Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

At this point it is difficult to keep one's focus and one swings with the arguments back and forth. It has been very interesting. One of the privileges of being in the Chair is to hear all of the arguments. I thank the Department for its work and I thank the Minister and the Minister of State. It is a significant Bill. I realise it is quite difficult and I welcome the Bill and the effort. I hope that today the Minister will tell us when he hopes it will be passed. I know that is subject to the vagaries of the Dáil but I would like the Minister to state what time span he has in mind. It is clearly significant legislation. The Bill comprises 132 pages, six chapters and 145 sections. We would be misleading the Dáil if we said we read it in detail. I have tried to read the explanatory memorandum. I have looked at the Bill and all of the documents around it. I will highlight what is good in it and what is important. I also want to look at the background as to how we got here and perhaps the deficits that I hope will be sorted out, given the long gestation period. It has taken years to come to this point.

As has been set out repeatedly, a statutory independent electoral commission is to be established for the first time. I welcome that. More importantly, this is something that various organisations on the ground have been asking for. I will come back to those organisations. How independent it is to be will have to teased out on Committee Stage, as will its funding. The modernisation of the register of electors is absolutely welcome, as is the introduction of a central place where it can be checked. The regulation of online political advertising and the provision for the holding of elections during periods of Covid are also very welcome, although they are too restrictive, another point I will come back to.

Let us look at the background again. I thank the staff of the Oireachtas Library and Research Service, who do a tremendous amount of work while under pressure and under-resourced. I was going to say underfunded. They do their work under pressure. An enormous number of Bills go through the Dáil and the service's staff provide briefing material on them while always under pressure. They nearly did not have a chance to look at this Bill, although they did in the end. Most often they are under pressure and only see the heads of a Bill, which then change. I pay tribute to them.

The service has highlighted the background to this Bill. It is important to state for the record how long this has been going on for. The electoral commission has been on the agenda of various Governments since 2007. The regulation of online political advertising has been on the agenda since 2017, ten years after that previous commitment. Several reviews of the Irish electoral system between 1996 and 2013 have concluded that the electoral system should not be changed, which is significant because various Governments have thought we should change the electoral system but the people of Ireland were wiser and said "No". However, reform to the administration and operation of the electoral system is necessary. In 2010, 12 years ago, an Oireachtas joint committee concluded that there was not a sufficiently compelling case for changing the electoral system but it went on to recommend that the matter be considered by a citizens' assembly. In 2013, the Convention on the Constitution voted overwhelmingly against changing the electoral system, with 79% voting against the proposal. The Government accepted that recommendation. Both the Joint Committee on the Constitution and the Convention on the Constitution recommended the establishment of an electoral commission and improving the accuracy of the electoral register, among other reform measures. That is what we are getting today. After a long time, we are getting some of that.

To put the importance of integrity in this area in perspective, we talk about other countries where there are autocrats and no democracy. I agree with everything that has been said in that regard but there is an extra onus on us. We take pride in being a vibrant democracy and send observers to other countries to look at their electoral processes and elections and to ensure that all of the procedures are complied with. There is therefore an extra onus on us to take the mote out of our own eye and ensure that our procedures are open and accountable. We must continuously seek to review them. I will come back to that point at the end and discuss what it is proposed to review in two or three years' time under this Bill because it is only certain segments.

I cannot put it any better than the Kofi Annan Foundation did back in 2016. It said:

For elections to be the legitimate instrument at the heart of the democratic process, they need to be carried out with integrity.

Elections with integrity are based on the democratic principles of universal suffrage [as a woman, I realise that universal suffrage was dearly won and does not exist in many countries] and political equality and are professional, impartial, and transparent in preparation and administration throughout the electoral cycle.

Their outcome is not just legally beyond reproach but the process and its outcome are also perceived as legitimate by the electorate.

That last point is important because not only should justice be done, but it must be seen to be done and it is the same for the electoral process. It is very important because, without wishing to be too political, there was a time when a certain party's motto was "Vote early and vote often". That was Irish humour and an Irish way of coping with something that was going on. We know that was facilitated by a register that was completely unsuited to its purpose. I make my comments in full admiration for the local authorities and as someone who has been involved in many elections. One was particularly painful, not so much for me but for the team that worked with me, because I missed out by 17 votes. I felt a sense of relief in 2011 that I was not coming up to this august establishment. I had mixed feelings but missing out by 17 votes brought home to me in the most acute way how important the integrity of this system is and how important it is to watch it. For various reasons, I was not keeping a close eye on the spoiled votes. I learned a very valuable lesson but that did not take from the integrity of the process. The fault was mine, for many reasons. I did not look at the 500 spoiled votes in the box. However, the experience brought home to me the importance of the process being above board and my team and the other teams being able to watch it.

