an electoral commission could investigate. It was asked whether we should have more seats. Personally, it is about whether one wants stricter proportional representation. For example, in 2007 Fianna Fáil won approximately 49% of seats with approximately 41% of first preferences. If one wants strict PR, one will simply have to have larger constituencies.

Professor John Coakley has done research on moving populations. He advocated the idea of having fixed boundaries in much larger constituencies. As the population alters inside these fixed boundaries, the constituencies would lose or gain seats. I imagine a problem returning officers would highlight would be that if one had larger constituencies, it would make voting a great deal more complicated, particularly when it comes to the surplus vote. When it gets more complicated, machines might be needed to count votes, which is what happens in most other systems. In fact, almost every other jurisdiction that uses our voting system, apart from Malta, counts with machines. The number of votes in Malta is very small. Every other system using the single transferable vote seems to use machines to count these votes. My point is that there is no research in this area. The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and the returning officers do not have these facilities. Research is being done by academics who are being paid by the State who are quite happy to provide the information, but we are simply not asked. This is something that could be done and there could be some liaison if there were conferences between the commissions and academics and other people conducting research in this area.

Mr. Jimmy McMeel:

On Deputy Stanley's question on the role of local authorities, the Department of Finance is involved purely on the financial side of this. From looking at the costs of the May 2014 event, which amounted to more than €12 million, I see the princely sum of €3,405.97 was paid to local authorities for queries on the register of electors. It may be that some returning officers are using local authority premises for taking the poll or counting votes on occasion but, by and large, local authorities are not involved in the financial side of the operation. It is the Central Fund and the Minister for Finance making payments to returning officers who then make onward payments, much of which is for the labour costs of presiding officers, poll clerks and those who count the votes. There are also payments to schools. Most of the returning officers are also officers of the court. They are registrars for the local circuit court areas. Some of them use court premises to store equipment and so forth. In a financial sense, there is not much of an involvement with the local authorities.

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

I have a question about paragraph 1 on page 2 of Dr. Weeks's submission where he refers to the "inequitable arbitrary means of distributing surplus votes". Having been the beneficiary of the distribution of a surplus, what is the alternative? Obviously, this not a science. The returning officer literally picks up a bunch of ballot papers and distributes a surplus on that basis. If one takes the elimination of a candidate and the geography issue, the nature of the preferences will be skewed in favour of the geographic beneficiary. That goes back to that arbitrary picking up of bundles of votes. What is the alternative or is there one?

Dr. Liam Weeks:

The Chairman mentioned that returning officers look at the last bundle of votes. In the likes of Longford-Roscommon, it affected Denis Naughten in 1997 when he only got 23% of transfers from his running mate because his running mate was from a different county. The simple method is to pick the whole pile. Why pick just the top pile? For example, Scotland adopted the single transferable vote for local government elections a couple of years ago and it uses the weighted, inclusive Gregory method. It is also used in Australia. The issue for returning officers is in examining the whole pile of votes. Let us say the surplus coming to a candidate is 100 votes, but the entire pile of papers is 1,000. That means one will be dealing with fractions and each ballot is only worth one tenth of the vote. When a candidate receives the surplus, if that is undertsandable, all of his or her ballot papers with his or her first preferences are worth one vote, but the ballot papers he or she receives from a running mate are only worth one tenth. What happens if that puts the candidate over the surplus? There will be fractions of fractions. However, that is the method used in other systems because, if the votes are there, what reason is there for not counting them? It is a far more equitable system. When we adopted e-voting on a pilot basis, this was not the system recommended largely because it would have meant different rules for different constituencies. I can understand that one would probably need machines to count fractions of fractions. It was done once by hand in Australia and the votes got mixed up. Some ballot papers ended up being worth more than one actual vote, if that is clear.

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

That is interesting.

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

That is a question that is often asked in relation to the single transferable vote and I have heard it explained a few times. If one has two candidates, one of whom has been eliminated and whose transfers are being distributed, what happens at that point? I have never been able to wrap my head around it. What bundle of votes is picked?

Dr. Liam Weeks:

If the candidate is eliminated because he or she has not reached the quota, all of his or her votes are distributed. It only becomes arbitrary when it comes to the surplus vote. The pile that is examined is the pile of votes that put the candidate over the quota. It is that last pile of votes, wherever they came from.

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

Sure, the whole lot will be in proportion.

Dr. Liam Weeks:

That is what I would argue. It depends on who those votes are coming from.

If it is a Sinn Féin vote that has put a Fianna Fáil candidate over the quota, those votes might not be reflective of the entire package of votes. It can be argued that it might not make a huge difference. However, in a country like Ireland where seats have been decided on a small number of votes, it can make a difference.

I examined this issue in a paper several years ago using the data from the e-voting trials which was online. I found that votes did vary, depending on which particular method of surplus transfer was used. I am not advocating a particular method but this is an issue which the electoral commission should examine.

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

I am not sure what the difficulty Mr. Lambert has with the PPS, personal public service, number system. He has not convinced me it is not the way forward.

For example, I am aware of an individual who voted 11 times in Northern Ireland elections and was down to vote five times in County Louth during an election.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who did he or she vote for? That is the obvious question.

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

The person told me that he spent the entire day voting in Northern Ireland in its election. He was also listed to vote in two polling stations in Dundalk which were in near proximity. It is a problem not alone in Border counties but in our major towns and cities.

Our electoral registers are not being kept up to date. I am aware of people who have died but are still on the register. I am also aware of people living in England for the best part of 15 years but who are still on the register.

It is a pity to see schools closed for elections and referenda. Is it possible to use alternative sites such as community centres or GAA clubs? Using such sites would mean there are fewer days lost in the school year.

Mr. Paul Lambert:

In some circumstances, we may have alternatives which mean there is no need for a PPS number. In some instances, we may need a PPS number. In others, there may be instances in between where we need it for a particular time and then delete it. We need to identify and separate the individual proposed purposes and consider each of them-----

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

What about finger-printing?

Mr. Paul Lambert:

That is also personal data. One would need to consider what activity and for what purpose does one want that fingerprint. It would not be for all the potential purposes and activities an electoral commission would be undertaking. For example, what if part of the electoral commission’s role will be to allocate voting registration numbers to individuals? Once those numbers are allocated, is there a need at all for PPS numbers?

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

How does one ensure that an individual does not vote on numerous occasions on the same day? What is the main way to prevent that from happening?

Mr. Paul Lambert:

That is the purpose of duplication. One would look at the variety of potential datasets that would assist in that. An electoral commission would consider whether the allocation, upon registration on the new database, would obviate the need for a PPS number or would require it for a specific amount of time up to the point of registration but would not be required after that. The commission would have to consider to what extent it would be able to rely on that identification number which will be unique and nationally based. It would have to consider what would need to be cross-referenced, such as people passing away. Is there scope for notification to the commission or for it to seek out public information on such matters? There are different issues and problems, some of which will be larger because of the number of people involved, and some of a lesser concern because of the number of people involved.

