Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government debate -
Wednesday, 23 Jan 2019

Electoral and Referendum Reform: Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government

The second session relates to electoral and referendum reform. On behalf of the committee, I welcome Ms Fiona Quinn, Mr. Barry Ryan and Ms Emer Connolly from the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government.

I draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I call Ms Quinn to make her opening statement.

Ms Fiona Quinn

I am joined by my colleagues, Mr. Barry Ryan, principal officer in the franchise section in the Department and Ms Emer Connolly, principal officer with responsibility for the modernisation of the electoral register project. We thank the committee for the opportunity to brief members on the current electoral reform initiatives that are underway in the Department. I will outline the key elements of our reform agenda priorities.

In December, two public consultation processes were launched and both will run until mid-March. One related to the proposed establishment of an electoral commission and the other is seeking views on the modernisation of the electoral register. I will address the establishment of an electoral commission and its context. The Government made a commitment in A Programme for a Partnership Government to establish a commission. A number of reports on electoral commissions have been published over the years. The most recent report, which is largely informing current deliberations on the establishment of a commission in Ireland, was published by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht in January 2016. That report contains a series of recommendations regarding the establishment of an electoral commission, including functions that should be assigned to it. While there is significant public trust in our electoral system, it is expected that the establishment of an independent electoral commission will build on that trust and help bring better cohesion and co-ordination to the electoral system, improving the administration of elections.

Electoral commissions carry out vital functions around the world and while their role may vary from country to country, generally they are independent bodies that oversee and support the running of free and fair elections; set performance standards; regulate and monitor political funding and election expenditure; manage the registration of political parties; conduct research into electoral matters and develop and implement voter participation and engagement programmes. These are the types of functions being considered for Ireland's electoral commission. In December, the Department published a regulatory impact analysis, RIA, on the establishment of an electoral commission. The establishment of such a body will constitute a significant reform to the current regime which has been in place since the foundation of the State, and it is, therefore, right and proper that we dedicate sufficient time to allow interested parties to inform our deliberations and to have input to that reform project. The RIA puts forward a number of options for consideration about how an electoral commission might be established including the functions that could be assigned to it. All inputs received as part of the public consultation will be analysed and the content will be used to inform a preferred option for establishing an electoral commission, which will be brought to Government for consideration. The closing date for receipt of submissions is Friday, 15 March 2019.

Significant work was done by the Department in 2018 on a project to modernise the electoral register, and, in December, the Minister of State, Deputy Phelan, launched a public consultation which is seeking views on a set of proposals. The proposals include the introduction of a simplified registration process; a reduction in the number of application forms; online registration as an optional alternative to paper-based registration; and the move from household-based registration to individual registration. Verification of identity through the use of personal public service numbers, PPSNs, is also proposed. The proposals arise from a commitment in A Programme for a Partnership Government to examine the voter registration process.

The current system has served us well and will continue to do so. The proposals on which we are asking people's views in the public consultation are aimed at enabling people to register in simpler yet secure ways. As well as removing an excessive number of steps involved in applying to be included on the register, the proposals would further increase the register's ability to keep up to date with changing individual circumstances and, therefore, enhance its integrity. Reducing the number of different registration forms, allowing people to register online, and introducing a process of continuous or rolling registration would make the registration process much more user-friendly and similar to the way people interact with other State services. Having a registration process that recognises and facilitates more frequent changes of address is crucial to maintaining an accurate register as efficiently as possible.

The proposals for the establishment of an electoral commission and the modernisation of the electoral register represent two significant electoral reform initiatives. The public consultations that are under way in respect of both initiatives will run until 15 March. The outcome of the consultation processes will inform the development of detailed proposals for implementation and the Department is encouraging everyone to consider these proposals and have their say. My colleagues and I will be happy to further discuss the electoral reform initiatives if members have questions.

I thank Ms Quinn for the presentation. Our party will make submissions to the public consultation. We have long argued for an independent commission and modernisation of the register so that is welcome. I will not ask any questions about the detail of it because Ms Quinn cannot answer that until after the consultation. The question I will ask is perhaps unfair. Does she have a notional timeline from when the consultation closes to when, if the outcome is some form of independent electoral commission, it might come into existence? I acknowledge that is subject to the drafting of legislation, securing of Government approval and such. In the best case scenario, will there be a 12 or 24-month period from the close of the consultation until whenever the recommendations accepted by the Government are implemented?

