Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I will arrange for it to be given to the Senator. This was evident in December during our previous debate. However, there are a wide range of views on what exactly such a body will do and how it should work. A key lesson from international experience identified in the consultation paper is that significant changes in electoral governance ideally need to command broad political and public agreement. I do not see this as a Government versus Opposition matter. Rather, I see it as anything but.

Members of the Seanad and the Dáil, as active participants in the democratic process, are well placed to provide expert insights. There are also many academics, non-governmental organisations and individuals who will also have an interest in electoral reform. I look forward to their input.

Given its composition, the Seanad is in a strong position to contribute to policy-making on this issue. I ask Senators to provide their expertise in developing this legislation because many have shown an interest in this and many are present in the Chamber. It is evident from the motion and from previous debates in the House that Senators are more than willing to take on this challenge, and I welcome that.

As the opening paragraphs of the consultation paper make clear, every person in the State is affected by the electoral process. That is why today's debate is important. The impact of the process of change that we have embarked on will be felt widely over a long period. To provide a focus to public and political debate, the consultation paper sets out 11 questions. It provides information, analysis and options to enable these questions to be answered. It would be worthwhile if I set out these questions and commented briefly on each. If the consultation process can provide solid answers to these questions, we will have made a good start to the legislative process.

The first question, as one might expect, asks what functions should be assigned to an electoral commission. It is a very basic question but it needs to be answered. As a principle of good governance, it is advisable that the functions of any new public body are clearly defined when it is being set up. They cannot be loosely defined. These functions should then inform its organisational design from head to toe. The motive, purpose and goals in setting up the electoral commission, therefore, need to be clearly identified from the outset. Some or all of the responsibilities currently assigned to different bodies and officeholders could be assigned to an electoral commission.

The second question follows from the first in asking what roles would or should those currently involved in electoral management continue to perform. As a starting point, the consultation paper reviews proposals from Oireachtas committees, political parties, research reports and other sources. A number of common themes emerge. I want to bring Senators through some of these because they give an indication of the current levels of agreement on certain points. They also provide food for thought.

The register of electors features frequently, and we have heard contributions on it here and in many reports, instruments and recommendations. Most proposals see some form of centralised system of registration being managed by the new electoral commission, with it taking over responsibilities from local authorities. However, a recommendation from one body envisages the new commission overseeing the work of local authorities which would continue to have a role. We need to ask where we are going. There are many variations. We need definition to ensure that the gentleman mentioned by Senator Landy got his vote. That story is a disgrace.

Given the emphasis placed on this responsibility in many of the proposals, it is clear that improving the electoral register is an important driving force underpinning the desire to establish an electoral commission in the first place. The register of electors is an issue of immediate interest to many here, especially with the referendums coming up in May. This matter was raised by Senator Zappone. It is important that all of those who are eligible are enabled to vote. To do this they must be registered. Inevitably, some will not be or will forget to do so, which is regrettable. These voters, if they are eligible, still have the opportunity to apply for inclusion in the supplementary register. I want to make sure everyone knows that.

Returning to the consultation paper, most of the proposals from other bodies to date envisage the electoral commission taking on functions currently performed by my Department. However, a distinction can be made between the Department's operational and policy roles. There is a general coincidence of opinion that the operational responsibilities of the Department in respect of elections should transfer to the electoral commission. As the Minister, I am not a hoarder. If something needs to be transferred, I am only too happy to allow that to happen. The likely role to be played by the current Dáil returning officers in a new configuration has been considered to a lesser extent. This is a matter that we need to think about and address.

The Standards in Public Office Commission features prominently in the recommendations from the different policy reports and studies. It is seen as a potential starting point, with the electoral commission either being formed around this existing body or, alternatively, as having its functions subsumed into the electoral commission from the outset. We need to think long and hard about that. If we decide to do something, it should be done cleanly from the beginning.

The review of electoral boundaries and the role currently performed by the Constituency Commission is identified as a potential responsibility. It is an important and difficult area, given the constitutional requirements and the population pull towards the eastern seaboard. A role for an electoral commission in respect of local electoral area boundaries does not feature in any of the recommendations reviewed. Members of the Seanad may have a view on this.

Electoral reform issues are mentioned to a limited extent in the various policy papers to date. However, in one particular instance it was proposed that the electoral commission would have an advisory role to the Minister, something with which I do not agree. Voter education appears commonly and prominently as a possible role, something with which I agree. It is clear that there are different views on what the electoral commission should do. I do not expect everyone to agree and I do not believe there are wrong or right answers to many of these questions. However, I hope we can reach a significant measure of agreements on issues of principle in setting this up, and then we can move forward.

The third question posed in the consultation paper is what the cost implications would be arising from the assignment of functions to an electoral commission. The fourth question is related. It asks what the cost implications would be for the bodies performing these functions at present. The costs associated with different aspects of the current system are set out in section 3 of the consultation paper and are worth reading. I will not go through them as they outline their extent and nature.