There are nuances from the data protection perspective which we have not got into yet. My comments, and those of the Data Protection Commissioner when he addressed some of these points, are highlighting these at a headline level. My overall point is that at some stage, whether it is during the process or at the electoral commission stage itself, the very detailed nuances and justifications for each of the individualised proposed purposes will have to be gone into.

Mr. Jimmy McMeel:

The Senator’s point about schools is a good argument for our proposal that the electoral commission should act as a co-ordinating body for returning officers. The commission could act like a kind of secretariat for returning officers. No one is fulfilling that role at the moment. The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government takes care of overall policy. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform approves the framework for the charges order while the Department of Finance makes the payment. Some of us have provided a secretariat role in informal matters such as banking arrangements.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At what stage of the process are we with this issue? This is the fourth meeting at which the electoral commission has been discussed but many of the same issues are coming up at each meeting. I accept it is an important issue, particularly as many people are excluded from the register rather than being able to vote twice. I am more concerned about those who do not get to vote. However, there are other pressing issues for this committee to deal with such as the housing crisis. Will the Chairman clarify at what stage we are in this process? I might have missed him talking about it earlier.

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

Yes, the Deputy probably did. We agreed a work schedule and to allocate certain dates in July to discuss the electoral commission. We also agreed to hear from different sets of witnesses. We are working through this because there is an urgency in getting a report on a commission as the Minister is anxious to get legislation published on it soon.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is this for the whole month of July?

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

Yes. We also have had select committee meetings on legislation both this and last week.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It seems a bit much to spend the whole month of July on the electoral commission.

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

It will not be for the whole month. That is the way the work programme has been agreed.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could we not-----

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

It is done now. That is the way the work programme will be carried out.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know, but could we not bring in more witnesses on the same day together?

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

If we bring in too many witnesses there will not be enough time, because there is also an issue with booking rooms. We will not get open-ended contributions from witnesses. What if there were ten witnesses and 12 members wanted to speak? It would get unwieldy. However, I thank the Deputy for her concern.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My concern is that there are many other pressing issues and this is taking up time until the recess.

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

We circulated the work programme on several occasions and asked for comments and opinions on it before it was agreed.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the three witnesses for their contributions. My question, which is addressed to Mr. Weeks, concerns education. He stated that Irish people are not educated and do not know the system, how to vote or what the voting system is like. Could he expand on that and what he feels should be done? When I was in school, we studied civic, social and political education. We were taught about the electoral system and how to vote. I encourage many schools and younger people to visit the Dáil for question-and-answer sessions and to be as inquisitive as possible. Is Mr. Weeks talking about younger people or the older generation?

Dr. Liam Weeks:

I was referring to everyone, really. I recall about £500 million being spent on advertising the e-voting process. I do not just mean young voters, because young voters are not the only first-time voters. I mentioned members of the Traveller community and the hundreds of thousands of non-Irish people in this country who are entitled to vote at local and European elections. They use entirely different voting systems. We have a very unusual voting system. Only one other lower house of parliament in the world uses our voting system and that is Malta. It is not a simple "X marks the spot." Most ballot papers in most countries involve a party list system, so it is just an "X". That is not the way our system works. In Australia, a person must cast a preference for every single candidate or his or her vote is not counted. I know that counting officers in Ireland are quite liberal, so if a person starts his or her preferences with 68 or 72, I believe that vote is still counted as long as a clear preference is indicated - for example, if the person starts with 72 and then continues with 73 and so on.

I do not see the education process as taking place just in schools. In my original submission to the committee a few weeks ago, I likened it to being handed the keys to a car and being told the instructions are on the dashboard and to go ahead. Those are the only instructions being given by the Department. A person gets a ballot paper and at the top there is an instruction to vote one, two, three and so on. When I voted in the recent referendums on marriage equality and the age of presidential eligibility, old people in the school asked me what it was about because there was no mention on the ballot paper of the actual text of the change that was going to be inserted into the Constitution. This was the first time people were thinking about this. Simple public information is available in other countries, be it in post offices, on television and radio or in newspapers. It is quite a simple system.

Even when people are told to vote one, two three and so on, the average number of preferences cast in Ireland is three. That is not the average number of candidates. I know that at the last election there were at least a dozen candidates in most constituencies, but people just stop at the third or fourth preference. They say, "What's the point? Is this third or fourth preference going to count?". I teach modules on elections in university and my own students tell me that their fourth preference is worth only a quarter of a vote so it is not as important as the first preference. There is a severe lack of information. Even having questions from Deputies about how the voting system works indicates that there is some failure in the process.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Should there be more of a national campaign to educate people, be it in newspapers or on radio?

Dr. Liam Weeks:

I know all this will cost money. Seán Donnelly regularly highlights the fact that the number of non-transferable votes is at least 10%, and these votes get binned during the counting process because people have not expressed any further preference. Do we know why they are not expressing a further preference? Is there any research into this, particularly in view of the fact that the number of non-transferable votes in most constituencies is greater than the gap in votes between the highest runner-up and the winner of the last seat? Again, this is why we urgently a commission to research this. I know many non-Irish people who are not even aware that they are entitled to vote. Is there any means of mobilising these people, integrating them and telling them about our very unusual voting system? No, there is not.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Dr. Weeks made a very persuasive case for an electoral commission, and I agree with pretty much all of what he said except for one thing - namely, even larger multi-seat constituencies. I am not a fan of our electoral system. It brings out the worst in us in many ways. A politician's biggest opponent can be somebody from his or her own party. It does not encourage people to focus on the national interest to the extent that they should, but that is another day's work. I would prefer something akin to the German system where there is a list and a constituency election, but that will not happen in my lifetime.

I am bit confused about some of what has been said. The largest problem that has emerged from this discussion is the construction of the electoral register. What is the best way to construct the electoral register so that it is fair, accurate and up to date at all times?

Mr. Paul Lambert:

To reiterate what I and the previous Data Protection Commissioner have said, the individual issues and problems do not require the same solution. They require individualised attention and solutions. Some of the problems may be larger or smaller for different reasons, so from a data protection perspective, we should not necessarily go for the sledgehammer to solve all those problems if we do not have to and if there is a more proportionate and less intrusive solution. I am not saying I have the answer to each of those individual problems and questions; I am saying that we have not got to the stage at which, from a data protection perspective, we have got into the detail of analysing them individually. We need to do that at some stage.

Dr. Liam Weeks:

This is the question to come later. This is the purpose of the commission - to carry out research into what is the best means. It depends on the various countries. A few weeks ago Michael Marsh mentioned the system in the US, which is a very liberal process. When a person gets a driving licence, he or she tends to be automatically registered to vote. It is a very different system in Australia because there is compulsory registration and voting, which is enforced. It really depends on what kind of system we want and how heavily we want to enforce it. These are questions to be asked later. Once we ask those questions, we then decide what type of system we want.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Basically, Dr. Weeks is saying that there is no simple answer to this question, even though it is clearly a question that requires an answer, because there are so many inaccuracies in the system.

Dr. Liam Weeks:

I guess it requires someone who is an expert in this administrative process, which is not my area of expertise.