Ms Fiona Quinn

The RIA sets out a number of options. It probably depends on which of those options or combination of options is selected. One of the options is that an electoral commission could be established on an administrative basis first and then be legislated for later. That could enable establishment in a much shorter timeframe. If it requires a full legislative code to be in place before it is established, time would be needed to get through the legislative process. It depends on the mix of options selected. If it was decided to establish the commission on an administrative basis, one would imagine that certain functions could be assigned to an electoral commission in a relatively short timeframe.

Is a relatively short timeframe months rather than years?

Ms Fiona Quinn

Yes, I would imagine so.

I welcome this proposal and the functions which would be assigned to the commission. We have seen lately in different referendums that people will vote for something that they feel is important to them. We need to look at this, including the long-term picture, given people died to ensure we can vote years ago. We as politicians should promote it and ask people to use their vote, because people have died for it.

The main issue regarding the public consultation will be engagement in terms of submissions and feedback. I note the deadline for submissions was 15 March 2018. Do the witnesses expect engagement with the process will be an issue because even when the councils open up public consultations people are not inclined to engage? I welcome this initiative but I would like to know the level of engagement the Department expects from the public on it.

Ms Fiona Quinn

The consultation is open until 15 March 2019. There is a small typographical error in the notes.

It is important to be careful in these matters.

Ms Quinn did state 2019 on the record.

Ms Fiona Quinn

I did.

Yes but the note references 2018.

Ms Fiona Quinn

My apologies, the correct date is 15 March 2019. We launched both processes in December. Interestingly, we have had a flurry of responses, particularly in regard to the electoral register reform, which people are interested in because it impacts on them personally. Over the next month or two, we will ramp up our activity to try to ensure that people are aware the consultation is happening.

I do not think people are aware of it.

Ms Fiona Quinn

As I said, we have received a number of responses on the electoral register consultation, perhaps because it impacts on people personally. We will ramp up our activity to ensure that we publicise the consultation as much as possible. In regard to the consultation in general, it is challenging and difficult but it is for us to ensure we get as much feedback as possible. We will also hold stakeholder consultation to capture the expressed views of interested parties. We will try to ensure that we get to as many people as possible. The local authorities are assisting us in the publication of the consultations around the country.

What percentage of people are eligible to vote? Have the witnesses ever considered providing for automatic registration at 18 years of age, in respect of which the individual would have the option to opt-out? The current system is inefficient. We need to energise and exercise as many people as possible to vote in a democracy. We need a mechanism to bring people to the table. I hope that between now and 15 March 2019, the Department will do everything possible to encourage people to register because the local and European elections are coming up. With the rise of digital media, the Department has not only its website but Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and so on to encourage people to register. The current system, in terms of application, is inefficient and unattractive to young people. I say that as a mother of a 19, 21 and 27 year old, who without parental push and shove might not have bothered to register. The Department must do everything it can to encourage individuals to register and to inform them on why they should do so. It should also try to reach those who may feel disenfranchised. Not everyone has sufficient information to want to register. The Department must use all mechanisms available to it to encourage people to register such that we can have a strong democracy.

In our earlier session I mentioned Seanad reform and the implementation group's report. Has the Department considered the group's proposed changes to the electoral system? For example, in terms of the proposed new electoral commission, could this work be incorporated into the work of the new commission or should it be separate? The cost of a commission was also mentioned. The witnesses in our earlier session referenced a budget for research conducted between 2002 and 2007. Could funding be made available to support evidence-based research to help in the years ahead in order that people would have access to independent information to help them in their deliberations in terms of upcoming elections?

Ms Fiona Quinn

I will address some of the Senator's questions and then ask my colleagues to respond to the others. On the challenge of engaging young people in particular, it is one of the issues we have called out in terms of the consultation on the electoral register reform. We should look at the option of provisionally registering 16 and 17 year olds, perhaps through a schools programme, with individuals then having the option to opt-out when they reach 18 years of age. This proposal definitely merits consideration as part of work on the electoral register.

On the Senator's question about research, again, the consultation on the electoral register sets out that that is one of the functions that should be considered in regard to the establishment of an electoral commission. As I am sure she will be aware, elsewhere in the world there are independent bodies similar to an electoral commission that carry out or oversee the carrying out of research in regard to electoral matters. From our perspective, it is something we will be considering as part of the functions of an electoral commission, which we consider might not need a legislative basis if a commission was to be established on an administrative basis initially. This is an area that we will examine. In the normal course of events in regard to research, we would welcome all proposals in that respect. We have to be mindful of public finance procedures, procurement, etc. but research is an important function of an electoral commission

I will hand over to my colleague, Mr. Ryan, to respond to the Senator's question on Seanad reform.

