JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION debate -
Wednesday, 21 Oct 2009

Electoral System: Discussion.

Chairman

I welcome the delegates to our meeting. The joint committee is continuing its series of hearings as part of its review of the electoral system. This morning it will consider the effect of proportional representation by the single transferable vote, PR-STV, on intra-party electoral systems and procedures, its influence on candidate selection and impact on political outcomes.

Political parties are the gatekeepers to political office, entrusted with the most important responsibility in a democracy in selecting candidates for election. They provide the pool from which voters elect their representatives and leaders. Through their selection of candidates, political parties affect the choices available to the electorate and the composition of the Parliament. Their selection decisions also have a wider consequence in shaping the development of policy.

With this morning's panel the committee will consider the PR-STV electoral system's consequences for the electoral process, its effect on intra-party electoral competition, its influence on candidate selection in political parties and its impact on the role of the elected representative. I welcome the following: Mr. Seán Dorgan, general secretary, Fianna Fáil; Mr. Tom Curran, general secretary, Fine Gael; Mr. Colm Ó Caomhánaigh, general secretary, the Green Party; and Mr. Robbie Smyth, Sinn Féin. I also welcome Professor Michael Marsh, department of political science, Trinity College Dublin, who is very helpful in the committee's deliberations for which we are very appreciative.

The papers the delegates submitted to the clerk to the committee have been circulated to members. Before commencing, I must inform delegates that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. I invite Professor Marsh to speak first. He will be followed by the other delegates.

Professor Michael Marsh

I will talk about three things to provide a context for those who know a great deal more about the nuts and bolts of intra-party competition than I am ever likely to know or will want to know. Members have experienced intra-party competition at different levels so I will not try to teach them to suck eggs. Instead, I will make a few general points about intra-party conflict.

The first question to ask concerns where conflict takes place. There will always be intra-party conflict as it is the lifeblood of democracy. In an electoral system such as ours or the one used in America, intra-party conflict is very visible, especially at election time when two candidates from the same party perceive there to be only one seat. That is very exciting for the media who can concentrate on that contest to the exclusion of what the election is about. Conflict also arises before the election as parties decide on which two candidates are to be put forward. Anybody who has experienced the election conventions held by Fine Gael, which are attended by more than 1,000 people, can testify to the intra-party competition that exists. Even if selection is made by the general secretary by a series of interviews there is competition to get an interview. Intra-party competition takes different forms.

The second question to ask is what the competition is all about. What are candidates competing for? What makes one preferable to another? The third question is what difference intra-party competition makes to the composition of the Dáil. Many feel that competition is the most obvious feature of our electoral system and commentators in our daily newspapers believe it is responsible for all the ills which beset the country.

Intra-party competition is common not only in Ireland but in all countries, regardless of their electoral systems. Different countries deal with it in many different ways and there has been a great deal of literature on how candidates are selected. It is often seen as where power lies in a party, because the power lies with those who select the candidates. In the Irish system this power lies with the people who select the candidates in the first place and then with those who decide who will be elected from the candidates in question.

Selectors can also decide who gets elected and they do this not just by nominating candidates. In a list system, some people are placed higher on a list than others. Sometimes, to be selected is almost meaningless. In Italy, parties might have 70 candidates on a list but only expect two to be elected, meaning most are not even candidates in our sense of the word. The key question concerns the candidates in the first couple of places.

When selectors decide between candidates or to put some candidates higher on the list than others, what is the basis for their decision? The answer varies widely across countries. Selectors often put more popular candidates at the top because they will attract voters to the list. They may draw up a list which ensures balance and a "zipped" list may contain a man-woman-man-woman series of names all the way down to produce an appropriate gender balance. The list may be structured to ensure that good legislators or people with good expertise in important areas are near the top. It may also be structured to ensure Government support, with those likely to cause no trouble and to toe the party line at the top, while the rest are put at the bottom. As there is great variation across countries in the way candidates are selected, so there is in Ireland.

Voters always choose who is elected. My wife said this was not true but I said it was true. They decide who is elected. However, once voters have decided which party to vote for, they might not get the choice of candidate. This happens in the British system — one cannot pick a candidate and a party but must decide on one or the other. For parties with more nominees than there are seats, however, the voters then choose who gets in from that party and that is our system. In Australia, where the electoral system for certain elections is the same as ours, voters do what they are told. The party tells them to vote for people in a certain order and that is what people do. All one needs to do is to train the electorate. It is astounding but I am not covered by privilege so I should not be rude about Australians. Australians are not the sort of people one would think would take easily to such methods but obviously something changed when they went around Cape Horn and they now do what they are told.

If candidates are to compete, how might they do so? One ground for competition is competence, with one candidate claiming to be more credible than another. Both will promise things but one will claim to be better than the other and, internationally, most parties allow for such competition. That is the case in Ireland where parties also compete on such grounds, a point to which I will return. Other candidates may appeal to certain social groups and a woman might run as a woman, a trade unionist as a trade unionist or a farmer as a farmer. This is problematic in constituencies such as ours, which are quite small. If one has a constituency and an intra-party competition of half a dozen people, it might be plausible to appeal to a specialist group. That happens in Switzerland but there the constituencies are very big. If I told members how they vote in Switzerland they probably would not believe it. The candidates play up their links to specific social or interest groups.

A more obvious way for candidates to compete is by representing territory. One will emphasise that he or she is from a particular part of the constituency rather than another. That aspect of the process is probably underrated in some countries but it certainly exists. A recent study was carried out into public opinion about British MPs asking if people would be more likely to vote for candidates if they were X. The people queried were interested in finding out things like, if the candidate was a women, a Muslim, homosexual or whatever.

The biggest demand voters make of their candidates is that they be local. We do not usually associate that with the British system. People like to think their candidates come from around them and understand their problems. Policy of a general sort can give rise to competition. One could, for example, be at the more liberal or conservative end of a party with visible ideological divisions, with implications over time for intra-party competition. In the British Labour Party of the 1980s, for example, one could have imagined the left wing running against the right wing in multi-seat constituencies. Alternatively, candidates may represent themselves as the soul of a party or else run against their parties because they claim they are not liked by headquarters. I am sure the general secretaries present have particular experience of that issue.

In regard to how it is done here, members' guesses are as good as mine. The normal Irish pattern is one where candidates stress their ability to deliver services to an area comprising either an entire constituency or, particularly in cases of divided county boundaries, parts thereof. In other countries, social groups form a more common pattern, with ideological distinctions in some cases.

I have circulated to members our analysis of the 2002 election. We asked a number of questions about how people evaluated each of the candidates in their constituencies to find out what factors were most closely connected to their overall evaluation. On the whole, incumbency is associated with greater popularity. The perception of being close to one's own views is a trivial factor. It is not a question of whether respondents dislike a particular candidate but that they consider it irrelevant whether he or she shares their views.

Deputy Jim O’Keeffe

Does the perception of being good for the area come second in importance?

Professor Michael Marsh

Good for the area is the most important factor.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

How was incumbency determined? Did people say they voted for a candidate because he or she was there?

Professor Michael Marsh

We did not ask respondents why they voted for a particular candidate.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

How was it measured?

Professor Michael Marsh

Incumbency merely means the candidate was an incumbent.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Was there any particular reason other then that of incumbency?

Professor Michael Marsh

It is related to some of those reasons.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Such as recognition.

Professor Michael Marsh

It could include recognition or the fact that incumbents are more likely to have some of the aforementioned good characteristics. Incumbency is important over and above these factors, however.

Being good in the Dáil is only somewhat beneficial. The conclusion we would draw is that voters most want someone who will be good for their area rather than a candidate who shares their views on policy or is a brilliant debater or legislator.

We also asked the straightforward question of why respondents voted for a particular candidate. We can classify the responses into four categories, namely, party, personality, area particularities and policy. It may seem odd that even in constituencies with two candidates from the same party, a similar number of people gave party as their reason. The numbers were small, however, perhaps because people do not consider it as the expected answer. Personality includes statements that a candidate is good for an area or that the voter knew his or her father. Policy is a trivial factor. Very few people said they voted for a candidate because of his or her policies.

Members may be aware of the survey of candidates in the 2007 election conducted under the auspices of an international project originating in Germany. We asked respondents whether they believed they had a chance of winning a seat and who they regarded as their main threats. Excluding independents, 62% of respondents identified candidates from differing parties, 24% identified candidates from their own party and 14% reported both as equal threats. This is an interesting response because, as we will see, it is not that different from the reality.