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

I know Dr. Weeks confined himself to voter education and research. I agree with him completely because I do not think there has ever been an election after which people have not asked me whether they voted correctly. The very fact that adults who have been voting all their lives are asking that question shows the need that is not being met. Youngsters who have gone through secondary school would have been taught a very mechanical type of voter education that does not go into the detail that is needed, but it is an ongoing process. It seems that we are outsourcing responsibility when it comes to more vulnerable groups.

For example, the Vincentian Partnership has worked with marginalised groups on voter education. That should be the responsibility of the State rather than a private matter. I agree the commission should have a formal remit in this area, which would perhaps include schools and ongoing research and education.

There is a fixation on counties in terms of identity. Sometimes it escapes us that counties did not exist prior to the 12th century and the last one was created in the 17th century. They are not uniquely Irish but we have come to identify with them, whether for electoral purposes or GAA matches. Are these identity issues present to the same degree in other jurisdictions or are Irish voters unique in assuming they will lose out if they do not have a Deputy from their county? The urban living project carried out by Maynooth University produced some useful work on identity which suggested that it happened at a much lower level. It may be the case, therefore, that we are overstating identity as an issue.

In regard to data protection, we keep returning to the electoral register. This is an important issue for the electoral commission and I expect it will be the first item on its agenda. It is important that data protection is put at the centre of the register rather than on the periphery as an issue to be addressed. We have run into all sorts of problems with data protection, not least of which was Irish Water's use of PPS numbers. We recently introduced amending legislation to overcome a difficulty that had arisen with data protection and post codes. The current register is a public document and I do not doubt it is being used for marketing purposes because data have become a commodity. How can data protection issues be overcome for a public document? I agree that PPS numbers should not be included in public documents. How do other jurisdictions deal with data protection issues or prevent the use of registers as commodities for marketing purposes? Are there good ideas in other countries that we might consider?

Dr. Liam Weeks:

The Deputy asked whether county identities influence behaviour. Put more broadly, the question is whether institutions influence behaviour or if behaviour influences the type of institution created. We are often guilty of overestimating the effects of the voting system. If we followed the example of Israel and the Netherlands by voting on the basis of the entire country as one list, the quota might be very low and voters in certain localities could choose candidates from their area. Professor John Coakley has written about the national election of 1925, which was held by single transferable vote. The quota was between 20,000 and 30,000 and candidates ran on a county basis because, for example, a candidate for Cavan might have enough votes from that county to get elected. Regardless of whether that is a bad thing, it suggests changing the rules might not change the voters' behaviour.

The question also arises as to why one would want to change the mentality of voters and their way of thinking about their counties. Voting behaviour and constituents' interactions with Deputies might change over time but these patterns run far deeper than the size of constituencies or the number of Deputies. Ireland is one of only six EU member states which divide up their countries into constituencies for elections to the European Parliament. Why do we do this, particularly given the mess we saw at the last election? It is clear that, aside from the question of the importance of counties, the use of county boundaries restricts the process and creates problems. We saw an example of this with Deputy Catherine Murphy's experience in Kildare in 2007 on foot of changes in voting numbers and population size. This is related to Deputy Stanley's question about whether we should introduce fixed boundaries. They would be easier to manage and as the population changes, we could simply alter the number of seats. This is why we need a commission to investigate these questions.

Mr. Paul Lambert:

The use of the electoral register for marketing purposes is a legitimate concern. One way of addressing it is to allow people to opt out of receiving marketing communications when they register. Marketing companies could be obliged to use a marketing list rather then the core register. The alternative is that people have to opt-in to receive marketing communications. I am not recommending that option and the marketing industry certainly would not recommend it, but a legitimate question arises in terms of whether a separate marketing list should be on an opt-in or opt-out basis.

I agree that privacy and data protection should be at the core of the electoral commission's work. These issues will dictate the way in which the commission goes about its business. A concept known as privacy by decision espouses the consideration of privacy and data protection issues from the outset of a project rather than leaving them until the end as a means of avoiding the speed bumps and delays that might otherwise occur. I commend the initiatives that have been taken in this regard, including the appointment of the new Data Protection Commissioner, increased resources and the first data protection Minister in Europe. It might also be beneficial to include privacy by design in the development of particular types of legislation.

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

While some might say we are being repetitive in our discussions on this issue, this has been our first opportunity to meet an expert on data protection. We are getting new information every day.

Dr. Weeks indicated that he cannot comment on the cost of the functions outlined. The reason we asked about cost is because we do not want to reinvent the good practices and expertise of local authorities. It might be expensive for a new commission to rebuild these functions from the ground up. What is the cost of the electoral register at present? Has a cost analysis being carried in respect of each local authority?

Perhaps some local authorities do this more efficiently than others. We are examining what aspects of the system can remain with local authorities and what elements have to be centralised.

Dr. Weeks wrote a paper a few years ago on the surplus votes transfer. Perhaps he could e-mail us a link to that. The individual versus house-based voting issue was raised at the previous meeting. The postal service in New Zealand is used to maintain and update the electoral register but a new postcode system is being adopted here and the postal service is being computerised. I would like to link that to matching identifiers. Mr. Lambert referred to other methods that could be used other than using PPS numbers. The use of these numbers, however, would be straightforward because everybody has one them and it would be a common link though all computer systems in every Department and local authority. I acknowledge individualised consideration has to be given to each issue in the recommendations we make. What could be used as a matching identifier other than a PPS number? Is there a data protection issue relating to linking these numbers to postcodes, which means they could not be used?

Education is a major issue and teachers would be amazed listening to us, if it was not, because the CPSE programme has a module on voter education. There are other good modules in this regard, which are delivered regularly as part of the continuing professional development for teachers. They relate to how to vote, postal voting, the mechanics of voting, and the single transferable vote and how it works. Schools are doing a little but they could and should do more. Perhaps there should be an exam question on voting because it is an important element of the CPSE.

Accountability for costs should be transferred to the electoral commission. I was a local authority member for 20 years and all local authorities now have computerised systems. We could get registration right if it was linked to the births, marriages and deaths register. On the day of the election, the major problem is administration and the significant staff complement required. We do not want to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Reference was made to the lack of a requirement to de-register before registering in another county. It should be an offence to register twice because it is fraud. For example, it is an offence in Australia not to vote.

Dr. Liam Weeks:

The Senator's first question was about costs. I have no idea of the cost. That is for members of the-----

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

We would not expect Dr. Weeks to outline the costs but I asked whether research has been done on the costs incurred by different local authorities with similar populations.

Dr. Liam Weeks:

Not that I am aware of. In Australia, electoral commissions have vast budgets because the main activity in which they are engaged is to register people because voting is compulsory. It is an entirely different process here. Australia has also engaged in Internet voting, for example, and postal voting, all of which add------

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

Could we adopt online voting?

Dr. Liam Weeks:

Of course. I cast a sample ballot last night in an Australian election. One is sent a sample ID and so on but that is a different matter. This could be explored. The crazy thing regarding e-voting is a commission was established following the adoption of e-voting.

The Senator mentioned education. It is great that this is being done in schools but it only started recently. That means the vast majority of people have not been through that particular process and there are plenty of people in this country who have-----

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

I do not even know if it is being taught in every school but it is on the CPSE curriculum.