Mr. Barry Ryan

The Senator asked what percentage of people are eligible to vote. There is no definitive percentage of people who should be registered. The register is what it is. Sometimes comparisons are made between the register and census figures. This always comes with a health warning in that they are two different processes. The census takes place every five years whereas the register is compiled on an annual basis. The census is also a snapshot of a particular night in question. That said, local authorities, in compiling the register, could refer to the census figures at electoral division level.

Figures could be compared to see if there are any large discrepancies or, indeed, a question of over-registration in a particular electoral division that needs to be addressed. While there is not a specific percentage, the best comparison is with the census but that does come with a health warning. On the Seanad reform group, we have just recently received the hard copy of the report so we have not given it any great analysis. We received it last week, along with the draft Bill that accompanies the report, and we will consider it.

Turning to attempts to encourage people to vote, Ms Quinn touched on young people as did Senator Grace O'Sullivan. I have a 19 year old at home and some of us have experience of giving young people encouragement to go on the register. We run an information campaign every autumn, in November, when the draft register is being compiled. We encourage people to check the draft register and make sure they are included. Information leaflets are another useful aspect, particularly as we approach local elections. They are distributed to local authorities and published on our website. One of those leaflets focuses on the process of registration. We publish the leaflets in 17 different languages.

Alongside that, we have been working with the Immigrant Council of Ireland which has recently published a series of videos, in a number of different languages, encouraging people to register to vote as we get closer to the local elections. We are carrying out initiatives. The Senator also mentioned social media. We are active on Twitter and tweet frequently on the modernisation of the register project.

Ms Emer Connolly

We know we need as much awareness as possible to get as many submissions as we can, even though we got a good initial batch. As Mr. Ryan said, we are tweeting every couple of days and there have been good retweets of those. We are also launching a radio campaign shortly. We looked into that yesterday to see how we can achieve maximum outreach and we are also distributing posters to all of the local authorities that act as registration authorities. They will put those up in their own reception areas as well, along with creating Facebook posts, tweets and other social media publishing. We will also explore other ways of effectively reaching as many people as possible through stakeholder engagement, etc.

I call Senator Murnane O'Connor. I ask her to be brief.

I am leaving shortly and I will be quick. It was stated that significant work was advanced in the Department on modernisation projects. Can we be informed of what that was? Mr. Ryan spoke of his 19 year old son voting. The biggest issue is when a person cannot go into his or her local authority and hand in his or her form to be added to the electoral register. There is always a deadline a few months, perhaps two or three months, before general and local elections when a person has to go to the Garda station with identification to get the form signed. That is one of the main deterrents and it puts young people off going on the register. I refer to having to go into the local Garda station and finding the time to do that. We need to look at the time required to do all of that and the form itself. We need to examine the use of PPSNs. The only way forward is using PPSNs on forms that are handed in.

That issue was addressed in the opening statement.

I will let her back in to answer that question.

Ms Fiona Quinn

This is at the core of some of the issues we are looking at in respect of electoral register reform. When the document states much work has been done, that refers to the preparatory scoping work. There is a significant technical input for a project of this type, so we have been looking at all of the potential methods we can try to address these issues. To address the Senator's point on PPSNs, that is a good example and certainly one of the options we have been looking at.

We have much consultation with local authorities and the experts in those authorities who run the franchise sections. On the data aspect, there are data protection issues regarding the PPSN. We are clarifying all of those things and that is the preparatory work we have been doing. It has led us to a series of proposals, which can be seen in the document, on what we should examine. Regarding young people and how to better engage them in registering, one of the things we are proposing is that we would look at optional online registration for that cohort and generation. That is probably a method those of that age would prefer rather than paper-based methods. We will need a balance because some people will still prefer the paper-based approach and we will have to cater for them.

If we want to look at optional online registration, as we propose as one of the suite of options, from our perspective we need to balance the security concerns and requirements that arise from that. It is possible to do that. Those are the technical issues we have been looking at and will continue to look at. A few hundred thousand people may have registered for initiatives such as www.mygov.ie. Those people have gone through a process of verifying their identity so why not set up a situation where they can use that verification and can manage their own information online?