The general question asked about our electoral system is whether exposing Deputies to challengers from the same party leads to an unhealthy degree of instability in the Dáil. The criticism is often made that if only people were safer in their seats, they could get on with legislating and committee work. The great majority of Deputies are re-elected, which I am sure is a comfort to members, but turnover is boosted by intra-party defeats. Just under 80% of Deputies are re-elected but one could add to that figure those who decide not to stand. That is not out of line with European norms.

Of those who fail to be re-elected, a small proportion lose because their seats are restructured. I owe the numbers underlying these projections to a study conducted by Michael Gallagher and supplemented by Matthew Wall. The majority, 60%, lose to another party but more than 30% lose to running mates, if that is the correct description. Perhaps they were mates previously but not after the election. The figure varies considerably by party. It is rare in respect of other parties and the Labour Party but it happens in Fine Gael, and most Fianna Fáil Deputies who lose their seats do so to candidates from the same party. I am sure that is great for the Fianna Fáil Party but it is not so good for the Deputies concerned. If we had bigger constituencies in which a larger number of parties ran multiple candidates, that tendency might be reflected in other parties.

I have some brief conclusions. Where do we want the intra-party conflict? Do we want it in the selection convention or also at election time? It is hard to argue against the importance of an election as part of that process because it provides more participation and inclusiveness. In democratic terms, it seems much better. It is not that people would not argue against it, but one is always exposed to the view that it is the most democratic way to do it.

If it was just selection criteria and we were not leaving it up to voters, it is possible that the criteria used by selectors could differ from those used by voters. It is also possible that voters might prefer the outcome. It is not always the case that what voters do gives them the outcome they actually want, or that they would want, if they knew what they wanted. One can make an argument that we would all be much better off if we had a list system and let the selectors decide. I have made the point but I will not go into it now; the committee will deal with it at some other time.

What is the basis for competition? By comparison with other countries, candidates here do more to focus attention on themselves and do so by stressing territory and their own capacity to deliver services to an area. In many other countries the question of what parties compete on can seem odd. As I knew I was appearing before the committee and attended conferences with people who study these things in other countries recently, I asked “What do they compete on?” They looked at me somewhat blankly and I had to ask the question in lots of different ways because for some people in countries where there is preference voting the idea that candidates would compete in the way they do here is most peculiar. They barely understand the question.

What difference does it make? It provides a little more, but not a huge amount, of turnover. If we had much larger constituencies it would possibly provide more. Overall, we currently have a high re-election rate. Arguably, the desire to ensure re-election — the reason we have a high re-election rate — is because Deputies work hard to get re-elected by doing things the voters want them to do. Incumbents do it better and that is why they get re-elected.

My final point concerns the small print. Our electoral system provides an incentive for intra-party competition. Where similar incentives exist elsewhere, competition is often much less pronounced. Sometimes voters have very little interest, even if they are given a preference vote they do not use it. They may be happy to choose whatever is recommended by the party. In Denmark, which has a preferential voting system, it could lead to something very similar to our system. Less than 10% of voters gave "candidate" as a reason for their choice of party. In Norway voters were against the introduction of preferential voting in general elections; it has it in local elections. It asked the voters if they would like such a system and they said "No, we would not". They want to deal with parties and not candidates.

In Ireland the form, nature and extent of intra-party competition is not due to our electoral system as such, because other countries have preferential voting systems. If one wanted to examine the sources of that, one would at least have to examine the combination of electoral systems and other aspects of Irish political culture.

Chairman

I thank Professor Marsh. It was a very worthwhile analysis. Questions are lining up in peoples' minds but we will go on. I call on Mr. Ó Caomhánaigh.

Mr. Colm Ó Caomhánaigh

I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to address the committee. The Green Party would only on rare occasions have multiple candidates in elections so we would not have a great deal of experience of the kind of intra-party rivalry other parties would have. I have taken a broader view of the issue and have focused more on the clientelist nature, as a lot of people see it, of the electoral system here, while addressing other elements of the committee's terms of reference. It is rare for the general secretary of a party to get an opportunity like this.

On electoral reform, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, is in the process of setting up an independent electoral commission. While politicians and parties like us can make proposals and give our views from our perspectives over the years, I hope we all commit to accepting whatever comes out of that independent analysis and I hope all parties support it.

The PR-STV system gives more full control to the voter than any other system in the world. Voters can vote across parties and mix in Independents, and for those reasons it is very popular. The voters like it and it also leads to exciting counts, which also make it popular. There is a lot of pride in our almost unique system of voting — I understand Malta is the only other country which has it nationally and Scotland now has it for local elections. It is fair to say other countries are not rushing to adopt it. We have had it for 80 years. The cynical view could be that politicians may not see it as being in their interests as it gives too much power to the voter.

Changing the voting system in Ireland would require a constitutional amendment. Such an amendment has been before the people twice already but I do not think anybody would be foolish enough to try and go for a first past the post system. There may be a possibility of examining other systems. One has to ask oneself why the voters would want to change the system since it seems to give them so much power over the politicians. The recent Nice and Lisbon referendums have shown that unless one can demonstrate to voters a very good reason to adopt what one is proposing, they will vote against it, if only on precautionary principles. We have to have very good reasons for convincing the voters if we want to change the system.

PR-STV creates competition within parties, particularly the larger ones. The Green Party has had a small number of dual candidates. We tend to be very careful in allowing such a situation to arise. We generally cannot rely on a huge percentage of the vote in any area, so we always set the bar very high in terms of the local group convincing us that there are good reasons for running two candidates and that they will work very well together, which would be very high on our list of priorities. If we were not convinced of that we would not allow a two candidate situation to arise.

The competition within parties tends to be based on things like hard graft. Professor Marsh went into more detail on that point, but obviously it is difficult for candidates in the same party to openly differ on policy issues because they are all supposed to be buying into the same manifesto. Certain things may be said on individual doorsteps, where candidates try to differentiate themselves. The competition for lower preferences adds to the clientelist nature of Irish politics because one is not just looking for peoples' first or second preference. Even if somebody is voting for a completely different party, one still hopes one could get a lower preference. One's name and face recognition are significant factors in that.

All these issues have led to quite a clientelist type of politics here. If one compares our system with others, it is fair to say that, for example, the British system seems to be just as clientelist and there seems to be as much door-to-door canvassing and setting up of political clinics as there is here, despite the fact that one does not have intra-party competition in its system. PR-STV system in Malta is notable in that it has failed to break the dominance of the two large parties there, who hold all of the seats in its Parliament, whereas PR-STV would be seen, as any proportional system ought to be, as opening the door for a greater diversity of parties. Those two examples show one cannot put everything down to the electoral system.

It can be an important factor but the history in different countries can override even the electoral system. There is no doubt that clientelism is not present in countries which have a list system. We have very close relations with our fellow Green parties in other countries and most of continental Europe has list systems. We are well aware that they are astonished at the style of politics in Ireland because it is just so different from what they are used to, which is based on policy issues.

The list system would make clientelism redundant as the focus is on policy rather than personality. Different systems can contain an element of candidate selection by the voter, and one name can be taken on the list as a preference, or preferences can be listed as one, two, three or four. There are different complexities in systems which can be adopted.

The danger with list systems is that a candidate's focus is on popularity within the party to get as high up the list as possible. This is against popularity with the public. They try to be good boys and girls within the party and hope the party leader will see that they are high up on the list. Why would the public want a system like that? In the Green Party we have proposed for some time a mixed system where we would retain PR-STV for most of the seats but with a top-up from lists so that we get a proportion of our candidates elected off list systems. I hope they would be more focused on policy.

A mixed system like this would retain voter choice in the majority of seats; PR-STV would be retained because we would not be able to get people to vote for throwing it out.

Deputy Jim O’Keeffe

What would the percentage be?

Mr. Colm Ó Caomhánaigh

I can come to that later with some suggestions. That would improve proportionality. We received just under 3% of the vote and two seats in 1997 and five years later we increased our vote by 1% and trebled the number of seats to six. In the next election we increased the vote by 1% again but saw no increase in seats. In particular for smaller parties, the proportionality is dubious and can jump. If there is a top-up system there can be much more accurate proportionality.