Dr. Liam Weeks:

I imagine it is the role of the commission. As Deputy Murphy said, there are people who have cast votes for years and they still ask if they have done the right thing. It is crazy that there is no simple public information system. There is plenty of information about who to vote for before elections. There are loads of posters of the various candidates but there are no posters relating to the ballot paper or-----

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

Should posters be banned?

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

Would Mr. Lambert like to comment on that?

Mr. Paul Lambert:

There is an issue sometimes of over-reach because we can gather data or link so many different types of data and data sets. There is an inclination sometimes to say, "Oh, we can do it so let us do it", but we also need to look at the purpose. Are we linking or gathering more data than we need to deal with whatever is the concern or purpose? There is a balance, therefore, to be achieved. For all of the individualised concerns that are being raised, an individualised balancing exercise needs to be gone through as well. Sometimes we may need data for something but once we have established, say, whatever the voting registration number is, it may be easy then to delete particular data that we have because we no longer need it going forward. We need to consider PPS numbers, no PPS numbers and in between. Part of that in between is if we use PPS numbers to achieve a particular purpose, do we need to retain them going forward? Depending on the particular purpose or activity, we may not. They are parts of the nuances of the exercise that we need to delve a little deeper into during ongoing processes and discussions, as would a commission. The issue are nuanced but they are important as well. If they were not important, we would not have-----

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

Nobody answered the postal voting question. Postcodes are used in New Zealand and the postal service is used to maintain the electoral register, according to Mr. Noel Whelan's submission.

Mr. Paul Lambert:

When another public register or data set becomes available, that could obviate or reduce the need for PPS numbers or mitigate gathering too much data. It is important to look at why we need PPS numbers; if we do, in what instances; and whether there are alternatives. Sometimes the alternative can be another data set, which is more proportionate than the PPS numbers.

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

Is using postcodes for the electoral register a data protection issue? Does it carry the same weight as the PPS number?

Mr. Paul Lambert:

It raises data protection issues because data protection relates to any information which tends to identify a living individual. To the extent that----

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

Could it be used in the same way as the PPS number?

Mr. Paul Lambert:

In terms of the nuance of that question, some people may say they are equivalent, some people may say that the PPS number is more important or sensitive because it links to more important data such as health and financial information, etc. It can have more consequences for an individual if the wrong person was to get their hands on it and, therefore, it could be argued that a PPS number is more important.

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

I thank Mr. Lambert. That concludes the first part of the meeting. I thank Dr. Weeks, Mr. McMeel and Mr. Lambert. They are free to go.

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

I remind members to turn off their mobile telephones because they interfere with the ability to web stream events. This meeting has been convened to consider matters relating to the consultation paper on the establishment of an electoral commission. It has been agreed by the committee that this session should, if not previously concluded, conclude at 4.45 p.m. I welcome the following witnesses to our meeting: the former chairman of the Joint Oireachtas on the Environment, Deputy Sean Fleming, which published the report, The Future of the Electoral Register in Ireland and Related Matters; Mr. Jim O'Keeffe, former long-standing Member of the Dáil, who was also Vice-Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Constitution of the 30th Dáil, which produced the report, Article 16: Review of the Electoral System for the Election of Members to Dáil Éireann in 2010; and Mr. Noel Whelan, barrister, author of a book on electoral law in Ireland and a well-informed, interesting political commentator.

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.

It has been agreed that all the opening statements and any documentation that others have submitted to the committee may be published on the committee website once the meeting is concluded. I call Deputy Fleming to make his opening statement.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am grateful for the opportunity to address the committee on the issue of an electoral commission.

As was pointed out, I was Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in the previous Dáil and we looked at the issue of the voters register. I am fully supportive of the electoral commission. It is a very good idea and it needs to be broadly based and given a very broad remit. The issues which should not be included in it are policy issues regarding legislation and constitutional matters which should be left to the appropriate Department, and boundaries should not be within its remit either. If the electoral commission deals with election activities on a day-to-day basis, the staff involved could influence boundary changes for their own administrative convenience. It would be like giving local authority managers the power to set electoral boundaries. They would consider the staff in each area and what suits them from an administrative point of view, and they might adjust the boundaries to suit the internal administration of the organisation. This is why the boundaries should be independent of the commission.

A key issue which I have mentioned before is the voters' register. We should have one national voters' register. At present each local authority goes about the work on an individual basis. There are set procedures but there is an element of local interpretation of how various matters are dealt with, such as supplementary registers, second supplementary registers and draft registers. An essential element of the voters' register is that a PPS number would have to be produced for a name to be on the register, but I stress the PPS number would not appear on the register. It would be used by the registration authority for administrative purposes and subject to data control legislation. It would also facilitate ease of transfer if people move house. It is a bit of an ordeal to move from a Dublin register to the Laois register or the Cork South-West register, and this would make it very easy. This job should be given to an organisation such as An Post, as its employees call to every house regularly and know the people and the landscape. Perhaps the new postcodes could help in this area. Local authorities are not the organisations to do it. In the normal course of their work, its employees do not normally call to people's houses and are not best placed. It might upset some staff, who are used to the official nixer of checking the register every so often when the time comes, but they should not be involved in it. It should be done independently by An Post.

The electoral commission should subsume the role of the Standards in Public Office Commission and the Referendum Commission. Each time a referendum is called a new commission is set up with a new chairman. If improvements are made or mistakes are learned during the course of one referendum a permanent body should learn from them for the next time. The electrical commission should be responsible for the control of and reporting on all donations and election expenses, including at local authority level. If we are to have one central body, we should not exclude local government from it.

The single biggest cost of every election so far is the cost of issuing the election address. If five voters are in a house and six parties and candidates issue election addresses, it means 30 pieces of literature at 70 cent each are sent to that house. It is by far the biggest cost of running an election campaign. I suggest, such as what happens in a referendum, that when people hand in their nomination papers and are photographed for the ballot paper, a short biography along with that photograph should be included in one booklet to be issued to every voter, with the candidates' names in alphabetical order and a page for each person. It would be like an information leaflet. One document is enough for each voter. The cost of it would finance everything involved in establishing an electoral commission because a substantial cost would be removed from it.

The commission needs to examine the question of people with disabilities who have difficulties with sight and those who are away with work or on holidays. This leads us to the bigger issues of electronic voting and distance voting. They should be re-examined by the commission from a practical administrative point of view. I know electronic voting has a troubled history in Ireland and I hope it can be looked at again.

The electoral commission also needs to look at an education process for voters. It is not generally appreciated that approximately 20,000 spoiled votes are cast in every general election. Most constituencies have between 500 and 700 spoiled votes. In ten, 15 or 20 constituencies the difference between the last two candidates for the last seat is less than the number of spoiled votes in the constituency, so there is a phenomenal number of spoiled votes and this needs to be addressed. An electoral commission should look at it.

There needs to be a clear timeframe as the commission cannot do it all on day one. It should be established with a mandate to deal with the register or to take over the role of SIPO first, over a three to five year period, and when the responsibilities are clearly identified as to what the functions will be, we can then speak about the reporting and accountability mechanisms to the Oireachtas. I will not go into detail on it because my time is short.

