I will make the opening statement on behalf of myself, Dr. Reidy and Professor Farrell. The three of us thank the committee for the opportunity to contribute to pre-legislative scrutiny of the electoral reform Bill 2020. Overall, we very much welcome this Bill and the pre-legislative scrutiny. We think it will allow for extensive engagement with the structure and functions set out for the electoral commission.
As we all know, Ireland is an old democracy and has a proud tradition of free and fair elections. However, our democratic processes are long due for updating in the digital age and for a more diverse and fragmented electorate. It is great that the establishment of the electoral commission has cross-party support and has widespread backing from civil society groups. There is enormous potential with this Bill to create an innovative and robust institution that will really shepherd Irish democracy through the next decades. Ireland could be held out as a beacon in establishing an electoral commission fit for the 21st century.
The general scheme is a very detailed document of more than 300 pages. In our approach we very much take an overview, or a helicopter approach, and focus on aspects of the composition of the commission and the roles that are ascribed to it. It has taken us nearly two decades to get to this point, which is why we believe that perhaps the most concerning aspect of the general scheme is the overall lack of ambition envisaged for the commission.
In the format outlined, the electoral commission will consolidate the roles of many of the existing agencies in this space and the franchise section of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage into a single management body. That is to be welcomed. However, the scheme heavily prescribes the structures and functions of the commission leaving very little room for expansion of current election management activities to allow for its evolution in the decades to come or for its capacity to adapt to electoral integrity challenges of the future.
Overall the document is really strong on detail about how the commission will be set up and what functions it will take over from existing bodies but there is very little information on how it might grow, apart from six lines, on page 60, that refer to functions that might be transferred at a later stage, which are an oversight of electoral events and political funding. In essence, this is a static design for a dynamic environment. The initial design must have more ambition to allow the commission to grow. For the three of us, this is the big missing piece of the document.
The proposed composition of the commission has largely been modelled on the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission but, internationally, electoral commissions follow different models. The large size of the board, the requirement that the leadership be drawn from the judicial community and the inclusion of the Clerk of the Dáil, the Clerk of the Seanad and the Ombudsman, are all consistent with Irish administrative practice but this approach is unusual internationally. The electoral commission of New Zealand has a board of three members which includes the full-time chief executive. Australia’s electoral commission has just three board members. The electoral council of the Netherlands has seven members. While electoral commissions always have strong internal legal sections, few require that the chairperson is a judge. For example, the chairs of the UK, Dutch and New Zealand commissions are not judges.
Looking at the financial arrangements, the costs of running the electoral commission will be included in annual voted expenditure and it will have its own Accounting Officer but this may well lead to negotiations and discussion with the line Department on the annual budget. In contrast, the IFAC and the Houses of the Oireachtas’s costs come from non-voted expenditure and that would seem to us to be more appropriate given the need for complete independence and autonomy.
As noted, the list of functions on page 57 consolidate the roles of existing bodies but notably do not broaden the scope of electoral management in Ireland. Crucially, the commission is not given a specific function of maintaining the integrity of electoral processes.
I will highlight a few areas from within those chapters. Political advertising is conceived very narrowly and there is an impractical separation of the regulation of online and broadcast media, which is not in line with recommendations from the BAI. There is no substantive engagement with the possibility of disinformation and interference in elections. The 1997 definition of political purposes, which has proved very limiting for civil society organisations, is maintained.
Promoting political participation should also be a stand-alone function of the commission. This should cover the promotion of voting, provision of political information and some role in encouraging and supporting candidacy.
The research function is very tightly defined and unambitious. It involves layers of approval that may prove unrealistic in the event of unplanned electoral events such as snap general elections. In sharp contrast, the section on voting registers contains extensive information on how current provisions and practices are to be updated. However, it still allows very little ability for the commission to influence the approach to registration. Specifically, the provisions for postal voting are still very limited in section 14 and are only mentioned under voter registration. Will the new electoral commission be able to contribute to and expand on the provisions outlined?
We welcome this really concrete step towards establishing an electoral commission. Our comments are intended to enhance the final design and operation of the institution we hope the committee will be able to contribute to under the process of pre-legislative scrutiny. We have been discussing electoral reform in Ireland for many years. Recently, we participated in a network with wide-ranging expertise on many issues. I know the committee has invited in quite a few others. However, it may also be interested in engaging with some of our colleagues, including Ms Fiona Buckley, University College Cork, UCC, on equality, diversion and inclusion; Ms Liz Carolan, Digital Action, on political campaigning and advertising; and Mr. Liam Herrick, Irish Council for Civil Liberties, on participation and advocacy on electoral matters.
Ms Reidy and I are open to answer any questions the committee might have.