This kind of mixed system is a reasonable compromise with the popular PR-STV, which the voters will want to retain, supported by a top-up system. It would allow people over years to evaluate politicians elected under the two different parts of the system. If we went down this road we could propose a review after two elections, for example, and people could decide if we want more people elected under this top-up system and if we are getting better politicians that way or if we want to kick it out. That would be an advantage.

This could be related to the size of the Dáil. I know this may be the wrong audience to speak to about reducing the size of the Dáil but the number of Deputies could be reduced by approximately 20 and the House would remain within the constraints of the Constitution. The most recent report stated the number of Deputies could go as low as 141, although a larger cut would require an amendment to the Constitution. If this occurred in tandem with the proposition for a mixed system that included a top-up list process, it would help to get the message across to people that we are genuinely trying to create a new system. The introduction of a list system might otherwise be seen as just trying to create safe jobs for politicians. The combination of the idea with a reduction in the size of the Dáil, which many people think should happen because of this country's size, would bring about a chance to be seen as genuinely attempting reform.

We could also consider the size of constituencies and we must ask why there is currently a maximum of five seats in general election constituencies when we can have up to 12 in local election constituencies. Larger constituencies would enable the possibility of fixed boundaries, which has been much discussed lately as well. The number of seats in these could be varied as the population changes rather than having to move boundaries. The most recent report breached a number of county boundaries, which is unfortunate, and people who find themselves in small bits of counties attached to another constituency feel disenfranchised. Such a process would also improve proportionality and no referendum would be needed to carry it out as the Constitution just states that there should be a minimum of three seats per constituency.

The minimum changes we could make would be to reduce the Dáil by 20 seats and increase the size of the constituencies to give ourselves the possibility of having fixed boundaries, or at least much more fixed than they are now. We could have more radical changes to bring the Dáil down to 130 seats, and we suggest 100 Deputies to be elected by PR-STV, which means it would still elect the majority of Members in what might be seen as an experimental stage. Some 30 Deputies could then be elected from lists, although the figures could be played with. The key issue with a mixed system is having people evaluate the merits of one against the other.

To address some other issues within the terms of reference, in terms of diversity the Green Party operates internal gender quotas but this does not happen with the selection of candidates because for the most part, we are selecting single candidates. It is regarded as preferable to let local members decide on the candidate rather than telling them that a male or female must be selected. We have had the highest percentage of female candidates in most recent elections but at 30%, which is what it was most recently, it is still not an acceptable level.

We must analyse the parts of politics in which females participate to a greater extent. For example, at our party convention last year we had a session where our local election candidates were given an opportunity to speak on a topic of their choice for a couple of minutes. The number of women who participated was much higher than when speaking for or against conventional motions. We will increase the time for such a process at our next convention, and in politics generally we should consider how more women are involved at a community level. From this we can consider elements to be brought into the national level. The new programme for Government which was approved in recent weeks suggested linking State funding to gender and equality issues and that could be considered as well.

On the inclusion of immigrants, our party has tended to be more successful in that respect as the international nature of our politics has always led to many immigrant members joining even before this country saw a large number of immigrants. In the recent election we had the highest number of immigrant candidates; that is not just proportionally but in actual numbers. We found such people are much more interested in fundamental principles of the parties and get caught up much less in the minutiae of policy or door-to-door clientelist-level politics. Such a difference in our members who come from abroad has been quite noticeable.

With regard to occupations, politicians are well aware of a lack of diversity in political people's backgrounds, although I am not sure if the public is as well aware. Even local politics has effectively become a full-time job in recent years and all parties are losing many good people and particularly those who hold conventional nine to five jobs. Such people cannot work and pursue a political career. I may be straying from the terms of reference but the issue of regional government is relevant to many of these issues. We foresee a much stronger regional government, particularly in planning, with local councils dealing with the provision of services. Local government could return to a part-time and voluntary level, as it is very important for people to have a more accessible entry level if they want to become involved in politics but are cut off at the moment.

I will briefly refer to some other issues. The idea of names being drawn by lot has been exercised in the Green Party for years. All of us here have been at a count and looked at lower preferences going to four, five, six, seven or eight on the page so that is a "no-brainer". We also support the Gregory method for surpluses, which is used for elections in Northern Ireland. We do not see why it cannot be used here even in the manual system.

We have also long proposed a reduction in the voting age to 16 and suggested the local elections as a trial run if people are concerned about doing it more generally. If people can pay taxes at 16 they should be able to vote. We also support linking a register of electors to other State records, if only to avoid duplication. I have personal experience in the recent referendum of the names of two people, with my address but who do not live in my house being on the supplementary register. It may have been a genuine mistake but we are all agreed that the register needs to be tidied up and linked to some other more reliable form of State records.

My contribution has been more broadly based than intra-party conflict, because we do not have a great deal of that in the Green Party as we all get along very well.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Ó Caomhánaigh for that most useful contribution which was much appreciated. Before I call on Mr. Tom Curran, I will call on Dr. Gerard Hogan. The Joint Committee on the Constitution is assisted on an ongoing basis by one of the foremost constitutional lawyers in the country, Dr. Gerard Hogan. I know he is constrained by a time imperative but I invite him to comment before he goes.

Dr. Gerard Hogan

These are very interesting presentations and I am genuinely sorry that due to another court commitment I cannot stay to hear the other contributors. These thoughts were prompted by the current discussion and the submissions made this morning. There is a great deal to be said for a mixed proportional representation single transferable vote, PRSTV, system and a list system or a variant of that, which would not be quite as popular in Ireland, would be the German system, which is mixed, first past the post and then mixed STV. There are difficulties with the STV system. I listened very closely to what Professor Marsh had to say, but although it may be contra-indicated by the empirical research to which I bow, intuitively I feel it is creating an unnecessary degree of intra-party conflict and specifically tends to reinforce the cultural phenomenon of clientelism. Some form of list system, as well as STV would be a nice balance. The STV has the voter control, contact with the people, but the list system enables other types of people, who can make a significant contribution to political life to be brought into political life. A mix along those lines in something the committee could consider.

I was intrigued by Deputy Enda Kenny's suggestion of the abolition of the Seanad. Everyone in this room would agree, and I certainly felt this in the constitutional review group in 1995-96 that the Seanad as an institution was the least successful institution created by the Constitution. There have been a host of reports trying to find a role for the Seanad. The view of the review group of 1996, was that if the Seanad did not shape up or we could not find a particular role for the Seanad and there was not reform, then serious consideration should be given to its abolition. In a way, aspects of the Seanad are in theory impossible to defend. The only way one can defend it is in practice because there are many exceptional individual Senators, two of whom are present.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Particularly exceptional.

Dr. Gerard Hogan

Particularly exceptional, as we know. One of the difficulties is that in a unitary State such as Ireland it is very difficult to find a distinct role for a second Chamber. One thing that occurs to me — and it comes back to a point made by Mr. ÓCaomhánaigh — is that one of the consequences of the Boundary Commission recommendations and High Court decisions in cases such as O’Donovan and more latterly in Murphy is that the Oireachtas when devising constituencies is increasingly tied into arithmetic. It has very little flexibility in terms of drawing the county boundaries and one finds a situation where there is a constituency where Leitrim is partitioned and a bit of Carlow is stuck on to Kilkenny, which is not terribly satisfactory. I recall a number of people from Leitrim asking me if there was anything they could do to object to the fact that they could not guarantee the election of a single Deputy. I had to say that unlike the United States or a much smaller country such as Switzerland, counties so far as the Constitution is concerned represent simply a line on a map, with no particular standing. I just put this forward.

Deputy Kenny's idea is very interesting, worthwhile and has provoked a great deal of debate. It must be given very serious consideration. No doubt to abolish the Seanad will involve radical surgery on the Constitution. One is simply not concerned with Article 18. There is a host of other interlocking provisions right throughout the Constitution which would have to be taken out. I said to a journalist over the weekend that it was not a simple filling to use the dental analogy, but a root canal treatment plus a number of extractions in so far as the Constitution is concerned. One alternative as well as thinking about that is to try to find a distinct home role for the Seanad in the Constitution and to separate it from the sequence of Dáil elections. This is just a thought, that one would have a system whereby every county elected one or two senators per country so that there is an element along the lines of the US system that reflects territory and geographical considerations but a Seanad that is not as powerful as the Dáil; with a distinct role in the Constitution to do things that the Dáil should not do such as approve appointments to high positions in public life or judicial positions, as happens in the US Senate. Another instance we had not so long ago in these rooms was the impeachment hearing in respect of a judge, and we could give the Seanad a particular role in the scrutiny of EU legislation and this could be written into the Constitution. The Seanad must be separated from the Dáil and should not be tied to Dáil general elections but have the Seanad elected for six years on a fixed term basis and every six years there is an election to the Seanad, with one or two senators per county.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Is that not the wrong way round? Should we not start from the premise of asking if there is a function for the Seanad instead of thinking of a role for the Seanad?