Mr. Jim O'Keeffe:

I thank the Chairman for the invitation to address the joint committee on the proposal to establish an electoral commission in Ireland. One of the last major reports in which I was involved at the end of my parliamentary career arose from a review in 2010 by the Joint Committee on the Constitution of the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution and the electoral system for the election of Members of Dáil Eireann. The committee considered that an independent electoral commission would be of central importance to the future operation of the electoral system and accordingly recommended its establishment "as an urgent priority" with responsibility for the administration and oversight of elections and referendums. The 2010 report also recommended that the new electoral commission would assume responsibility for the registration of voters, postal voting, voter education programmes, the drawing of constituency boundaries - I notice Deputy Fleming has a different view on this - the system for counting surplus vote transfers and the examination of the design of the ballot paper.

At the time, the view expressed was that given the broad range of responsibilities the electoral commission would assume, it should include former Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The committee also considered it appropriate that the commission be placed on a constitutional footing, as such a step would enhance the legitimacy of the process. The discussion has since moved on, with the comprehensive consultation paper recently launched by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly, and the excellent contributions to the joint committee in the discussions of recent weeks. I have moved on, having retired from active politics at the previous general election, and in the meantime my views have been further informed by service on the Standards in Public Office Commission. However, my views on the need to establish an independent electoral commission have not changed, and I am hopeful that what appears to be continuing all-party support for its establishment will help to get it over the line in the near future.

In considering its role, functions and composition, the commission has to be looked at in tandem with consideration of the proposal in the proposed public sector standards Bill which will, if enacted, introduce a new statutory framework governing disclosure of interests and relevant matters. This proposal is to replace SIPO with a public sector standards commissioner who will have increased powers and who will, through the establishment of a deputy commissioner who will be independent in terms of complaints and investigation functions, implement more streamlined and improved complaints and investigation procedures. The commissioner will have stronger powers of sanction and enforcement for a range of contraventions.

There will be some issues to be teased out as to the allocation of functions between the two new bodies, but in broad terms I envisage that all responsibilities under the electoral Acts should be dealt with by the electoral commission and all issues relating to standards and ethics should be dealt with by the public sector standards commissioner.

By that process, I achieve the same result as Deputy Fleming, namely, the abolition of the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO.

For those with quango creation concerns, which were raised at one point, there is the assurance that the two new bodies will absorb, subsume or bring to an end the current standards commission, the Referendum Commission and, if my suggested approach is adopted, the boundary commission, and probably also absorb other functions of existing bodies. Ideally, both new structures would be established at the same time. In any event, I would caution that care would have to be taken in respect of the transfer of ongoing functions of SIPO, particularly in terms of the current complaints being considered and, even more so, arrangements for completing ongoing investigations and inquiries. I understand that certain transitional arrangements may be included in the legislation to cover this.

Regarding the key questions raised in the consultation paper and being considered at the moment, I am party to and support the views expressed in the recent SIPO submission to the committee and will confine these opening remarks to a few further observations. In terms of the functions of the electoral commission, it should begin initially by monitoring and supervising the work done at local level by the local authorities and local returning officers. It is important that such expertise should continue to be available to the new process. I am unsure as to what may happen in the future, but there is a great deal of expertise that should not be ignored. Ultimately, the commission should be responsible for a national voter database and be given statutory powers as to the use, with necessary safeguards, of PPS numbers or whatever technology may be developed that would have a function as regards individual voter identification. The commission should assume responsibility immediately for referendum and boundary commission duties. Excellent work has been done in the past by these, but the timeframes allowed for such work has often been too short.

On composition, the public has confidence in bodies chaired by judges or retired judges. I saw a reference in the committee's debates to some judges having had previous political involvement. I can honestly say that, whether as a lawyer or a politician or since serving in SIPO, I never had the slightest doubt about the integrity and impartiality of such appointees. They bring a certain judicial presence which can be useful in running these commissions. The existing ex officiomembers of the standards commission - the Ombudsman, the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Clerk of the Dáil and the Clerk of the Seanad - are ideal appointees. In my experience, they bring expertise to the table. There is an issue to be teased out about the possible double function of the Comptroller and Auditor General as a member while also being the auditor of the commission's accounts, but a solution can be found to that problem.

As far as former Oireachtas Members are concerned, I have the same view as I do about judges. The two previous members of SIPO before my time were former Ministers from different parties to my own. Both performed their functions with honour and dignity. Appointees with a political background have an experience and expertise that is not available to others and can bring a useful public representative, as opposed to public servant, view to the table. I also feel reinforced in my current position by the fact that my nomination to SIPO was approved by votes of the Dáil and Seanad. Perhaps as an additional measure it might be a requirement that any such appointment in the future be approved by a super majority in the Houses in order that such appointments would not be forced through.

Another point I want to emphasise is that reports to the Oireachtas rather than the Government of the day would reinforce the actuality and appearance of independence on the part of the new electoral commission. I also envisage appearances before the appropriate Oireachtas committees for discussion of annual and other reports, and otherwise when required by the circumstances of the time. I have already mentioned my view that, in time, the electoral commission should be given constitutional status.

I commend the work being done towards the establishment of a strong, independent electoral commission and the equally important work under way towards the establishment of an equally strong but separate ethics regime.

Mr. Noel Whelan:

I thank the members of the committee. I am grateful for and flattered by the invitation to address it. I have followed the committee's previous hearings and do not propose to cover much of that ground except to say that I am struck that there was a general consensus in the expression of regret that this has taken so long and in support for the principle of an electoral commission.

As I have set out in my written submission, I agree with Deputy Fleming that the boundary commission's function should stay with an independent boundary commission. In terms of the state of the electoral register, I am attracted to the New Zealand model, which has effectively franchised that under contract to its postal services. There is an exciting similar potential in Ireland.

In terms of bringing added value, I wish to focus on three points. First, the integrity and confidence that the Irish electorate has in the election system are not to be taken for granted. Like legal systems, integrity and confidence in electoral systems are the kinds of thing that one only notices when they are not there. They are hard won. We have had approximately 100 election-type days between referendums and local, European and general elections since the foundation of the State. In all of my study, I have only come across two instances where anyone even uttered a controversy about the results in that period. I will not name which, but that is a phenomenal achievement for a relatively young democracy born out of a civil war with troubles 60 miles or 100 miles up the road for a long period of its history. Integrity and confidence are not to be taken for granted. It is a compliment to the current electoral administration system that trust and integrity exist. Therefore, any move or adjustment to the system must have regard to that. This can be done as Mr. O'Keeffe suggested by retaining the skills, corporate memory and standing that county registrars and local government officials have in the electoral process, at least initially as we transition to an electoral commission.

Second, although there has been confidence in the administration of elections, there has been a gap between election days in encouraging and promoting participation in the electoral process. I mean this in every sense of the word, from the maintenance of the electoral register and the design of systems that reach out better to young people for the purpose of registering to the need, especially in times of diverse and challenging media, for greater innovation in how all that is communicated and motivated. It is in respect of this gap that an electoral commission has the most capacity to bring added value.