Ms Fiona Quinn

I think young people, in particular, will be interested in that kind of approach.

That is definitely the case. That is a great road to take.

I thank the witnesses for their presentation and their work. During the talks for the programme for Government, we in the Rural Independent Group lobbied for this and we are glad that there is movement. The present situation is archaic. I know of old people who have voted in every election, and who value their vote, being knocked off the register and not realising it until they arrive at the polling station. That is inherently unfair and unjust. I have seen tears and trauma at every election I have been involved in since 1979. That is very unfair. In some cases a whole household or a whole street of houses has been knocked off. In a situation like that, where people have always been on the register and always voted, there should be some mechanism for a quick-fix when it is discovered that they have been removed.

In many rural communities, the people presenting are well known to the presiding officer. It is very unfair that a situation like that should arise and surely the system should be able to adjust for that. There has to be use of the PPSN so that people can go online and register immediately. I refer to the current system of dates, closing dates, the supplementary register and advertisements for all of that. It is chaotic and people easily miss those dates. We know why the present situation involving the Garda station was instituted. It is unfortunate as well but it did happen.

Turning to the issue of fraud, and some issues that were not fraud, there was much duplicated and triplicated voting in the past two referendums. A man contacted me who received five polling cards. He did not believe that was fraud; it was just inertia. He had registered in every place he had moved to work and it happened that he ended up with five voting cards for different parts of the country. Some of them were not too far apart, perhaps within a 50-mile radius. That must be rectified. I salute the staff who worked in South Tipperary County Council especially. They have been courteous and helpful over the years. In recent years, since the amalgamation of the councils, there has not been the same number of staff.

I was astounded this year. Invariably on polling day, someone would turn up at a polling station and he or she would not get a voting paper. He or she would then ring a politician that he or she knew. This year no staff were on duty in Tipperary and people were referred to Waterford County Council on the day of the vote. I accept they are busy before the vote. I could not believe on the day of vote, however, that people were on leave or whatever. They are, of course, entitled to leave but it should have been organised differently to ensure there was somebody available to answer calls from whomever made them, be that the citizens themselves or a politician's office.

People who had been at the polling booth and had not got a ballot paper walked into my office in Clonmel. Those people were greatly exercised. They had made the effort to go to vote, had a vote and expected to have a vote. It was inherently unfair and hurtful to them that they did not get a ballot paper when they had made that effort. A serious and deep analysis needs to be done as to why there was such inertia and such a volume of mistakes. In every election one street or another somewhere is knocked off. A whole convent of sisters was knocked off the last time. They cherish their votes. I am not aiming that comment at anyone; I am just saying they were knocked off.

I had an 88 year old man at one stage who had voted in every election since 1918. He went to vote and could not. He was devastated and could not be consoled. There must be some mechanism in this modern day and age to deal with that. We will have to look at best practices in other countries such as America where people can register up to 24 hours before the vote. It is the nature of the beast that we want people to be involved in politics, we want people to vote and exercise their franchise but the system must be made voter-friendly and accessible.

With all the creative ideas of the various politicians, political parties and machines, it may be down to the last minute before people get focused on issues. This needs a major overhaul and there must be a consciousness of people who are outrageously offended by the system. They had votes but were unceremoniously knocked off the register. There was no sympathy, empathy or engagement. It was just tough. We then have the massive fraud in the past two referenda about which there were boasts and lies. People voted in different places. A French student contacted me who got a voting card but who should not have. She got one at her digs in Galway. That is blatant abuse but not a word was said about it. It was grand. It is disgraceful criminal activity and it should not be tolerated. It needs to be very tight and very reflective of people's views and feelings. They must be able, if they are knocked off inadvertently, to have a process to facilitate them. They are not trying to deceive anyone. They have their identity and are known to the people involved, yet they are suddenly off the register. There are lots of questions to answer and there is a great deal of deep research to be done. I hope there will be a good engagement with the consultation, but getting that out there is the problem. It is about being heard effectively. Like all consultation, it is not easy.

Listening to the stories alleging massive fraud in the latest referendum, I wonder if Deputy McGrath will be like those Japanese soldiers who were still coming out of the jungle 30 years after the war as he continues to try to fight the referendum.

I did not address the Deputy and I am not interested in listening to him either. I addressed the Chair and put questions to our guests. If he wants his Trotskyite spiel, he can have it, but I am not going to listen to his diatribe.