Dr. Gerard Hogan

Absolutely, there may well be no role that we can find for the Seanad.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

We can find a role for anything.

Dr. Gerard Hogan

That is absolutely true.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

If the principle is to find a role, for example find a role for FÁS, that is one way of looking at public administration. A different way of looking at public administration, is asking if it has a compelling place?

Dr. Gerard Hogan

Absolutely. I entirely agree with the Deputy. Many committees have looked at this to see if there is a compelling role for the Seanad. It must be admitted candidly that there is probably no role unless one goes looking for it. I respectfully say that if members think there is no compelling role for the Seanad, then one arrives at the same conclusion that the review group reached in 1995-96 to abolish the Seanad. However, if one thinks that is too radical, perhaps as part of an overall reform package of our institutions, and I think is a compelling case for an overall reform package of the institutions, one might have a system of a composite constitutional amendment which would put a number of possibilities, for example abolish the Seanad and introduce a mixed electoral system or completely change the Seanad along the lines I have suggested and introduce a new electoral system for the Dáil.

These are just some thoughts, Chairman, prompted by the quality of the contributions this morning and Deputy Kenny's interesting suggestion at the weekend.

Deputy Jim O’Keeffe

An addition to the debate.

Chairman

Absolutely. I thank Dr. Hogan.

Dr. Gerard Hogan

I am sorry that I have to leave.

Deputy Jimmy Devins

Is the role of this committee to look at the Dáil or the Oireachtas?

Chairman

The terms of reference are to look at the Constitution.

Deputy Jimmy Devins

With reference to the Dáil or the Oireachtas?

Chairman

Both.

Deputy Jimmy Devins

Are we looking at the Seanad as well as the Dáil?

Chairman

Yes, but our main focus is on the Dáil. We have not aimed at the Seanad.

Mr. Gerard Hogan

I am sorry if I have trespassed.

Deputy Jimmy Devins

Not at all. It was most interesting to hear Mr. Hogan's comments.

Deputy Jim O’Keeffe

It depends on how one views the Seanad.

Deputy Jimmy Devins

My views are well known on that matter.

Chairman

It is an opportune time for Mr. Curran, general secretary, Fine Gael, to make his presentation.

Mr. Tom Curran

Chairman, you will be relieved to know that I intend to stick to the terms of reference.

(Interruptions).

Mr. Tom Curran

Others, however, may be disappointed. I do not have a legal background but when given a brief, I tend to stick to it. I will deal with the impact of the PR-STV system on intra-party dynamics, constituency work, representation of certain demographic groups in Parliament and the influence of individual Members in Dáil Éireann.

The PR-STV system delivers a result proportionate to the share of votes a party wins. If it wins 10% of the popular vote, it should have 10% of the seats available. However, this does not apply equally as not all parties contest in all constituencies. In some cases, smaller parties may have a particular appeal or strength in specific areas such as Dublin or along the east coast. Invariably, the larger parties which contest in all constituencies and run more candidates than smaller parties tend to receive a seat bonus. In the 2007 general election Fianna Fáil won 41% of the popular vote but 47% of the seats, while Fine Gael won 27% of the votes but 31% of the seats.

Our electoral system, in which a party can run more than one candidate, creates competition within parties. Traditionally, the larger parties run more than one candidate in each constituency. In the past three general elections Fianna Fáil ran two candidates or more in every constituency. Fine Gael has run multiple candidates in 70% to 87% of constituencies. In the 2007 election it was 30 constituencies; in the 2002 election, 34, and in the 1997 election, 36. By comparison, the Labour Party ran multiple candidates in fewer than ten constituencies. As recently as 2002, there were three constituencies in which the party did not field a candidate.

The particular phenomenon of intra-party competition arises in Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. Competition within party tickets is frequently credited for increasing a party's first preference vote but this does not always result in seat gains. The role of transfers can be critical, particularly if one candidate is to be eliminated. There is also a premium on vote management to ensure a party maximises its position where it has sufficient votes to gain an extra seat. However, this practice is becoming more difficult, given the reduced likelihood of voters supporting a party ticket down the line.

Electoral strategy of candidate locations and numbers when fielding multiple candidates is all important and each party has its own way of dealing with this. Candidate selection depends on party structures. Who has the power? Who decides the strategy, the degree to which the process is centralised and the role for party members in deciding these matters?

In achieving a balance on party tickets Fine Gael provides for a good deal of centralised control vested in the party leader and exercised through the party's executive council. This includes approval for selection conventions, directives regarding the number of candidates but also taking other factors into account, including gender and geography. In the 2007 general election Fine Gael had approximately 18,000 members out of 35,000 present at candidate selection conventions. That can, of course, be an administrative nightmare. Party members determine the outcomes but the party leader retains power, exercised through the party's executive, to review the tickets, including the power to add, delete or substitute candidates. This power tends to be used more by way of addition than deletion.

When managing campaigns, committee members will be familiar with another aspect of intra-party competition, that in which campaigns turn out to be fractious affairs, particularly if multiple candidates are chasing the same seat. There is plenty of evidence, even around this committee room, of people who have survived such campaigns.

Another aspect of intra-party dynamics which affects all parties but which will continue regardless of what electoral system is in place is the competition to be selected as a candidate in the first place. Frequently, the nature and spread of party membership serve to reinforce existing perceived norms and make it more difficult for new candidates to succeed or outsiders to break into the system.

Fine Gael's internal studies confirm what other studies have reported — that women, in particular, are less likely to be motivated to contest conventions, less likely to succeed at conventions and that party structures frequently create barriers against women's participation. More recently, in approaching the 2009 local elections for town councils the party indicated nationally that no selection convention should proceed unless there was at least one woman nominated. Having made a comprehensive analysis of election results, we are satisfied this policy resulted in more female candidates running and being elected. Ultimately, party support increased in areas with more women on the ticket in comparison to those areas where we did not succeed in running women candidates. An academic study of Fine Gael's quota system showed that over ten years the party had increased its number of town council seats from 39 to 65. The increase was greater with female candidates. That study is available to the committee if it wishes to read it.

There are some aspects of town council conventions which allow for an approach such as more latitude in candidate strategy in a contest for nine seats. In county council or Dáil elections the issue of incumbency is frequently the main obstacle to expanding the range of candidates contesting an election, allied with various other factors such as geography and the optimum number of candidates to maximise the number of seats gained.

When considering the lack of representation of various demographic groups, apart from gender and ethnicity, other deficiencies become apparent such as occupation when one considers the number of lawyers and teachers who represent parties. There is also the issue of dynasties with a tendency for seats to be taken by the next generation of an incumbent. Perhaps these issues would be best addressed by the parties themselves. However, that assumes they will try to succeed in introducing legislation to create, say, a list system which would also address other perceived deficiencies such as the lack of businesspeople, etc. It would address the issue of constituency work dominating one's workload, but the benefits of a list system would depend entirely on how parties responded to such an opportunity and whether they sought to use the facility creatively to bring about some balance in the Dáil. The obvious temptation would be to allocate places on a list to those candidates otherwise less likely to succeed in contested elections and there may be some evidence of that happening in the filling of Seanad positions.

The issue of constituency work being a dominant factor probably has more to do with the nature of Irish politics and society than anything related to the electoral system. For all the earlier arguments about intra-party and inter-party competition the lowest common denominator will always prevail. We are a small country and everything is local. The system is driven at least in part by clientelism and the fact that members of the public feel they have to approach politicians to help them achieve their entitlements, as opposed to having a well-developed system of citizen advice centres, may reflect a failure on the part of the State. It also reflects a national psyche that believes politicians are local and that the public should be able to communicate with their representatives on a personal basis.

