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.