Deputy McGrath does not have to. I call Deputy Barry.

I will park it there.

The Deputy might as well.

I will focus on one issue, albeit there are a lot of issues here. It is the one on which we had the group in to discuss earlier. The group was making the case for what was described as a permanent democratic audit process. I support strongly what was argued for. The example was given of European countries such as Finland, Austria and Switzerland, which provide permanent funding for research and surveying of election results, referendum results, social attitudes among those who do not vote and so on. I am convinced that this would be beneficial for Irish society. If funding is not provided for that, it will be done by private organisations like corporate media and large political parties and will not be available to the mass of the people. There is a democratic issue there. From the information provided earlier, it appears this can be done for relatively small sums. It is something we should prioritise to get in line with best international practice. It is something in respect of which we should make funding provision on an annualised basis. There are some details to work out as to exactly how to do it but the principle is something I support strongly and it is a point I want to register in this discussion. There are other points I would like to make about the register, but I will leave it at that.

I thank the witnesses. I have read their submission and it made for interesting reading. I do not want to dwell too much on the past but nor do I want to look too much into the future. From the deliberations with both panels today, it is clear that something is going to happen. There is a commitment in the programme for Government to establish some sort of electoral reform. There is a genuine commitment to examine it, albeit how it happens is another day's work. I want to bring us to the present. I saw a statutory notice in a local paper which related to my own local authority in respect of an application to the registrar to strike off a number of people. It so happened that on the same day I received from an elderly woman of 80 years a note to say she had received a letter to say she was no longer registered at her address or able to live there. She had lived there for 48 years and her son and his wife had come to live with her, put an extension onto the house and joined the register. As a result, the local authority presumed the older or other person had died. It was a presumption but there was no basis for it. I was told initially that she would have to make an application because there had been a statutory process of notice in all the papers. I saw it in Carlow and in a number of provincial papers where it was advertised. This exercise happened only in the past few weeks. After making a bit of a fuss, the local authority reluctantly – it was an effort – agreed to put her back on. However, it said that technically she should be giving evidence that she was in her home. It is a mess and the electoral register is in a mess. Subsequently, I made inquiries with a number of local authorities which told me they had no obligation in law or on any other basis to do outreach anymore.

We used to have officials who called to doors or took samples to make checks but none of that is happening in local authorities which say they have no funding. Nevertheless, a number of budgets I looked at provide such funding. The line on funding needs to be clarified. Is there money from central government for local authorities or do the latter set aside money for it? We have a situation in which it is not a priority for most of the 31 local authorities and that is an issue I ask the witnesses to address immediately. Perhaps when they go back to the office today, they might raise the matter with the head of the franchise section within the Department. A circular should be issued to all 31 local authority chief executives stating clearly that they are obliged to get out there and engage. If it is a resource issue, let us address that. Let us hear why, however, local authorities are not engaging and doing field work door-to-door, which is important, or some other form of work. We will have a local election in a few months so this work is important. I ask for a commitment from the officials to engage with the chief executives of the 31 local authorities in the coming week to provide them with additional funding or to ensure they prioritise within their budgets the cleaning up of registers of electors. They are totally out of date. People who are dead remain on the register ten years later. Other people are duplicated on the same register within the same local electoral ward. It is incumbent on us to ensure the register is as clean as possible, in particular as we go into two elections in May.

To pick up on Deputy Barry's question, the witnesses caught the tail end of the political scientists' presentation and they know them all well. My question is not about the consultations and whether we get an electoral commission; it is about the meantime as we wait for those. Is the Department, and this section in particular, considering whether to fund some form of electoral research this year and next year while the larger issue of a commission and tasking it with ongoing research is decided? We may have a general election and a number of referenda this year or next year. We have local and European elections this year. The witnesses will have some sense of the committee's views on making some funding available. There will be strong support for that from the committee.

Ms Fiona Quinn

I thank the members for their questions. I will let Mr. Ryan deal with some of the issues. On the register, we accept certainly that it could be improved. That is why we are promoting this significant project and dedicating resources to it. On people coming on and off the register, Mr. Ryan will be able to talk to the committee as he engages on an ongoing basis with local authorities. It is a local authority function to manage the register. Local authorities take whatever they feel are the necessary steps to do so. That includes going door-to-door where necessary. I cannot confirm that it happens all over the country, but it certainly happens. From my own experience, they have certainly called to my door in the past few months. From all of our perspectives, there is an onus on individuals to ensure their information on the register is up to date. We do not have any significant indications that there are problems with fraud. The electoral register and the process are well respected and generally held in high regard in Ireland. If someone behaves in a fraudulent manner, it is an offence and he or she should be prosecuted. It is important that those mechanisms are utilised by people who have that information. From our point of view, it is not a significant issue.