The nature of constituency work frequently reflects an individual politician's standing, such as when he or she is a Minister. It might also reflect the type of constituency and it would be interesting to carry out a study of whether there were more clinics in constituencies where there is greater deprivation than others. Even in the UK, where each constituency elects one member, constituency work is a feature. Unfortunately, this aspect of a politician's work may also inhibit people from offering themselves as candidates. We need to be careful lest any introduction of a list system, which might facilitate the entry of new blood, creates a two-tier Dáil in which some Members are elected because they are good workers on the ground while others think of themselves more as legislators who do not have to engage with people.

Ultimately, the mix of those elected, how they become candidates and how they succeed in elections at constituency level all have a bearing on the make-up of the Dáil. The influence of individual members, once they have been elected, is then subject to the limitations associated with party membership, for the most part. The question of whether a Member is to be a backbencher is a matter not for the party but for its leader.

Mr. Robbie Smyth

I am one of the people lucky enough not to be general secretary of Sinn Féin any more, as I have escaped. I had a quick read of the Constitution before I came to the meeting and picked out five or six themes. We have failed as a group of politicians — those who are Members of the Parliament and those who support them. We have collectively built a system of checks and constraints that has led to an unrepresentative Parliament. A look around the room will reveal a number of middle-aged men, including me, and others approaching middle age. That sums it up. Anybody who asked members what education they had and where they were from would find remarkable similarity and that does not amount to a good, healthy Parliament. Every party has a role to play in admitting to that problem.

The Constitution commits us to a PR-STV system with a minimum of three seats per constituency. Why, however, over the past 70 years have we always pushed towards the minimum? The parties that have been in Government for longest have to shoulder the blame for this. The original system to elect Members to Dáil Éireann involved nine-seat and seven-seat constituencies. A powerful case has been made today that this system should return. Why is there universal suffrage for the Dáil but not for the Seanad? If there is a problem with the Seanad it is with the way people are elected to it. As a graduate of NUI, I get a vote but none of the graduates of the college in which I teach have a vote and that is an appalling system. Bit by bit we have constructed a system that does not represent the voters whose rights are supposed to be protected by the Constitution. We have left voters in the Constitution and built an electoral system that does not represent them.

Alongside this has emerged a theology that STV is a great system and that multi-seat constituencies and local representation amount to a great system. Members of the committee will see a picture of Maurice Duverger on the slide. His work showed that the electoral system creates the party system — not the other way around. There is a theology that our parties are somehow outside the party system but they are not. We need to recognise that we are all here by the grace and favour of a system we created. The result is that the choice of the voter, who is supposed to be protected by the Constitution, is constricted. Voters have a pseudo-choice in the form of the intra-party competition. They are to ask which person in Fianna Fáil they like or which in Fine Gael or the Labour Party. According to ballot papers plenty of people stand for election but because the system looks at people rather than parties we have undermined it. The elected representatives, such as those in my party, are incentivised to participate in geographical and local struggles rather than getting on with the business of doing what they were elected for.

What chance has a Deputy of initiating legislation on the floor of this House or amending it successfully? The only example of which I know is Deputy Alan Shatter in his impressive work on family law but I do not believe any other Member has ever initiated a Bill and successfully brought it to a conclusion. It is appalling that over some 60 or 70 years no Member has been able to produce his or her own legislation.

One reason for this is the erosion of local government. More than 70% of the local authorities we inherited after partition have been dismantled and whenever I ask why I am told it is because of corruption. That is another area in which we have failed as the past 15 years show that we still have corruption in local government. We have diluted the responsibilities of the councils that are left and have eroded their fiscal stance and planning authority. A good example is the fact that Glasnevin, Cabra, Ballymun and Finglas have no local councils but, a little further north, Ardee, Drogheda, Dundalk, Carrickmacross, Castleblayney, Monaghan, Clones and Ballybay all have councils. Some people get to vote twice for local authority members while others only vote once.

The Boundary Commission is probably the most successful tool whereby Governments thwart the electoral system. For example, why do people in Dublin North-East, Dublin North-West and Dublin North-Central only elect three Members while the cosier suburbs in the south, especially Dublin South, Dún Laoghaire and Dublin South-Central, get to elect four or five Members? Why is that acceptable? What are we saying to voters in north inner city Dublin — that their vote does not count?

Deputy Jim O’Keeffe

Is it not based on population?

Mr. Robbie Smyth

It is based on a sleight of hand. Why can there be a five-seater constituency on one side of the river but not on the other? Pardon my French but it is appalling because it tells voters that they do not count. It appears, however, one counts when one becomes wealthy or is male.

In regard to the options, people have gone back and forth on the list system. I would support trying it out but if it means that intra-party competition is brought behind closed doors it may not be a good idea. Perhaps we should consider changing constituency sizes or following the example of the Assembly in the North, to which Sinn Féin elects multiple candidates and, in some cases, wins four or five seats in six-seat constituencies. In the 2005 Westminster elections, the DUP won half the 18 seats with just one third of votes. Sinn Féin won five seats but the UUP, with 70% of the vote, walked away with only one. The 2007 Assembly elections were much more proportional. Every seat has the same weighting and six people are elected in each constituency. The constituencies are the same as those for Westminster elections but the proportionality is much greater. While intra-party competition is not prevented, it is minimised through attractive and simple strategies. A similar result could be achieved here without any change to the Constitution if we developed fairer terms for the Constituency Commission.

In my bleaker days, I read James Madison, who described political parties as factions with dangerous vices. We need to face up to the fact that sometimes we are part of factions. He accused them of causing instability, injustice and confusion and if one looks at our electoral system, one would have to say "true, true and true." He also described them as a mortal disease for governments. We may not be killing a government but I put it to members that we are killing an electoral system.

From what I have heard today, other parties share our goals for an electoral system. In regard to whether every voter is motivated to go to the polls, the clear answer at present is "No". Should we stand over a system in which education, social class, geography and other factors influence voter habits and, in some cases, discourage voting? What is the logic behind constituency sizes and electoral boundaries, such as the change of Sligo-Leitrim into Sligo-North Leitrim? The Constituency Commission is told to respect county boundaries yet its first action was to split a county into two. Does our system of factions or political parties prevent the entry of others into politics? Perhaps we could develop a system which ensures that the Dáil is more representative of the wider population when I next meet the committee.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Smyth for presenting a different perspective. I now call the general secretary of Fianna Fáil, Mr. Seán Dorgan.

Mr. Seán Dorgan

I thank the Chairman and members for their kind invitation to attend this morning's meeting. I propose to address four issues arising from the presentation I have circulated among members, namely, the current electoral system, the debate on the role of constituency work, intra-party dynamics and demographic issues in representation.

The most obvious point is that electoral systems profoundly matter. There is no agreement on what comprises the best system of voting in a democracy, however. Professor Marsh noted that the system employed in Ireland to elect public representatives is unique. We employ a candidate-only STV system in multi-seat constituencies and, having endorsed it on three occasions, it is clear that Irish people like it. They like it partly because they are probably innately conservative in endorsing constitutional change, particularly in regard to something as important as the electoral system. However, it also puts significant power into the hands of voters. Every voter goes to the polls in the knowledge that he or she can make a profound impact on the outcome of an election.

One of the characteristics of the system is extensive direct contact between elected representatives and voters. I am aware that the committee is investigating the area of constituency work. The RTE-Lansdowne exit poll in the 2007 general election asked people what influenced them most to vote for particular candidates. The highest proportion, or 40%, cited someone who looked after the needs of their constituencies as the primary factor in deciding how to vote. The choice of Taoiseach or likely Cabinet was cited by 34% and party policies were cited by 24%. The public clearly knows what it wants from elected representatives. A Deputy who wishes to be elected has to engage in a significant amount of constituency work. While constituency work is not unique to the Irish system, its scale probably is. It is difficult to know whether reducing the amount of work would lead to an improvement in representation.

My colleagues have spoken about intra-party dynamics and Mr. Curran indicated that larger parties have a higher tendency to run multiple candidates. In the last three general elections, Fianna Fáil ran two or more candidates in each Dáil constituency. Of necessity this creates intra-party tensions. In the Irish system, conflicts are most apparent at constituency level but in other systems they are more likely to surface at regional and national levels. It has been suggested that a list system would reduce intra-party rivalry but I am not sure if I agree. I am reminded of a comment by Deputy Fleming, who previously worked in the Fianna Fáil head office. He described the list system as profoundly undemocratic and expressed the concern that it would move candidates' focus towards gaining favour with party leadership. Rivalry is merely transferred to another area.