Let us compare the system with the administrators of Gaelic games, who have done that successfully. We have not just watched them referee and administer the games well. They have promoted the games, participation in them, their development and the modernisation of infrastructure in the same way. This is because they are not just working on a Sunday or during a season. They are focused year round on how they can improve interest and involvement in, activity around, the study of, the gathering of information on and the fine-tuning of their system. A key task given by statute to the electoral commission should be the proactive promotion, modernisation and improvement of the electoral process generally. This is in part because, in these changing times, which are politically volatile and volatile in communication terms, it is the best way to ensure integrity and support for the political and electoral systems.

Third, the committee will inevitably analyse whether an electoral commission should happen and what it should do at a point in time in 2015, 2016 or as it rolls out in 2017 or 2018. How politics is done, the context in which it is done, the media environment in which it is done and the level of political competition in this country are changing exponentially. An electoral commission is better placed - this is no criticism of the Civil Service structure generally - to adapt and be given the task of new initiatives that need to be undertaken across the system. For example, the Government is committed at a minimum to overhauling the third level panels in Seanad Éireann for the next election or whenever. This in itself is a major registration task.

There would be some resistance around how we would go about doing that. If we developed a free-standing electoral commission, that experience and expertise could be of added value. The point I am making is that although the recommendations are made at a particular point in time, they must have regard to the fact that while we once had a fairly solid two-and-a-half-party system with traditional loyalties, this has loosened up, as have all of the communications and the demographics in terms of where people live and where they are registered. I believe that an electoral commission with a more diverse skill set would be well positioned to chart those choppy waters.

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

I welcome the witnesses. This is the committee's third meeting on the issue of setting up of an electoral commission. Reference was made to the level of abuses over the years in relation to registration, in respect of which the message appears to be that this could be addressed by way of PPS numbers. Last week, I met a group from USI, which represents 300,000 students across the island of Ireland and registered 28,000 students prior to the recent marriage equality referendum. One of the main issues about which it expressed concern was how slow checktheregister.ieis to update.

Reference was made to each local authority being responsible for its own register. Is this the way forward in relation to getting people on the register? In the past, we had rate collectors in every county. However, that is no longer the case. What is the best way forward in terms of getting people on the register? We know from previous elections, including the most recent referendum, that there is often a clamouring to get on the supplementary register at the last moment. I referred previously to abuses in the context of the last local election, when people who were not in the country were included on the register. Despite the fact that many of those registered were living in Australia, Canada, America and so on, they were included on the supplementary register. These are the issues that need to be addressed.

In regard to the boundary changes, it was mentioned that this should not be a function of the electoral commission. How or by whom should this be managed? Following boundary changes in my own constituency, Sligo-Leitrim, Cavan and Donegal are part of the same constituency. I would welcome the witnesses' response to the issues I have raised.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy McLoughlin for his questions. On his comment regarding updating of the register and checktheregister.ie, the difficulty with all of the local authorities doing this individually is that there is no real-time register. A person could apply today to the local authority for registration but his or her name will only appear on the draft register next November. There is no public body operating in such a way that applications, even for a medical card, are completed within three days. When an application for registration is submitted, even to the supplementary register, this will not be confirmed until such time as the hard copy of the register is made available the week before polling day. There is need for a centralised live system from which people could find out within, say, 24 hours, that their application has been successful. That is important.

On the Deputy's point regarding the inclusion of people who were not in the country on the supplementary register for the last local election, I thought that process had been tightened up, because it has been the case for the past couple of years now that applications for inclusion on the supplementary register must be stamped by a garda. Perhaps local authorities were being a bit lenient in accepting forms from people they know through their work in those local authorities. That should be easily verified. In cases in which calls were made to a house and there was no response, despite the fact that there were ten people at that address on the register, the matter was investigated by the local authority following the local election. There may have been no prosecutions, but the matter was followed up. There are lessons to be learned in that regard.

On the boundary charges, while I accept that people will have differing views on this matter, I believe this function should remain separate from the commission, because where people working on the administration of elections on an ongoing basis are involved in the drawing up of boundaries, personal or administrative convenience could come into the equation too much. There are many difficulties in our current system, the biggest being the change in population, which people do not like. There are more Polish people living in Ireland than there are Leitrim people living in Leitrim. That is a brutal statement, but it is a fact. There are nearly more Polish people living in Laois than there are people living in Leitrim. I can understand a county feeling it has the right and entitlement, because of a geographic county boundary, to be part of a unique constituency. However, if we are to count people rather than county boundaries, this will not always be possible. I do not have the answer to the problem highlighted by the Deputy. I know there are four constituencies in the county concerned. To me, that is wrong. People should have an association with whoever they are electing. There was probably a better way of addressing the issues in that area. While it might have been necessary to combine two areas, it was not necessary to combine four. I share the Deputy's concern but I do not have an answer for him.

Mr. Jim O'Keeffe:

On voter registration, I fought nine general elections, and one of the most frustrating things for any politician or aspiring politician is prospective voters who only find out on the day of an election that they are not on the register. I have come across all sorts of situations, including people who have been on the register for years who only become aware during a particular election that there has been removed from the register, and cases of double registration. In my case, my name was registered in Dublin without my knowledge, approval or consent, despite the fact that my voting centre is that of west Cork. This issue needs to be addressed. The views being expressed by practising politicians are very helpful to the debate, but at the end of the day, one of the first tasks for the electoral commission will have to be address of this issue, taking on board all of the views expressed. I agree with Mr. Whelan that the expertise of the 31 local authorities, sheriffs and returning officers in this regard should not be cast aside. This expertise should be availed of in the context of the establishment of a national database. This can only be done by way of an individual voter identification system. In this regard, use of PPS numbers appears to be the obvious answer. I accept there are data protection issues, but this could be addressed by way of inclusion in the relevant legislation of a statutory provision and necessary safeguards. Reference was made to advances in this regard as this process progresses, including the introduction of the new public services card, the new postcode system and so on. Ultimately, we will have to ensure the best system is put in place. It will be up to the electoral commission to address this issue, bearing in mind all of the frustrations and problems associated with this in the past. It was mentioned that there are 6.5 million PPS numbers in use, which is slightly more than the population base. We need to be careful.

On the boundary changes, I still adhere to my view that the electoral commission should handle that on an ongoing basis. What happens at present is that an ad hocboundary commission is set up with a judge and so forth. It does its work on a one-off basis and is then dissolved. I believe that a continuing role looking at the changes that might be desirable would be a better way of doing it, and the electoral commission would be responsible for that. I take the point made by Deputy Fleming that some of the officials involved in the electoral commission might be keen to take the easy way out, but I have a higher opinion of such officials having worked with them on a similar type of business with the SIPO. Ultimately, it will be the members of the commission who would make the final decisions and I believe the point raised by Deputy Fleming could be covered. That is my view.