The decentralised nature of electoral governance in Ireland means that expenditure is incurred by a number of different bodies and officeholders. Some of these costs are publicly visible but others are not. Local authorities, for example, budgeted costs of €10.1 million in 2014 to meet their electoral administration responsibilities, including for the electoral register. The total cost of organising the most recent general election in 2011 was just over €29 million. Costs on a similar scale arise at each European Parliament and presidential election.

It costs between €11 million and €12 million to run a poll for a referendum, not including the cost of work undertaken by the Referendum Commission. At the referendums held in October 2013, the Referendum Commission spent €2.4 million on its information campaigns.

The Constituency Commission which reviewed the Dáil electoral boundaries in 2011 and 2012 had costs of approximately €46,000. The local electoral area boundary review in advance of the 2014 local elections had costs of €56,000. The costs for both reviews related, in the main, to website maintenance, advertising submissions and the publication of reports. There is also the cost of running the franchise section in my Department, and there are ongoing costs for Dáil returning officers in maintaining local arrangements in readiness for elections and referendums.

Unlike other countries that have electoral commissions, in Ireland we do not have a full-time local infrastructure for managing elections. A key reason for the creation of new public bodies lies in their scope to improve cost-effectiveness and efficiency in the use of public money. Evidence internationally has shown that independent electoral commissions are better for democratic stability and are more cost-effective. Those are the facts. That is something that, for me, is motivating. It cannot simply be assumed that economies would be achieved in setting up a new body. Such bodies must be realised and put in place. It is possible that net savings may not be achieved, especially if new and additional work is to be assigned to the electoral commission.

It has been said that one cannot put a price on democracy and I wholeheartedly agree. However, one can put a cost on running elections and one can estimate the cost of research, analysis and voter education. Given the scale of expenditure in administering the electoral system and the cost of setting up a new body, financial considerations play a part in the debate.

The composition of an electoral commission is a key consideration. The fifth question in the consultation paper was, "Who should be the members of an electoral commission?". The sixth question, which I will add because it is related, is, "How should the members be appointed?". As the consultation paper shows, electoral management bodies internationally vary in their numbers of members. One aspect that has been observed though is that those with a large membership are usually less effective.

Some consideration has already been given to this issue. In 2008, as referred to earlier, the preliminary study on the establishment of an electoral commission, prepared by the Geary Institute in UCD on behalf of my Department, addressed this matter. The study recommended that the electoral commission should comprise a chairperson, who would be a judge or former judge of the Supreme Court or High Court; the Comptroller and Auditor General; the Ombudsman; the Clerk of the Dáil; the Clerk of the Seanad; and the chief executive officer of the commission who would be titled the chief electoral officer. This is one possible configuration. There are doubtless other views, and I would like to hear them.

In setting up Ireland's electoral commission, a question arises as to whether the body should include members from a political background. This is a sensitive question. Few know as much about elections as politicians, but should they be involved? Should ex-politicians be involved? I do not have fixed views on this and I would like to hear the views of Senators on this point.

The Geary Institute study that I mentioned concluded that "in our view, it would not be appropriate to have a member of the new commission who is a former member of one of the Houses of the Oireachtas, given the additional range of functions which the commission will perform". I can see the validity of that point too. On the other hand, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Constitution recommended in 2010 that the new commission should include former Members of the Oireachtas. Here we go again with differing views, but we need to come to some agreement.

Looking abroad, in the United Kingdom, four of the ten commissioners come from a political background, although with a detachment from current active politics, and maybe that is the solution. In Australia, Canada and New Zealand, political parties do not have a role in appointing members. In those instances, the background of the commissioners is expressly apolitical and non-partisan. I can see the validity of that too. Whoever the members of the electoral commission are, we need to ensure that they are selected or appointed in a manner that seeks to guarantee their independence. This leads me to the next series of questions for Senators to consider.

Questions 7, 8 and 9 in the consultation paper deal with issues of accountability, performance and audit. Question 7 was, "What mechanisms will be put in place to provide for the accountability of an electoral commission?". Question 8 asked, "What will be the respective roles of the Oireachtas, the Government and the public in the accountability arrangements?", while question 9 asks, "What provisions will be made to assure the independence of an electoral commission?". As the consultation paper makes clear, accountability of the electoral commission will be important. However, accountability needs to be achieved in a manner that is consistent with the independence of the commission in the first place.

Electoral management gives rise to competing priorities that have to be reconciled. In one international study, these were called the three conflicting imperatives of administrative efficiency, political neutrality and public accountability. These are in competition because no single imperative can be neglected, nor can they all be maximised at once.

Experience in other countries points to both the desirability and necessity of having accountability mechanisms linked to democratic institutions. These, for example, include formal reporting arrangements to a designated parliamentary committee; the identification of a specific government Minister as a liaison with the electoral commission - I am not sure about that; independent audit arrangements must be in place; and the publication of documents against which performance can be assessed, for example, a statement of strategy, budget plan and annual report.

In the other countries reviewed in the consultation paper, the head of the electoral commission reports regularly and appears before a parliamentary committee. This would seem obvious. There is a two-way communication process. Information is provided to the committee, issues are raised by members and questions answered. The electoral commission can also bring forward recommendations for change based on experience in implementing legislation and running elections. In Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand, performance measurement and reporting frameworks have been put in place for their electoral management bodies. It may be desirable for similar arrangements to be put in place in Ireland.