In terms of representation of particular demographic groups, we would all agree there are too few women in Dáil Éireann. I acknowledge that this issue is being investigated by another Oireachtas committee. Several years ago, Fianna Fáil commissioned Professor Yvonne Galligan to develop a ten-year programme on women's representation. It could be argued that the current system militates against women's representation. Countries in which participation is higher include those which have adopted a list system. It can be much better managed. Professor Farrell would have said when he came before the committee that it is probably much more complex than that. I agree with my colleague from Fine Gael that parties, including mine, need to do much more in that area in terms of positive action measures to ensure we improve the situation. In the local elections we ran more female candidates than we did previously. It is still a more complex issue than just filling quotas.

The final area the committee prioritised relates to the impact of the electoral system on the type of members who are elected and on policy making. Given the extent to which the public prioritise local impact when deciding who they wish to vote for, to which I referred earlier, it is inevitable that the main route to the Dáil is and, probably as long as the system is in place, will continue to be local work as a councillor or as a local activist. This necessarily limits the range of people who will run or be elected. In cases where a person from outside a local area is chosen from a prominent position to run without a background of local work, it tends to be on the basis that he or she already has a high profile.

Some people suggest the relatively limited routes to election have a serious impact on policy formulation within the Oireachtas. The evidence for this is not clear. It is a debate many parliaments throughout the world have and they employ different systems. Some people will never be happy with the make-up of an electoral system or parliament, but from my six years working with Members of the Oireachtas on a daily basis, the quality of work they deliver is extensive and is beyond the stereotype which may exist.

The list system might deal with certain issues, such as ensuring a greater range of experience and increasing the representation of demographic groups and women, but I am not sure it deals with the fundamental issue and needs a great deal of careful thought and consideration.

Chairman

We have had great contributions overall.

Deputy Jim O’Keeffe

It has been a fascinating morning. I compliment all those who contributed, who certainly extended the boundaries of our knowledge on issues in which we are all very interested.

On the list system first mentioned by Professor Marsh, has any study been done or is any information available from other countries on how the lists are fixed? Are they always controlled centrally or under the command of party leaders? Is there any democratic input to the formulation of the lists and, in particular, the placings on the lists?

Has any work been done regarding the different systems in this country, from the point of view of the make-up of conventions and smoke-filled rooms? Our party has a one member, one vote system, whereas previously there were a number of delegates per branch. I am not sure how Fianna Fáil decide such matters. Perhaps there are a number of delegates per cumann. Has any work been done on the different systems operating at conventions and whether they affect the outcomes to any great degree?

I refer to Mr. Smyth's contribution. I did not get the point about the make-up of inner city constituencies. I understand there has to be a comparative number in terms of population in each constituency. Is the point that——

Chairman

The point was that one would have a better chance of winning a seat in a five-seat constituency than in a three-seat one.

Deputy Jim O’Keeffe

One would want larger constituencies in inner city and north Dublin, as opposed to three-seat constituencies.

Mr. Robbie Smyth

It would seem that when the Boundary Commission comes to Dublin, it has one set of conditions for drawing boundaries on the south side of the city and south county Dublin and a different set for the north of the city.

Deputy Jim O’Keeffe

Is Mr. Smyth referring to the size of the constituency?

Mr. Robbie Smyth

Dublin North-Central was a four-seat constituency and it became a three-seat one, and the Dublin North-East constituency with three seats and a new Dublin North-West constituency with three seats were created.

Deputy Jim O’Keeffe

Smaller constituencies were created. Mr. Ó Caomhánaigh referred to the independent electoral commission, which decides all sorts of issues. When we appoint such commissions we usually appoint a judge to oversee them. I thought politicians were elected to decide issues, rather than having a judge decide what are very serious electoral issues for the future of the country.

Chairman

I will bank these questions because time is not on our side. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe mentioned three issues.

Deputy Jimmy Devins

I will be brief. I thank all the speakers. Like other members I found the contributions fascinating. Did the analysis Professor Marsh presented examine an 80-year period, from 1927 to 2007?

Professor Michael Marsh

Yes.

Deputy Jimmy Devins

Are there any figures on the more recent elections, particularly the last two? I understand there was approximately 35% turnover of personnel in the previous general election. Perhaps some of the other speakers could enlighten us.

"Clientelism" has been referred to as if it is a dirty word. I do not agree it is a dirty word. In many ways it forms the basis of our democracy and all of us are aware that at times it is very beneficial. I was also very interested in Mr. Curran's comments on the analysis of the work done in clinics. I am interested to know if any of the speakers have information on the socioeconomic background of people who attend Deputies' clinics and/or an analysis of the amount of work which comes our way via phone calls or e-mails. While in the past I perceived the clinic as being a vital component, and still probably is, more of my work is coming via phone calls and e-mails rather than from people coming to a structured clinic.

I agree with one of Mr. Smyth's contentions, which is why I asked the Chairman if we were examining the Seanad. I did not mean any disrespect to Dr. Hogan. The election of Members of the Seanad is badly in need of reform. He gave the example that he had a vote for the NUI panel. I have a worse example. I have a vote for the NUI panel, the Trinity panel and a vote as a public representative. As a former chairman of Sligo IT, I can say with my hand on my heart that many graduates who were much better qualified than I am have no vote at all. The situation pertaining to the Seanad is very topical, but we need a severe analysis and reform of the situation.

I agree with much of what Mr. Dorgan said. It is interesting that Fianna Fáil is the only party which has two or more candidates in every constituency. I will make no further comment on that.

Chairman

Is that a comment?

Deputy Jimmy Devins

I said I would not make any more comments.

Deputy Denis Naughten

Who does Deputy Devins not want Mr. Dorgan to give the nomination to in his constituency in the next election?

Senator Eugene Regan

Professor Marsh's presentation is very telling in that it shows personality and the individual are dominant in the election of candidates and that, in a sense, people get what they want or the Government they deserve.

Mr. Robbie Smyth makes two points that I would like to take up. What chance has a Deputy today of initiating legislation or amending it successfully? A Member can initiate legislation as a Deputy or Senator, and I have done so in the Seanad. Invariably, it is shot down by the Government because in a sense the Legislature is an extension of the Government and is seen as such. Any ideas, suggestions, amendments or thoughts on new legislation tend to be rejected by the Government, which discourages the legislators in the Seanad and the Dáil from initiating measures and formulating ideas. That is very different from the United States, where Congressmen and Senators see such action as one of their fundamental roles.

It was also stated in the presentation that people have no incentive to come out to vote. In the plebiscites I have been involved with, including the Lisbon treaty referendum, people have been very engaged. People voted "No" decidedly in the first Lisbon treaty referendum, as there was a high turnout. On the second occasion, Dún Laoghaire, along with all other areas, had a very high turnout. There was a 74% participation rate in that constituency, with 81% deciding to vote "Yes" on this occasion. Whereas there may be problems with the system, voters are not switched off from the electoral system in any of the areas within a constituency.

There are two issues raised in Mr. Ó Caomhánaigh's paper with which I fully agree. The order of names of candidates in elections should be drawn by lots rather than alphabetically. I fully endorse that.

Deputy Jim O'Keeffe took the Chair.

Deputy Denis Naughten

I am of the same opinion.

Senator Eugene Regan

I compliment the witness on coming up with the initiative. Mr. Ó Caomhánaigh also made the point of linking the register of electors to other State records. We have a problem with the electoral register and there are databases which tell us where people live. People are paying bin charges to local authorities but they are not on the electoral register. There is confusion and yet there is no access to other material which would establish an accurate electoral register.

The fundamental problem is that there is no obligation or onus on residents to register and they cannot be put on the electoral register without their permission. This is a very good point with which I fully agree but there must be some change in the obligation to register, although not the obligation to vote. This would lead to an accurate electoral register.

Mr. Dorgan spoke on the quality of Members of the Dáil and Seanad, although he mainly spoke about the Dáil. There is a current debate, coming from Deputy Kenny's initiative, on the abolition of the Seanad because it does not work. One could also say that the Dáil is not working either. This relates to the subject of initiating legislation and it being blocked subsequently, or amendments to Government legislation being rejected in favour of Government amendments. There is a failure of debate and in finding a role for the legislator which is recognised by Government as valid. Ideas must be accommodated so that legislators can be used as an extension of the Executive.