Mr. Noel Whelan:

To respond to Deputy McLoughlin, there are two issues with the electoral register. One is the failure of the county councils to engage adequately with each other, particularly in Dublin. It is 28 years since I went to UCD. In the first year I stayed in digs in Ballinteer and I registered in Dublin South. In second year I moved to Ranelagh and registered in the Dublin city area, but the council did not take me off the register in Dublin South. In the third year I stayed in Blackrock, which is the Dún Laoghaire county council area, but I was not removed in Ranelagh or Ballinteer. My father, being a councillor, made sure I stayed on the register in Wexford as well. In theory, at least, I was recorded in each election as not having voted three times, which is why it affects the turnout as well. That was in the mid-1980s, which was a great deal less volatile in terms of demographic shifts. The PPS number is ultimately the answer, and we can get to that system.

However, there is another issue. There used to be a pattern of active campaigns every October or thereabouts to put new people on the register or to put people on the register at new addresses. In the recent referendum the campaigning groups, and the Union of Students in Ireland was campaigning in it while I was involved in another group, reached out to get the younger voters in particular on the register. They did it in innovative ways, such as registration desks in the colleges and online encouragement for people to do it. Some of that became controversial because a garda must certify the identity for the supplementary register. It would not be controversial if the electoral commission was providing the same facilities, not requiring people to come to it to register but reaching out to find and encourage people to register. If that was done properly on an annual basis, there would be less need for people to be on the supplementary register, so the additional cumbersome process of identification would not be there.

I tilt towards Deputy Fleming's view, as members will see in my paper, that the electoral boundaries should be done by a stand-alone, temporarily appointed boundary commission. In fairness to boundary commissions, and like the committee members I am among the few people who have read their reports over the years, they have begun to develop a consistency at least in terms of trying to identify big geographical areas with which they can work. The answer might be that the electoral commission would staff and support the boundary commission when it is established, in the same way that the Secretary General of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government is currently on the boundary commission and it is staffed by a principal officer or senior officer in that Department, so at least the corporate memory and material is brought forward from election to election. That might be part of the solution.

I emphasise again, however, that one of the most controversial powers in any electoral system is the power to draw boundaries. It dominated for decades in Northern Ireland. At one time here the folklore was that Kevin Boland, when he was Minister with responsibility for the environment, used to send over to Mount Street for the best tallymen before he would draw the constituency maps for the next election. Then there was the controversy with the Tullymander, which ultimately gave rise to the change. It was the first modernisation of our electoral system to allocate that to an independent commission and I would be careful about shifting it. That is my general point.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I take the point made by Jim O'Keeffe about a permanent commission, but we carry out a census of population every five years and we should only change boundaries based on hard facts based on a census. It would not be right to change it every year on a rolling basis. It should only be done on the basis of census facts. By definition, the boundary issue only raises its head after each census. There is no work to be done in the other four of the five years in any event.

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

I thank the delegation. Do they see online voter registration as an option? Automatic voter registration has proved very successful in some countries. What are their views on that?

Mr. Noel Whelan:

Many systems have been very quick to adopt technology. The US is the most obvious one and it has different electoral processes in each of the states. In England, one in every ten voters in the recent election voted by post. However, they have paid a price in compromising the perception of integrity in their electoral system. I am not opposed to online registration, I just do not believe the technology is ready yet. There is some very interesting material in Dr. Maurice Manning's report of the working group on the Seanad about how one might create a system where people could print off a postal ballot paper once they had otherwise registered. That group consulted with some of the cybercrime units and the like. There is potential, but I do not think we are there yet. Whether it is air traffic control or electoral systems, I tend to go on the side of caution before technology on some of those types of systems.

Mr. Jim O'Keeffe:

I have one comment, and technology would not be my strongest suit. Essentially, what we should be thinking of in raising all these issues is to establish the electoral commission and have it look at those issues and conduct the necessary research. Rather than reinvent the wheel, it should see what the experience has been in other jurisdictions and then come up with new proposals. That would be the best way forward. Certainly, our experience of rushing into a system, such as electronic voting, left some scars. A properly researched approach by an independent body such as an electoral commission would be the way forward.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Again, subject to data protection in using PPS numbers, the Department of Social Protection knows of everyone who turns 18 years of age each year when they come off child benefit. That list should automatically be sent to the electoral commission and each person should get their registration form, so one does not get the big hullabaloo when elections occur. It can run smoothly. The Revenue Commissioners exchange information with the Department of Social Protection every day. Many Departments do it, subject to data control legislation, and the same could happen here. That would probably get rid of some of the hiccups that currently occur because it is being done manually and differently in different areas. Something like that would help the smooth running of it.

Noel Coonan (Tipperary North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the gentlemen for sharing their considerable wisdom with us and we look forward to teasing out the advice they have given us. There were some interesting points and I will not repeat them. However, I was struck when Noel Whelan spoke about his father putting people on the register. One of the things that maddens people even more is when people like his father take people who have been on the register for a considerable time off the register. That issue must be addressed as well. There is nothing as annoying for someone who has been on the register for 50 years. Suddenly, even though they have not died or gone away, as someone else in politics would say, they are not on the register on the day of the election.

At the outset it appeared that the witnesses were saying that the boundary commission should be separate from the electoral commission, but I notice Jim O'Keeffe appears to be saying that they should be a single body with, perhaps, sub-committees of it to deal with various things. Noel Whelan spoke about confidence in the electoral system, which is of the utmost importance and a very valid point. However, in the three elections in which I stood, there were up to 40,000 people who did not have confidence in it. First, there was an area of south Tipperary brought into north Tipperary. Second, an area of south Offaly was brought into north Tipperary.

If they think the boundary commission is doing its job right, the witnesses should talk to the people from Lower Ormond and Nenagh in north Tipperary, who have now gone into the Offaly constituency. There should be more to a constituency than just the number of people. We should also look at the location and the distance from one point to another. For example, to go from one end of the new Tipperary constituency to the other is over 75 miles. It might be better if we were joined up with Tallaght or somewhere. At least we would have the motorway to get up directly to it. There are major issues to be dealt with. The other issue is that people are sick and tired of the various bodies, a commission for that, a body for this and something else for the other. If we are to make progress on this, we need to solidify all of it and get it in under the one umbrella.

Deputy Fleming made a very good point about 20,000 spoiled votes, but nobody from his group has mentioned the people who do not vote at all and whether an element of the commission's function should be to deal with compulsory voting, or whether that is a political issue. In any election, in his constituency or mine, the people who do not vote would certainly elect at least one Member if they were all to turn out. We need to address that problem.

On establishing the register, the witnesses were talking about how they deal with the register and PPS numbers. There are so many people compiling registers now that perhaps they should consider the experience of the Revenue Commissioners and Irish Water. I am sure it would bring joy to many people if Irish Water had a role in compiling the register of the day.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Coonan spoke about the upset caused by boundary changes. People need a sense of identity with whoever they are electing to the Dáil and the idea of somebody being a significant distance from the area, or not in the natural hinterland, county or even province is an issue the CSO figures probably just do not capture, as it is just numbers rather than people. There is a fair point in that and the terms of reference of a boundary commission can be more specific than they have been. They have tended to be specifically about three, four and five seats, protecting county boundaries in so far as possible and not breaching provincial boundaries. To deal with that, we could have more specific terms of reference for the boundary commission, without being party political but taking those points into account. We have done analysis in my own constituency and found that in those rural areas that would normally vote well, where there is a large area and some parts of the area are far from a polling station, the townlands that are farthest from the polling stations have historically had the lowest turnout. It might be a 16-mile round trip to get to the polling station and people just do not bother. That is a factor that needs to come into it.