In particular, the fact that unique identifiers are not attached to people's information can lead to duplication on the register. That does not necessarily mean people will behave in a fraudulent manner in voting. We do not have any significant evidence to support that.

Some of the options we outlined in the consultation will look at trying to address some of these matters so the position can improve and it becomes a more up-to-date and efficient method of managing that information. If we are looking at data sharing and somebody is deceased, for example, it should be possible for us to consider trying to get that information, which another element of the State already holds, to update the register automatically. I know it can upset people if they receive voting cards for somebody who is deceased. It is an important activity that we can certainly consider. The point on older people refers to something else I mentioned. We absolutely recognise that whereas many young people in particular are very interested in managing their information online and in a timely fashion, perhaps logging in on their phone at any point to update their address if they need to, there is another cohort of people who have voted throughout their life and we must ensure we provide for them in whatever system we set up going forward.

From our perspective and the discussions we have with local authorities, it seems people are not taken off the register without a number of steps being involved in the process. Mr. Ryan can go into a little more detail about that.

Mr. Barry Ryan

One of the initiatives proposed in the modernisation project is the idea of a rolling register. That would cut through many of the issues discussed here and there would be no need at that stage for any supplements to the register if it was being continually updated. People could register up to a particular point in time before polling day, and this could be quite close to polling day. Clearly there would need to be some gap to allow polling cards to issue and so on. By doing away with the supplement, it would do away with the issue of asking people to go to a Garda station and so on. It is a key initiative.

The Senator mentioned the timeline of cleaning up the register before the local elections. It is important to clarify the legal status. The register is compiled annually and the process starts the summer before a register is published in the following February. November is the time of publication of the draft register, with people being able to examine it to ensure they are on it, make claims and so on. Between the end of November and the beginning of February, local authorities tidy up the register before it is published on 1 February each year. It becomes effective on 14 February. That is cast in stone. There is no question of removing or adding anybody to the register for the next 12 months. There is scope in the compilation of the supplement to the register in the run-in to polling day. That is where we are now in terms of local and European elections. The compiling of the supplement is the issue and the register will be published in a couple of weeks.

Ms Quinn mentioned that door-to-door canvassing happens and some local authorities are more active than others in this space. In fairness, local authorities indicate the process has become a more complex operation and, for example, access to gated communities and so on is not as straightforward as it used to be. The door-to-door canvass has its limitations compared with many years ago. This is why one of the initiatives with online registration is to make it easier for people to register. Whether it is a personal public service number or not, a unique identifier would address the issues being aired about excess on the register or people being on the register a number of times.

There is the point about people being taken off the register. Registration authorities should engage with people on a number of occasions before anybody is removed. Local authorities should be able to demonstrate a paper trail and efforts to engage. This includes knocking on somebody's door to clarify who is in a house and writing to a person. A person might not engage and may not have been in if somebody called to the door, and people may not engage with correspondence, so such people may be taken off a register. Certainly there should be a paper trail in a local authority to demonstrate why somebody has been removed from the register. People should not be taken off the register for no reason or on an assumption. There should be evidence that somebody has passed away, moved on, or whatever the case might be.

Ms Fiona Quinn

The other question was from Deputies Ó Broin and Barry and related to the research piece in particular. We had a brief discussion around this with Senator O'Sullivan. Elsewhere in the world, electoral commissions have this role. I take the point as to what happens until an electoral commission is established. It is one of the very desirable functions that an electoral commission would have and it would bring independence to the process. The commission would be able to manage the research without any sort of political involvement and report on a range of topics, including election results, registrations or whatever the proposed subjects would be. From the Department's perspective, our prioritisation is on trying to progress these two initiatives. If we move to a point where a policy decision is to be taken that an electoral commission could be established on a non-legislative basis, as I mentioned, we would see it happening within a relatively short timeframe. It could conceivably be within 2019 and therefore some of the functions on a non-legislative basis could be assigned as set out in the consultation around research, voter engagement and the raising of awareness. In the interim we are always willing to receive proposals and, as has been mentioned, we are in contact with earlier witnesses to the committee. We are always willing to consider anything they might send to us in the meantime. We hope the electoral commission would move into the space sooner rather than later if those policy decisions are taken.