On the quality of what we have, the problems Ireland has today are largely due to the type of Government we have had over the past 12 years. I do not want to get political on this but the paper indicates that the quality of the work of the individual Deputies and Ministers is beyond the stereotype. There are fundamental problems with the economy and there are issues of waste in FÁS and CIE. Such problems do not occur by accident and are a result of a lack of control or quality in administration, which goes back to the people in the Dáil and those who form the Government. Such facts cannot be avoided if we lead from the statements in the presentation.

Vice Chairman (Deputy Jim O’Keeffe)

That sounds like a counter-attack against the Dáil.

Senator Eugene Regan

It is constructive criticism.

Vice Chairman

We must seek our constitutional path.

Deputy Denis Naughten

I compliment everybody who presented this morning. There were some very thought-provoking contributions. Representing one of the most infamous counties for inter-party rivalry down the years, I have had first-hand experience of it in my household. There is the difficulty of intra-party rivalry when fighting for a single seat, and three-seat constituencies have traditionally brought about some of the more historic rivalries down through the years.

A number of the presentations this morning dealt with the structure of the multi-seat constituencies, with the focus on three-seat constituencies rather than those with more seats. There was a valid point in that respect. Does Professor March believe there would be more scope for people with a greater focus on legislation if constituencies had more seats? The threshold for election, the quota, would be lower, for example. The presentation indicated that just short of 10% of people vote on the basis that a person is good in the Dáil. One of the presentations suggested a nine-seat constituency, so that proportion would be a quota of votes. Would that bring about the type of representation which people are talking about and which is urgently needed? I will return to this in terms of legislation in a minute.

There is a valid argument for multi-seat constituencies in more urban areas. A suggestion has been made to address the issue in our constituency of splitting County Leitrim. If the population threshold is changed, we will end up in a position where we will have a five-seat constituency taking in Roscommon, Leitrim and Sligo. People look at this as an ideal scenario but there are geographical implications that are not being considered. For example, what relevant issues would a person living on the border with County Offaly have with a person living on the border with County Donegal. The distance between the two is almost half the length of the country in such a scenario, with one end of the constituency bearing no relevance to the other end because of the vast geographical areas involved.

There is merit in increasing the size of constituencies but it is important to have some type of shared relevance throughout a constituency rather than just putting it in place to end up with round figures. County boundaries are important and, representing part of County Leitrim, I have first-hand knowledge of these implications. There is also the issue of hinterlands. Roscommon has been part of seven or eight different constituencies over the past two generations but the most comfortable down the years was Roscommon-East Galway, which split part of Galway. The part which came into the constituency was part of the hinterland of County Roscommon. The issue is far more complex than just placing lines on the map and we cannot say that just introducing five, six or seven-seat constituencies will resolve the problem. Far more thought needs to go into it.

I will return to the issue of legislation and legislators, as one of the arguments being made for introducing a list system is so people can have greater focus on bringing legislation through the Dáil. I have been a Member of both Houses of the Oireachtas during the past 12 years and it was far easier to get amendments accepted when I entered the Dáil 12 years ago than it is today. Part of the problem — this is not a political accusation by any manner or means — is that Ministers have been incumbent for almost that whole period and they are far too reliant on the advice being provided by officials. When one tables an amendment and puts the case for it one is not arguing with the Minister but trying to convince the officials who are advising him. That was not the case in the Dáil that ran from 1997 to 2002. Ministers then were far more amenable to taking on amendments. The late former Minister, Seamus Brennan, had a very strong reputation for listening to the Opposition and taking on board its suggestions and proposals. While the Dáil may be failing to do that now, it may be as a result of the elections rather than the structure of the Dáil.

The other flaw with the system that many people have highlighted is that constituency work is frowned upon. A considerable number of the amendments I have tabled were based on what I picked up in my clinics and from dealing with social welfare and finance.on behalf of people in the constituency. If one looks at the contributions of members on legislation, they are relevant to the issues that were raised in the constituency. There is a perception that people are coming to clinic to avail of something to which they are not entitled, but that is not the case. As Deputy Devins mentioned, the number of people coming to clinics has fallen significantly as they are using the newer technologies to contact their representatives. I think that when we are made aware of anomalies in the system, we improve as legislators. The difficulty is that many of the amendments tabled by backbenchers from both the Government and the Opposition are not being taken on board and as a result the Dáil is being undermined. Professor Marsh or his colleagues may look at this issue as it would be interesting to do an analysis of the number of amendments that have been accepted in principle or as worded in the past, compared with now, because the impression I have formed from tabling recent amendments is that they are not being taken on board. The issues and challenges are more complex than simply looking at the number of seats we have in the constituencies and at the electoral system.

Vice Chairman

I endorse that last point. Deputy Naughten and I hope to introduce a fisheries Bill on behalf of the Fine Gael Party. The fishermen along the seaboard in my constituency have a deep, burning resentment at the idea of being criminalised for minor and technical offences while at sea. Contact with constituents feeds into Deputies' work as legislators.

Deputy Edward O’Keeffe

It was unfortunate that I missed most of Professor Marsh's contribution. In rural areas there is much criticism of commissions and the setting up of selection committees. In the past, the Government set up political commissions and independent commissions. I would like to see a comparative study of the independent and the political commissions and the effectiveness of each. I can look at a number of constituencies in County Cork that have become more cumbersome with the new systems. The constituency of Cork North West comes into the back of Kildorrey, for example, and it is a whole sprawling constituency. I have a very good constituency, a four seater, which would be a model in terms of geography and mileage, and I look at other constituencies, for example, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's constituency which stretches from Castletownbere and Allihies up to Cork city. Something must be done for these areas because many people cannot meet their Deputy, of whatever persuasion. There are problems in these areas that are not being addressed. The new commissions are shifting the boundary lines.

I take an interest in the British electoral system and last night I watched what was happening in the House of Commons. There is a lot to be said for the single seat, but we dismiss it. When it was put to a referendum, it was lost on two occasions, but there might be another time to put it to the people. The most efficient system of election is the single-seat constituency as one does not have to have a battle royal with the four or five members of the party seeking the nomination. My point is that rivalry within the party is worse than the rivalry in the constituency. We inherited many aspects of the British system. I listened to Mr. Smyth from Sinn Féin and his views on how the system should work. To be straight, the first election in this country was in 1918 when Sinn Féin won all the seats. From reading history, many candidates were imposed on constituencies across the country and were elected. I think Mr. Smyth should read some history to get it right.

Mr. Robbie Smyth

The Deputy should use the word "we". We share the blame.

Deputy Edward O’Keeffe

I come from a rural background and the proposed reduction of the alcohol limit for driving is causing my telephone to hop in my pocket. I have had 15 messages because I did not make my position clear on the issue. I will never again be heard of in Leinster House if I do not say that the alcohol limit must stay at 80 milligrams.

Vice Chairman

We will not decide that issue now.

Deputy Edward O’Keeffe

Part of clientelism is that people tell their representative what they want.

Mr. Smyth states that the Northern Assembly comprises a mix of people. I met the members of the Northern Ireland assembly on a number of occasions. The representatives come from all persuasions, educationalists, doctors, dentists and farmers, and there is a gender and age balance. The membership of the assembly is no different from the membership of the Oireachtas.

We will never get the ideal system because we live in a democracy and the people have the right to decide whom they want.

Vice Chairman

Deputy Ned O'Keeffe made an interesting contribution, going back to 1918.

Senator Denis O’Donovan

He went astray.

Vice Chairman

I can recall a granduncle of mine telling me that in that election he voted 26 times so perhaps it was not quite a perfect electoral system.

Deputy Edward O’Keeffe

Probably with a revolver.

Vice Chairman

I welcome Deputy Joe Behan.

Deputy Joe Behan

I found all the presentations very interesting. This committee is very important and vital for the future of this country, never more so than now when there has never been a greater interest in politics. I came to this meeting today to say that I am strongly opposed to any suggestion that a list system be introduced for the selection or election of people to Dáil Éireann. The Dáil is the primary elected body in the country. To suggest that any Member of that House would not have the endorsement of the people individually on the basis of his or her capabilities and views, would be very wrong. I have great respect for all the work done by general secretaries of all parties and in particular Mr. Seán Dorgan, as he is the man I know best. He has been a very professional and successful general secretary. However, a list system would give even more power to people such as Mr. Dorgan and other general secretaries in political life to select the individuals who will represent the people. I appeal to the committee to reject any system that would not include direct election by the people of every Member of Dáil Éireann.