Deputy Coonan is right that the big issue we have omitted today is people who do not vote. I am not quite sure whose remit that is in, but that is an issue. We can talk about voter registration, but, to use the Irish Water analogy, they might be registered, but will they pay? They might register for an election, but will they vote? That is the big issue that needs to be dealt with. I did not deal with it and I accept that.

Mr. Jim O'Keeffe:

I take the point Deputy Coonan made about the register. I would not be rushing to introduce compulsory voting, at least initially. We have to have a proper system where anybody who wants to be registered can be registered easily and will only be registered once where they are. Clearly we do not have that because of the dispersed nature of what is there at the moment and other reasons. After that, we want to ensure that those who want to vote can vote.

I also agree with Deputy Coonan that, while we talked about frustrations of people involved in politics and that of people who wanted to vote, the worst frustration I ever saw was people turning up at a polling station, having been on the register all their life, and finding that without their knowledge, consent, approval or notification they were off the register. I can certainly understand that total electoral frustration.

On the boundary commission, I also take the point raised about identity, distance and so on. The central issue, for me anyhow, would not be distance. As the Chairman will know, Cork South-West is about 100 miles long, but there is a sense of identity in west Cork, which is sometimes known as the 33rd county. The distance does not matter too much. It is a bit awkward if one wants to be servicing it, but that is another day's work. The biggest frustration I have found in that regard, going back a good bit, was when a chunk of the western area in Béara was transferred into Kerry South. That caused much more frustration at the time. It is possible, but if we are going for a proportional representation system, we cannot go down to one-seat constituencies. There is no total solution but in so far as is possible identity, whether it is like the west Cork identity or a county identity, should be given very high consideration in the establishment of constituency boundaries.

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

The two elections Mr. O'Keeffe referred to were 1973 and 1977, where they took the Béara peninsula, Castletownbere, and put it into Kerry. For religious purposes, it is in the diocese of Kerry, but there were people on Bere Island voting to elect Deputies up as far as between Killarney and Tralee. It made no sense. I accept the independence of the boundary commission and it does its job fairly well, but I have made submissions to it time and again. I am not saying it should implement to the letter what I think should be done, but it should at least demonstrate a cognisance of the submission. I find that frustrating. For example, I remember when Leitrim started a campaign to avoid the split between Roscommon-South Leitrim and the other constituency-----

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

Sligo-North Leitrim.

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

Yes. It was divided in two. The people of Leitrim had a very good petition and campaign. They e-mailed all Members of the Oireachtas to change that. It was a very serious breach of a county for a county the size of Leitrim to be thrown in with two different counties, Roscommon and Sligo. It was very unfair on them. I said to myself that maybe the commission would now do due diligence and take on board those views, but it did not do that.

There were large sections around Dunmanway town that are in Cork North-West.

Mr. Jim O'Keeffe:

Yes

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

If people are using a town for schools, markets, church services or whatever the case may be, that should be reflected in how the commission looks at particular submissions. My issue is a very minor grievance in comparison to a breach of a county boundary. That should be avoided at all costs.

On the electoral register, before I call Deputy Coonan-----

Mr. Jim O'Keeffe:

Before that, may I make a comment? Understanding our local area - although we do not want it all to be centred on west Cork - traditionally since the boundary commission has produced a report there is absolutely no change. It is just taken as it is delivered. That has been the practice and the precedent. Maybe there is merit in that. The question of whether there is a case for more consultation in advance must be raised. I know a submission can be made. Some people who make a submission think it just disappears into the ether. Maybe there should be public hearings or hearings before some kind of a committee system. I have not worked out this idea, but maybe there should be an opportunity for somebody to make an oral presentation and to argue out their case in that fashion. I do not think there is any such procedure at the moment.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is not.

Mr. Jim O'Keeffe:

I would be inclined to press the view that this may be the way forward.

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

Before Deputy Coonan comes in, there is a view emanating from here for the last few weeks that the commission should be established. It mirrors what he is saying - get it up and running, give it a realistic timeframe, terms of reference, resources and so on and then over time develop how it feels its way around the actual issues.

On that electoral register, what does Deputy Coonan think is the biggest challenge about changing, first, the way the register is done? If that responsibility is being brought from 31 local authorities into one commission, what is the biggest challenge around that, trying to maintain some of the skill sets already in the authorities?

Mr. Noel Whelan:

I hope the approach in my submission reflects what the Chairman has suggested. The electoral commission's first function would be to bang heads together of the 31 local authorities and get them to compare notes and databases and then take those databases and compare them to the databases of the Revenue and the Department of Social Protection. Sometimes it is just a database management and integration process. A national body would have the power to insist that be done. Simultaneously, as a national body it would run a national campaign in the autumn to encourage those voting for the first time or those who have moved area to register to vote at that stage so that they would not be caught up in the supplementary register process. Those two steps alone could deliver a marked improvement and give confidence to the electoral commission to take on the broader task, if that is appropriate, and to the public and politicians that somebody is now responsible. This comes back to the point made by the former Member, Mr. Jim O'Keeffe. One of the difficulties that I see as an amateur expert in this area is the lack of expertise about the system. The best expertise about the system is among the politicians in this House but by their very nature they are biased. That is fair enough. One cannot have the players being the referee as well. There is no group whose job and life work, day by day is to compare how things are done in Australia and New Zealand and other comparable places looking at what is best and tweaking the system accordingly. This is where I emphasise that technology can be a great help to the electoral process. It also brings me back to Deputy Coonan's question about compulsory voting.

I would not go as far as recommending compulsory voting but there is a great deal more that could be done to encourage voting. One of the campaigning groups for the marriage referendums in which I was involved ran a campaign called "Get me to the Vote on time" . All the research from the referendums, in particular, shows that about one third to 40% of people did not vote on the day because it was not practically convenient for them. Sometimes that is an excuse, sometimes it is real. They do not think through where the polling station is located, the hours the polling station opens and closes and whether they would vote before going to work or, because it is Friday, after they go for a pint, which cannot be done. One of the campaigns was directed at getting people to register on the previous Friday so that they would think about Friday, 22 May and where they would be, and what would be involved in getting to the polling station. Again my point is that an independent electoral commission that was proactively engaged in communicating with the public would see that as part of its function so as to encourage voting rather than necessarily making it compulsory. Text message reminders were used, not because the text message reminded the individual to go to vote but by registering for the text message at the time one indicated one would vote, forces the person to think about the following Friday and the possible calls on one's time. It is all about using best practice and modern technologies by a group that has the remit and the expertise to make elections work better.

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

That is a good point. I posed a question two weeks ago on what we should aspire to, and Dr. Theresa Reidy's response, whose research expertise is around electoral commissions, was the Canadian model on the New Zealand scale. That is worthy of thought.

I thank the witnesses for taking time from their busy schedules to come before the committee and help us with the electoral process.

I thank Mr. Noel Whelan, Mr. Jim O'Keeffe and Deputy Sean Fleming who are free to go. I ask the members to remain to deal with private business.