Mr. Joe O'Toole:

The Senator should listen to what I have to say. There is a view that I should have worn a black hat coming in here today to pronounce the sentence of death on the House. This is not any Grattan's Parliament. What we are proposing here today is a house of parliament in the true sense of republicanism, in its sincere sense. It is something that should be grappled.

In summary, we trawled through the submissions, the debates, the Bills and the reports and we dialled into the national conversation that took place during the Seanad referendum campaign. What we have to say to the Members today is closer to the pulse of the people than what the Members might be comfortable with in the Chamber and I ask them to remember that.There is an element of plagiarism in what we have before us. We have listened to, examined and stolen other people's views and believe we reflect in the report what they want. We looked at all of the suggestions which had been made previously and then pared them back in order that we could use the ones that could be put in place without holding a constitutional referendum. Therefore, it could be done legislatively and also within the imperatives of Articles 18 and 19 of the Constitution.

Having done all of this, we then researched processes that would modernise and improve the registration and voting arrangements. That is what brought us to where we are. If no other message goes from here today, that one is crucial. The report came from all of the commentary inside and outside this House on measures people supported. We came up with something that would give citizens a stakeholding, was inclusive of emigrants and Irish citizens living in Northern Ireland, distinct in terms of its vocational personality and republican in the true sense of the word.

We also made suggestions about the powers and functions of the House. As we were conscious that the Constitution was clear that the Houses organised their own business, we were careful not to move beyond our remit in that regard.

In terms of democracy, the word bandied around constantly and which seems to mean what people want it to mean at any given time, the basic tenet is that power is vested in the people; therefore, no one group has the authority to expropriate democracy. It is important to remember that around the world people have found many and varied structures to allocate ruling power to those whom they elect. Democracy is articulated in different ways in different countries - there is no one way. Our report locates the Seanad in a type of daisy chain of democracy from local to European politics. It creates a continuum of public representation through these steps. It is part of a linkage, as Dr. Manning pointed out, between the President and the community and gives a voice to the views of community groups inside rather than outside. The phrase we used earlier was that a seat inside was more attractive than a placard outside. That is the opportunity being given.

On Upper House composition, an issue Dr. Manning dealt with in terms of the principles involved - I am offering this as something that is supportive of Members of this House - around the globe there are many methods used. In Canada all Members of the Upper House are appointed by way of nomination. In France, Germany and other countries all Members of the Upper House are elected by an indirect system, in the way 43 Members are elected here. In Australia and some other countries all Members of the Upper House are elected by popular vote. I make these points to give some background. That is what we were faced with when we looked at how we would approach this issue.

Our report seeks to reflect best global practice in determining the composition of the Seanad because not one of the systems I have described in its totality was acceptable. There were certain problems, advantages and disadvantages attached to them. We required that it not be a mini-Dáil, as Dr. Manning said, but that it be distinctively vocational. In that regard, it is a combination of popular direct vote by citizens, indirect vote by an electoral college of elected representatives and 11 Members to be nominated by the Taoiseach of the day. The majority would be elected by popular vote but without geographical constituencies which would replicate those used for Dáil or European Parliament elections or elections to some other House.

The Constitution requires that there be five vocational panels to elect 43 Members and that there be a university panel or panels top elect six Members, giving 49 in all. We recommend that citizens register for the vocational panel of their choice or the university panel, if eligible, and that elected local authority members and current Oireachtas Members register for the sub-panel of their choice, with the proviso that there be an average figure of 20% of the electorate registered for each sub-panel. The idea is that each of the five panels would have two sub-panels and that there would not be an overlap; therefore, nobody would be elected with fewer votes than anybody else, as happened in the past. Six Members on each sub-panel would be elected by popular vote of citizens who had registered. Attached to each panel there would be an Oireachtas sub-panel.In the main, there will be two or three on each Oireachtas sub-panel. We tried to keep them all balanced, fair and even but not only is 43 an odd number, it also is a prime number and consequently divides by nothing except itself and so we had a choice of either 43 or one. Therefore, six would be elected on each vocational panel by direct vote and two or three would be elected on each panel through the Oireachtas sub-panel. I can explain that later and do not wish to go into all the million details of that but Members see the idea. It is to get a balance in there and the idea is that those Members who are entitled to vote on the indirect panel would be required to register on whichever sub-panel of their choice. There would also have to be the opportunity to change panels or sub-panels at a particular time.

We then looked at the question of registration. Dr. Maurice Manning asked me to deal with that particular question and we looked at the current register. The two we looked at were the Dáil register, or the local authority register, and the university panel registers. Whenever we spoke to people, we were told about the problems created by them. Some of them were to do with how they facilitated personation or how people were dually-registered, deliberately or accidentally. We heard how people down in the graveyard were voting, there were no addresses and there was dual registration. All we heard was a variety of problems arising from them, some of which were deliberate while others were just accidental or haphazard. What we are recommending would certainly improve what is there at present. There is no question or doubt about that. In our system, there would be no advantage in lugging the laptop down to the local graveyard; there will be no additional votes to be found and people in the local graveyard will not be voting. That cannot happen. It comprises Internet-based registration, which is easier, more efficient, more reliable and cheaper. In respect of quality, reliability and security, the recommendations raise the bar. If the current system is bog standard, this is gold standard and that is the reality of the point to which it brings us. Moreover, this is being done. In one of the debates in the United Kingdom last night, I heard someone saying it takes three minutes to register online to vote in the elections in the United Kingdom and I made a mental note of that. It is where we are going. Each voter would have a unique set of identifiers. It would be a combination of personal public service, PPS, numbers, passport numbers, post code and a password, that is, the kind of thing that would be normal in registering online, except what we would be doing would be monitored all the time by the national cyber-security agency or some such body. It would check it for any abnormal or suspicious activities and would deal with those as they arose. Those without broadband access or Internet, which is much of the country, may register with help from, say, community groups, local authorities, libraries or other methods as determined by the electoral commission.