That was in 2011. It was only two years earlier that we finally said that we were not doing electronic voting, which had been mooted in 1999 and introduced in 2002. I can still see the picture of a former Minister as she lost her seat, which was appalling. It was not appalling that she lost her seat but the manner in which she learned that she had was. More importantly, the judge who looked at that system said that, in the time allowed to him, he could not vouch for its integrity. We spent, at a conservative estimate, €60 million on this system. There was then the issue of their storage and so on. Many people today do not even have a memory of that but it was all done with comments suggesting we were too attached to the pencil and so on. I actually find the pencil very useful, even in the 21st century. It is actually much easier to write with a pencil. I raise that because no importance was attached to analysis or the integrity of the process. That is why I mention it.

I again thank the Library and Research Service for its digest, which shows different research telling us that the level of trust in our electoral system is quite high notwithstanding the state of the electoral register. It is interesting. Trust is high in the electoral system but what jumped out at me was the data for Ireland from the European Social Survey in 2019 quoted by Dr. Shana Cohen, director of TASC, in a recent article in TheIrish Times. This is more of a reflection on politicians. Some 40% of people had relatively high levels of trust in the Dáil while just over one quarter had relatively high trust in politicians or political parties, which is a damning statistic, is it not? More had trust in An Garda Síochána, which is extraordinary. This is testament to our experience of An Garda Síochána on the ground and certainly not the behaviour of management and the decisions made which were investigated by an endless list of tribunals, including the Morris tribunal. Despite this, there is more trust in An Garda Síochána than in politicians, and rightly so because we need trust in An Garda Síochána for a democratic system. However, there is certainly a big question here for politicians with regard to what we are doing. Some 50% had relatively high levels of trust in the legal system, which goes back to a point Deputy Jim O'Callaghan made earlier on with regard to trust when appointing a High Court judge. Over 10% said they had no trust at all in politicians or political parties.

That is somewhat of an aside when discussing the electoral process but it is interesting that politicians are held in such low esteem. That is seriously problematic for democracy. I know many of my colleagues, especially the Ceann Comhairle, are tired of listening to me talking about the importance of making language mean something. Language has to be mean something. Whether we agree with each other or not, it is very important for people, and particularly young people, who can spot hypocrisy and pretension a mile off, that we make language mean something. There is doublespeak on climate change, housing and all of that all of the time. I say that as an aside with regard to trust in the electoral system.

As I said, I welcome that there is to be a commission on a permanent statutory basis and this commission will have oversight of the register but that the actual operation and management of the register and local election will remain with local authorities.

I support that 100%. However, local authorities are top-heavy with management. They are not heavy with staff, who are constantly being shoved from office to office as a result. When they gain experience, they are shoved off. There is a lack of staff on the ground. That is a serious problem. I have seen staff overworked and underpaid. I criticise management and a corporate governance model not suited to delivering a service that the city and county councils are there to deliver.

I welcome the rolling and pending registers. They are very good. I also welcome the provision in the legislation for anonymous registration. I hope this issue will be teased out a bit more on Committee Stage. I have read the report of the joint committee. What was the Government was proposing originally was much more strict. It has relaxed on that a little in respect of the various reasons that a person might want to register as an anonymous voter, including being the victim of domestic violence. I welcome all of that.

I also welcome that provision has been made for elections in the time of emergencies such as Covid. However, perhaps we should pay more attention to the ICCL on this matter. Among other concerns, the ICCL specifically raised the fact that no provision has been made at all for other disasters or problems. That is a matter of concern to me. Perhaps the Ceann Comhairle might have a different, but I had the privilege of sitting on the Business Committee for two weeks when Covid originally broke out. As it happens, my colleague was not available. The ease with which it was proposed to adjourn the Dáil never left me. There was almost a flippant attitude to the Dáil that in order to protect ourselves, human safety and human health, it should not sit. I understand the concerns of staff, but that we would get rid of our democratic institution so easily or propose to do so during Covid was a wake-up call for me in terms of how we protect democracy. If we have learned anything from Covid, it is to set out in legislation that democracy must be protected at all costs, and we should anticipate further pandemics and disasters, unfortunately.