Speakers have mentioned clientelism. People elect Deputies to represent them along with their views and interests in the forum which matters and where decisions are made. It is important that we do not lose that contact. The Civil Service is the permanent government which never changes and the same is true at local level of the local authorities. Deputies perform a vital role in being the intermediary between their constituents and the permanent government which effectively controls much of what happens in the country. Looking back over the past 12 years, the permanent government, the Civil Service and in particular, the Department of Finance, has let us down seriously with regard to some of the advice it has given to Ministers over that period.

I am in a particular position as a result of the decision I made a year ago. It was a very difficult personal decision. Every Member of the Dáil has to wrestle with the dilemma of what happens when he or she is asked by the party to support a measure he or she cannot support. Where is the distinction to be made on supporting the party line even if it is against a genuine personal belief? I am sure every Member from every party has that conflict. It would be preferable and it would result in a much better system of democracy if there were far more opportunities for free votes in Dáil Éireann so that Members holding a particular view on issues of the day could vote in a way they believed was right even if it meant conflicting with the party on that occasion. I have never said that the mission or vision of Fianna Fáil to which I subscribed was wrong; I still believe in many of the values for which Fianna Fáil stands. However, when one comes to a decision on a point of conscience or principle that one must go against the party line, effectively one has no option but to leave the party. We would be far better served if more Deputies could vote in a free way without the necessity of taking the ultimate step which, unfortunately, I was obliged to take.

Vice Chairman

I appreciate Deputy Behan's comments coming as they do from his particular perspective. We are joined by Deputy Kennedy and I have no doubt we will hear about north County Dublin.

Deputy Michael Kennedy

I was here at the start of the meeting but I had to absent myself as I was trying to resolve some rural drink driving issues for the Vice Chairman, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, in the meantime.

Vice Chairman

We have decided to leave that off the agenda.

Deputy Michael Kennedy

I realised I was leaving electoral reform in very capable hands.

I welcome all the contributors from the various parties. The list system is not good. It would not be good for Ireland. Clientelism has been referred to by other speakers. I have seen the list system in use in Europe and over the years I have met many who have been elected by the list system in Belgium and Holland and other countries. I do not regard it as a really democratic system. Any politician should be elected by the people. Deputy Behan referred to the role of a Deputy and clientelism. In my experience, people expect one to be a clientelist politician when they have a problem and equally if one chooses to ignore their request, they do not think very highly of such a politician and I suspect that at a subsequent election they would exercise their right to omit such a politician from their voting list.

The question of one Deputy per area such as a council ward area has merit for discussion. However, choosing the route as per European countries of selecting people who happen to be very well in with the party leader or the general secretary — meaning no disrespect to the general secretary of my party, Mr. Seán Dorgan——

Deputy Jimmy Devins

Just in case.

Deputy Michael Kennedy

Anyone with political aspirations should come up through the ranks and prove themselves to their own local organisation, be successful in a convention and/or selection process and go before the people and be elected by the people. Anyone elected by the people has a real mandate whereas a person who is merely included on a list has never gone out before the people and rarely will ask the people for their opinions. It would not be in the best interests of Ireland to have such a system. I apologise again for delaying the meeting and for missing most of the contributions.

Vice Chairman

These proceedings are being recorded but I will ask for a brief response to the various issues raised. I do not expect the delegates to deal comprehensively with the issues at this stage.

Professor Michael Marsh

I will be brief. There is a great variation in how list orderings are organised. It is not always the case that the great dictator sits at the top and draws up the list. Very often the lists are compiled with lots of different regional lists and the input into the regional list comes from the party and the sub-groups within the party. It is not necessarily a dictatorship and there is great variety.

In terms of evidence of different selection mechanisms on outcomes in Ireland, this has not been formally studied but I would hazard a guess that in all the different selection mechanisms that have been used, the item at the top of most selectors' minds is to win seats. Any mechanism used is designed to deliver candidates whom it is considered will be liked by the voters and most people have the same views of those candidates.

On the question of whether recent elections were different, I saw the figures for recent elections only yesterday but they passed through my brain and out again so I am unable to say. However, even if they were different, it is just one election and the numbers can be quite small. It is possible they were different but they might not be significantly different from the overall train. It would be nice to trace it over time and there has probably been less competition now in many ways than there might have been previously. Parties used to, as it were, over-nominate to a much greater degree than they do now.

On the question of whether clientelism is beneficial, this may not be the occasion to study it but clientelism means many different things to different people and probably everybody would say it is good. It means a representative can put people in contact with the appropriate individuals or services and it means a representative can bring the views of the constituency to bear on legislation. I do not think anyone would deny that those are good things. On the whole, this is not what we call clientelism as clientelism is defined as giving people things to which they are not entitled or persuading them that they have received them through the intercession of the representative. It is a form of interfering with the proper distribution of goods and services in a country where this would be done in an optimum manner. If a Minister directs 15% of sports grants to his constituency rather than to another constituency, that is classic clientelism and very few people outside the Minister's immediate group would defend that practice. This is the sort of practice which people outside this House are very unhappy about when it comes to clientelism.

With regard to the socioeconomic backgrounds of those using political clinics, we conducted surveys on the use of clinics. As the committee might suspect, working-class people are more likely to go to constituency clinics. Middle class people are more likely to send e-mails or ring up but they equally use the goods and services provided. Would we get a different a sort of candidate if we had larger constituencies? I cannot think of any reason we would. What would become even more important if we had nine seater constituencies in rural areas is that the county would become even more important as the unit from which people got their support. For example, one would need to ensure there was someone from Leitrim and someone from Roscommon. I could remark on most of the other matters but perhaps I should pass over. I refer to the comment on single seat constituencies being the greatest of all electoral systems. There are not many cases that come to mind of a country that has changed its system and opted for a single seat constituency system in the past 50 years.

Mr. Colm Ó Caomhánaigh

I wish to address one of the issues raised by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe on the independent commission and the wisdom of it making decisions rather than politicians. I see the role as an extension of that of the Boundary Commission which decides on constituencies. The Standards in Public Office Commission also plays a role. I understand both organisations will be absorbed into the electoral commission but that the new body will also examine the electoral systems. We have heard different views from different people here. A cynic could state smaller parties seek larger constituencies because they would get more seats and the larger partiers would oppose that view. We all have our own perspective. Naturally, a candidate with a name beginning with "R" would prefer names drawn by lot and a candidate with the name beginning with "A" would prefer——.

Senator Eugene Regan

I am simply being objective.

Mr. Colm Ó Caomhánaigh

Absolutely. We are open to those accusations and we all have our own perspective. We need an independent commission, as Mr. Smyth pointed out in his presentation.

Vice Chairman

The point I made regarding the electoral commission fixing boundaries is that it is established by the Oireachtas and receives the terms of reference within which it must operate. It is not an independent body established outside the Oireachtas to make major political decisions without any reference to the Oireachtas which, ultimately, must accept any decision or recommendations coming from it.

Mr. Colm Ó Caomhánaigh

The way the Boundary Commission operates is that, inevitably, any movement of boundaries will not suit some politicians and will suit others. One establishes an independent commission to examine the matter. For example, Members may be unhappy with splitting Leitrim or the latest case involving splitting the town of Swords, which seems most extraordinary. However, the Dáil accepts these proposals.

Vice Chairman

Traditionally, it has accepted it.

Mr. Colm Ó Caomhánaigh

Yes, and the same would apply in this case. If the body produces a new electoral system and if it is radically different it will not only have to be accepted by the Oireachtas, it will have to be accepted by the people in a referendum. For this reason I do not foresee any problem. The terms of reference are critical. The terms of reference for the Boundary Commission have varied throughout the years. For example, the number of three seat constituencies has increased in recent reviews, whereas the terms of reference in the past have stated there must be an equal number of three seat, four seat and five seat constituencies. The terms of reference can be critical.

Vice Chairman

There is a Vote in the House and Members must answer the call. There is not much point trying to reconvene after the Vote because of other commitments. We appreciate the contributions made to date and if any members of the delegation wish to send a note to the secretary with any additional points arising from the debate we would be glad to consider them. I regret we do not have another ten or 15 minutes to finish off what was a very interesting discussion. It will fully inform the report which we will present to the Oireachtas on completion of our deliberations. I thank the delegation again. We must call a halt to proceedings.

The joint committee adjourned at 11.45 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 4 November 2009.