The point is that what we are suggesting, this is beyond dispute, is no more complicated than taxing a car or buying an aeroplane ticket online. It is no more complicated but is a lot more secure. The steps are registration, followed by the creation of a digital register, followed at some point by notice of e-mail, prior to voting, that one can now seek to download a ballot paper. One then would check in with the proper unique identifiers, followed by the downloading of a ballot paper using a combination of the web and telephone. People can hack into the web and people can get into the telephone system but for someone to get into the telephone system and the web system at the same time is, at present anyway, impossible. It may not always be impossible, which is why one needs to have these things checked all the time. The idea would be that one would check in and state who one was and that one was ready to vote. Then one would get on one's telephone, which is a completely separate system, on which one would be obliged to enter a number before one could download the ballot paper. In other words, it makes it almost impossible for hackers to get into it. As for hackers, we have looked very closely at, and have received a lot of advice on, this aspect of it and I wished to explain that to Members. People would download and would then vote with a single transferable vote, as required by the Constitution, and then one would post it back to a returning officer. This could be done with a stamp or freepost or whatever, depending on whether they were at home or abroad or on whatever arrangements are made. Having outlined the picture, I want to move on to the question of the implementation. Two issues arise, the first of which is the publication of a Bill and the second of which is a step-by-step implementation process. We produced a draft Bill today. We will publish it more formally with a memorandum towards the end of the week. People are welcome to have it.

I will outline the main points. The significant issues arising from aspects of the Bill - either in it or created by it - are such that it will no longer be the case that some people will have up to six votes. Instead of 1,000 local authority and Oireachtas members electing two thirds of the Seanad Members, they will elect 20% of them. The majority membership of the Seanad will be elected by popular votes of Irish citizens. The "one person, one vote" principle applies to everybody, be he a councillor, graduate or neither. There are to be votes for all citizens, all-Ireland participation, votes for Irish emigrant passport holders, a digital register, a composition of the House reflecting best global practice, and an enhanced nomination process, including a requirement that knowledge and practical experience be given more clarity. The latter, to which I will return, is not the case at present. Another proposal is that substitute candidates will fill casual vacancies, as opposed to filling vacancies through the current by-election system. It would be more like the European Parliament system in that a substitute nominated at the beginning would take over.

The interim Seanad electoral commission should be a small group, adequately resourced and working to tight timelines. It would require a budget with access to expertise to make progress on the matters I have discussed. It should have access to draftspersons and a budget for expertise or specialist consultants, especially in the legal and cybersecurity areas. Each member of the body would be assigned to a subgroup. There are three distinct areas of work, to which I will refer. The members would effectively set timelines for implementation, ensuring that all structures, legislation and processes are in place by the next general election. It should report on a monthly basis to the Taoiseach in a report that would be available to the public.

The first part of the work of the group would involve what we call the legislation and legal subgroup. It would be supported by legal expertise and liaise with draftspersons.I was a Member of this House for 25 years, but I never met a draftsperson in all that time. I have asked Ministers if they ever met a draftsperson and very often they have not. Legislators have experienced this many times. It is crucial to liaise with draftspersons in order to have a Bill presented and processed through the Oireachtas by the end of the calendar year, and then to develop the regulations and protocols that will arise from that. The Bill itself will have to be an enabling one to allow for the details of registration, voting and counting to be dealt with by various protocols, schedules or ministerial orders.

All of that concerns the legislative and legal aspects, while the next will be the communications sub-group supported by digital marketing and communications experts. This would organise and inform nominating bodies, encourage registration and attract further bodies to register as nominators. In addition, national media, social media, digital marketing, house magazines and e-zines would be used as part of the communications process. We believe that has to be done.

It would have to decide on standards for knowledge and practical experience. It is specifically written in the Constitution, referred to in the 1947 and 1954 legislation, but is not actually defined beyond that. It would also encourage community, youth and other groups to assist in registration.

The third part of the implementation would be supported by cyber expertise. It would engage with experts to develop safe, secure registration protocols, finalise the downloading protocol with state-of-the-art technology, and establish monitoring and checking systems. There are people around the world who are experts in this area. We have seen where it has worked well and also where problems have been created.

In Estonia, where they have online voting, although we are not proposing that, they have run into serious and significant trouble. Part of their problems have been created by the fact that they did not consult widely enough. We have a list of people who should be consulted before we finalise this particular protocol. They include a number of professors in the US, the UK and in Europe who are experts in this area.

There are three initial steps for implementation. Dr. Manning said the important thing is making this happen, but how does one make it happen? There are three things that can be seen either to happen or not happen in the next couple of months. If they do not happen, it will go nowhere. I remain an optimist. I have been around this track a few times before but I would like to see the finishing line somewhere this time.