The ICCL makes very good, expert recommendations. I am no expert in this area, but I think the Government should consider the recommendations of the ICCL, according to which:

...Part 5 of the General Scheme of the Bill be amended to include provision for the development of “all of government” strategies for the holding of electoral events in the context of national emergencies. This would include provisions for, inter-alia, the conducting of electoral events in the context of pandemics, natural disasters, terrorist outrages, cyber-attacks, extreme weather events, and so on.

The council goes on to make practical suggestions in relation to the national risk assessment, including how we could make provision and then copper-fasten it in legislation. It would be a wasted opportunity not to do that.

The ICCL has also raised serious concerns, as has been mentioned already, regarding the definition of "political purposes". I find the ICCL to be moderate in its press releases. It was certainly very moderate and considered in its various publications during Covid, when it was extremely worried about the draconian legislation. The council may not have used that phrase; those are my words. It was concerned about the serious restriction of human rights without a human rights analysis being done. It raised those concerns repeatedly and pointed out, over and over, that it was pro-vaccine in case anything was alleged against the organisation. I find the ICCL to be extremely moderate in its approach. It published a press release on the publication of this Bill on 30 March 2022 in which it stated: "The government has knowingly missed an opportunity to fix an anomaly in Irish law which means community groups or volunteer organisations could be prosecuted for normal fundraising work." The executive director of the organisation described the Bill as a "wasted opportunity", and stated:

We are in the bizarre situation where a community group set up to oppose, for example, the building of an oil refinery, could find themselves brought to court for seeking donations above a certain amount, but the company building the refinery can spend as much as it wants to influence the government. The government could have fixed this critical issue, which they have been aware of for years, while developing this Bill but have instead wasted the opportunity.

Those are not my words; they are the words of the ICCL.

The ICCL also referred to the Electoral Act 1997, which, I understand, was amended in 2001. I appeal to the Minister of State to look at that. Serious concerns have been raised by the Data Protection Commissioner on the use of PPS numbers. I understand that it was recommended that an analysis of be published before the Bill came before us, or certainly before we are asked to pass it. That has not been done, as far as I understand it. Perhaps it has. The joint committee recommended that a data protection impact assessment be carried out "to ensure full compliance with GDPR".

The digest goes through the joint committee's report and the recommendations and outlines which ones have been taken on board. If I have some constructive criticism, it would be for the Department to be more specific in where it has taken on or not taken on the recommendations of a cross-party committee. It would be very helpful as we struggle through the documents. That has not happened.

The Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, has made a very interesting submission in relation to the Bill. It also published an annual report in 2020. It is well worth looking at in the context of SIPO's concerns about independence and the source of the budget. I gather that it would not come from the vote. Concerns were raised about independence and resources to ensure that the organisation can carry out its work. Looking at SIPO's experience, it simply cannot do what it is being asked to do. There is no provision on the time span in which the work of SIPO will be transferred to the new electoral commission. It is not clear why the CEO is going to be appointed by the Government, without going through any process first, and with the provision for the appointment to be renewed for five years. In other words, the CEO of the new electoral commission will be appointed by the Government for a period of ten years. Perhaps the Minister of State can explain that.

Concerns have been raised in relation to the number of members of the electoral commission and the fact that members will be ex officio,because it is just too hard. I think of SIPO and the people who are on the board of SIPO. I have the greatest of respect for them. They are ex officiomembers and they are dealing with many other jobs at the same time. These concerns have been raised previously, and now it is happening again with this electoral commission.

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, talked about the Electoral Act 2001, which I have already referred to, as having "a chilling effect on the funding and activities of civil society organisations involved in legitimate advocacy". I am doubling back to that point. IHREC has raised concerns at least since 2003 that the wide scope of the legislation intended to ban large anonymous foreign donations in elections could be hindering the work of civil society organisations. In its annual report in 2020, SIPO stated, "It is understood that a legislative review is proposed as a function of a new electoral commission", and recommended that his take place "as a matter of urgency". SIPO has said many other things.

I welcome the Bill. I hope that Committee Stage will be used to look at the significant gaps. For a democracy to be strong, we need an electoral system that is above reproach, but we also the active involvement of our citizens - otherwise, we do not have it. Deputy Farrell suggested that perhaps we should not close the schools. I cannot think of a better way to educate our students in the ways of democracy, or the lack of it, than by using schools, but I have an open mind on the issue.

See this speech in context