For Ireland's electoral commission, it would be advisable that an audit committee and an oversight structure be put in place. This has been the experience elsewhere. We have a great opportunity, in setting up our electoral commission, to learn from what has worked elsewhere. The experience of other countries can offer ideas, benchmarks and lessons. However, there is no one standard and no one best practice. There is merely practice and there are difference circumstances and different situations across the various jurisdictions I referenced. We must do as Kilmeaden Cheese does, that is, take the best and get rid of the rest, but we also need to add in our own flavourings given our own electoral circumstances in this country. We have a unique electoral system in this country and unique elections.

Coming to the crux of the issue, particularly my good friend and colleague's amendment, the final two questions in the consultation paper deal with practical issues concerned with the process of establishing an electoral commission. Question 10 asks, "Should a commission be set up on a phased basis, and if so, in how many phases?". I can see the validity of that. Question 11 asks, "What would be an achievable timescale to complete the task?". The lesson from other countries is that significant change takes time and requires planning, and that is not a cop-out for me. It took almost four years to amalgamate the current functions of the New Zealand Electoral Commission into one body. This was done on a phased basis, between 2008 and 2012. Establishing the National Register of Electors in Canada took almost four years, from commencement in 1993 to full implementation in 1997, not including the process of debate that took place in the preceding years. Upon implementation, problems were identified at the Canadian general elections in 1997 and 2000 - we do not want that here - which caused controversy and required further modifications. We need to get this right from day one. Any questions in relation to how we run our elections would be unacceptable.

As the consultation paper notes, the UCD Geary Institute study in 2008 envisaged a two-stage process in the establishment of Ireland's electoral commission. The principle of adopting a phased approach is consistent with practice that has worked elsewhere. However, this would involve making a decision on which functions are to be prioritised for inclusion within the electoral commission structure from the outset. That is a kernel issue and something on which the Senators might want to focus on in the debate. It is an issue that I want to focus on when I meet the Oireachtas joint committee next week and discuss what are the core functions that need to be prioritised for inclusion from the outset. Then we can look possibly at phasing.

Having regard to the complexities involved in changing the system of voter registration, there may be a case for addressing this as a stand-alone project in its own right or as a separate phase in setting up an electoral commission. This is a good idea. The management of the setting up of the electoral register is a project in itself that has a unique stand-alone role, and that is an important point. This would imply a three-phased process rather than the two-phased process envisaged in the Geary Institute study, but we can tease this out. Of course, all of this will take time and the job needs to be done right. I made it clear when launching the consultation paper a month after coming into this role that it was a significant amount of work. The establishment of an electoral commission will take a number of years to finalise and complete.

Clearly, it will not be in place for the next general election. If I was standing here in front of the Seanad in 2011, I would be say differently. As a student of politics, I am also committed to this on a personal basis. This is something that I believe in totally. What I am trying to do is ensure that the Oireachtas joint committee, to which I am giving a tight deadline, and the chairman probably is not fond of me for giving him such a tight deadline, will come back with its recommendations as quickly as possible. We will publish the heads of the Bill by the summer and we will start the legislative process then and get it done as quickly as possible. I cannot commit that we will have this in place before the end of the year. There is no point in me standing up here and stating that it will be in place. I will commit to engaging fully with the committee and as quickly as it turns the matter around, I will deliver the heads of the Bill based on what the committee comes back with because this involves more than Government. We will then start the legislative process and I will drive the legislative process as quickly as I can.It is not realistic for me to say today that this will be in place for the next election. I also do not think, from a democratic point of view, that it would necessarily be the right thing to do given the amount of change in such a short space of time. To be fair, I am not sure it is deliverable.

Establishing the electoral commission provides us with the opportunity to reform the governance of Ireland's electoral system. Unlike previous Administrations - I am in this regard not making an overt political point because I believe this issue should be above politics and is bigger than any one government - this Government has commenced the legislative process to put this body in place. It is something which I believe we must do. I admire the way in which elections in this country are run and I also admire the dedication of the people involved in that process. However, the process has not changed since the names of people like Arthur Griffith, Michael Collins, Eamon de Valera or, my hero, Tom Johnson, appeared on the ballot papers. We must move on. The story told earlier by Senator Landy in relation to the 96 year old is unacceptable. It cannot be allowed to happen again into the future. We must ensure that everybody has their vote. The myriad issues which I have outlined show why this has to happen.

I am committed to ensuring that once this issue exits the joint committee process there will be no delay in dealing with it legislatively. As Minister with responsibility for this area, and given my passion for this to happen, I will drive it to the best of my ability and ensure it is concluded as quickly as possible. It would be wrong of me to stand up here today and say it is feasible or possible to ensure it will be delivered before the end of 2015. I can say that once the heads of Bill are published I will drive the legislation through as quickly as possible. Depending on what has been decided by the joint committee, the commission will then be put in place on a part or full-time basis. How we deal with the electoral register may also be different. I will ensure that the legislation to drive this forward will be put in place for future local elections and referenda.