I am not aware of any issues in my constituency but there are obviously concerns in others. The local authority rent collectors had a handle on everything and they also kept an eye on houses. They have been gone for ten or 12 years now. I know the process finishes in November and the register is published on 14 February, unless we see a supplementary register because of an election. My office regularly sends details of people who have passed away. The witness said the register is not touched but are these people not deleted?

Mr. Barry Ryan

When people pass away, the process is that technically they are not deleted but polling cards would be withheld. From a legal perspective, these people are not deleted from the register. As Ms Quinn has stated, it can be upsetting or disturbing for some people to receive a polling card when somebody has passed away. It is the one exception as the polling information card should be withheld rather than the name being deleted from the register.

With the statutory process where the public notice is made about people being removed from a register, I gave the example of a woman who received no notice except for a letter a week beforehand. I have a copy of the letter on my desk and I contacted the authority. Are statistics kept with regard to such matters? Who keeps the registers? I have made inquiries but do the witnesses know the extent of the thousands of people struck off the registers in recent weeks? Do they have any idea of the numbers?

Who controls that or keeps those statistics? It is a statutory process. I have said that I looked in several provincial papers for these statutory advertisements. I also made representations to several local authorities. One told me that more than 1,400 people were being struck off and that they had not heard back from them. Who holds these statistics from the paper trail? Can the witnesses explain the process when a statutory notice is placed in the paper identifying people, a letter is sent and the individuals have to appear and make a representation to the registrar? Do they know how many thousands of people in the past two months have been struck off the electoral registers?

Mr. Barry Ryan

The short answer to that is we do not. We compile the numbers on the register when it is published and at draft stage. When the registration authority publishes the register in February, we will know the final figures on each register for presidential elections, referendums, European and local elections and so on. There is a balancing figure because people have been struck off and others have come on to the register. While the overall figure may look the same, it may not show the full picture for the number of adjustments or people taken off. The registration authority, the local authority, which has legal responsibility for compiling the register, has those figures.

Are they obliged to make the statistics public?

Mr. Barry Ryan

I do not know that they are obliged to make them public but I cannot see a reason they would not.

Why not? Someone needs to know. There needs to be a transparent process.

Mr. Barry Ryan

I cannot see why a local authority, if asked that specific question, would not make it available.

Could Ms Quinn take us through the establishment of the commission? She referred to establishing it initially on an administrative basis which does not have any legislative powers. Could she bring us through her thought process on how that will work?

This commission will be set up and the Referendum Commission and the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPOC, are in place. What is the difference between them all?

Ms Fiona Quinn

The key point in this conversation is that we are talking about options. Policy decisions will be made. A policy decision could be taken to establish a commission on a full legal basis right from the outset. There would be different approaches, depending on which option is taken. If, for example, it was decided that we would establish a commission on a non-legislative basis and then move over time to underpin that with legislation it could carry out certain functions without having the legal basis to do so, for example, research, awareness raising and possibly voter engagement. If it was to have functions that are legally assigned to another body, local authorities, the Referendum Commission or SIPOC, they would have to be given to it legally so there would be a process in the primary legislation.

It would take time to move to that position. It will depend on the policy options that are taken around the exact functions and how it will be established. As we have set it out in the consultation document, if an electoral commission is established and if it is decided to give it a certain set of functions, it would take over the roles of the Referendum Commission, the boundary commissions on the constituencies and local electoral areas. At the moment they are serviced by the secretariat of the Office of the Ombudsman. When we are still considering the options, it is difficult to set out a precise approach but, in general terms, that is how we would see it happening.

Is there a fear that if it is not set up on an administrative basis and there is a change of government all of a sudden it might not be important? Is there an element of that behind the thinking?

Ms Fiona Quinn

We are here to implement what we are required to do in respect of Government priorities. The establishment of an electoral commission has been in quite a few programmes for Government for several years. That is the history and how we got to here. We can only proceed as we see fit, depending on what we are instructed to do.

I thank the witnesses for attending today and engaging with the committee. I am sure we will see them again before this is sorted out.

I propose we go into private session to deal with some housekeeping matters. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The joint committee went into private session at 11.15 a.m. and adjourned at 11.45 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 31 January 2019.
Top
Share