JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 2 Feb 2010

Electoral System Review: Discussion.

Chairman

On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome the provost of Trinity College, Dr. John Hegarty, our distinguished guests, students from Trinity College and all others present. This is the first time the committee has hosted a formal meeting outside the parliamentary precincts of Leinster House. We are very pleased everyone could join us on this historic occasion. I thank the Provost for inviting the committee to hold this meeting in the college. It was a great pleasure to accept the invitation. I express sincere gratitude to the Irish politics junior sophister class, the department of political science, Dr. Elaine Byrne, Séin Ó Muineacháin and Mr. Matthew Wall for their work in organising and hosting this event.

We are honoured to be joined by Dr. John Bowman, a fellow of Trinity College. We are also joined by Professor Kenneth Benoit, head of the department of political science, Senator Ivana Bacik, another fellow of Trinity College, and Mr. Justice Frank Clarke. From the Houses of the Oireachtas, I welcome the director of committees, Mr. Art O'Leary, and his deputy director, Mr. Ciarán Smith. I also welcome all of the supporting staff of the Houses.

The committee is made up of Members of Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann. Its Vice Chairman is my colleague, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe. The members present are Deputies Michael D'Arcy, Jimmy Devins, Brendan Howlin, Michael Kennedy, Denis Naughten, Edward O'Keeffe and Michael Woods and Senators Dan Boyle, Eugene Regan and Alex White. The clerk to the committee, Ms Anne-Marie Fahy, who has done superb work in preparing for this meeting is also present.

I invite the provost to make his opening remarks.

Dr. John Hegarty

It is my pleasure to welcome the Chairman and members of the Joint Committee on the Constitution to this public theatre in Trinity College. I also welcome the students and staff of the department of political science and members of the public. This is the first time the fully constituted committee has met outside Leinster House and we are honoured that it is Trinity College it has decided to visit on its first outing. I understand this is the first time a fully constituted Oireachtas committee has met in Trinity College; therefore, we are doubly honoured.

This university has combined many traditions over its history, in the course of which there have been some interesting intersections between these traditions. Some of the portraits on the walls will give one a little sense of that history. It might interest the committee to know that the chandelier in this hall once hung across the road in the House of Commons and over Grattan's Parliament. Henry Grattan was a very distinguished student of this university. He was a great orator and advocate for political reform. I think he would be happy, 200 years after his own time, that a Government of Ireland sitting in Dublin is again advocating reform and that one of the committees of that Government is debating electoral reform in his alma mater, right across the street from where he acted as a politician. He would be particularly pleased to find the academic discipline, political science, and that his student successors, third year students in political science, are fully engaged in the affairs of the State and with the committee on reform.

In these difficult times when there is so much negativity around us we should take heart from our students because they are the leaders of the future. Knowing what they are up to, I have no concerns about the future. In that respect, our future is very secure. We should take heart from this, especially in this institution of education and learning.

Perhaps the committee will get a sense of the spirits that are, perhaps, still floating around in this hall and on this campus. I congratulate it on venturing forth from the bowels of Leinster House and hope it will return from time to time. I congratulate the third year students and the department of political science on convincing it to come to Trinity College. It is our honour. I wish the committee good luck this evening.

Chairman

The committee is undertaking a review of Article 16 of the Constitution which provides for the election of Members of Dáil Éireann. We are particularly pleased to have the opportunity to engage directly with students of the Irish politics sophister class to hear their views on the electoral system and at the same time receive valuable feedback on our performance to date. We will now hear from eight student guest speakers. After each speaker has contributed, there will be a brief response from a member of the committee. The first speaker is someone who learned some of his trade at the foot of a master. I am delighted to welcome Mr. Declan Harmon and invite him to make his contribution.

Mr. Declan Harmon

The Chairman taught me well. Go raibh maith agat as an deis chun labhairt anseo anocht.

My submission focuses on how we can reform the electoral system by introducing regional constituencies, using a list system coupled with traditional constituency seats. I will also discuss how those regional seats could be elected.

The current crisis in our country has brought many of the institutions of our society, both public and private, under scrutiny. Are they delivering results? Are they fit for purpose? Quite rightly, our democratic system has not escaped such scrutiny. Regrettably, many are cynical and sceptical about politicians and the political system. A Eurobarometer poll published in September 2009 showed that 59% of Irish people surveyed felt that things were going in the wrong direction in our country. The same poll found that only 20% — one in five — trusted the Government and 23% had trust in the Oireachtas. All of those findings were well below the European average.

If we are to restore trust in politics and defeat the cynics, then we cannot afford to continue to do things in the same way and expect to get different results. One of the principal features of politics in Ireland is the amount of time taken up with constituency activity and the resultant lack of time available for legislative work. Constituency work is important and is not without merit. It should be noted there is a clear public demand for their politicians to deal with such matters. However, a balance needs to be struck between dealing with local concerns and the work of legislating for the country.

I believe that a mixed member system similar to that used in Germany, New Zealand, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, could assist in achieving that balance. Under such a system, an elector would elect a Deputy or Deputies representing a constituency seat and would also vote for representatives for a regional — or even national — constituency, where a list system would operate. This would have the benefit of maintaining the direct link between the voter and his or her representative, while also allowing Deputies elected on the regional lists to devote themselves fully to legislative work.

A frequent concern raised by opponents of the list system is that it removes voter choice and centralises control over party tickets with senior party figures and officials. In order to address this concern, I propose that the regional list seats be elected using the voting system used in the Australian Senate election. In this system, voters have the option to simply tick one box to indicate that they wish for their vote to be cast and transferred as per the order of the party list. Alternatively, they can vote across party tickets and rank individual candidates in order of their own preference. Voters therefore retain control over where their vote goes.

Another element to the regional list seats would be that such a system would allow the opportunity for people from different backgrounds and different ranges of expertise to enter politics. Having worked on political campaigns, I have great admiration for the work-rate of our politicians and the intensity of activity in which they must engage in order to get elected. However, that has a down side in that the level of time commitment required to win a constituency seat effectively excludes private sector workers who are not self-employed as it is virtually impossible for such individuals to hold down a full-time job and provide for their families while also seeking election.

I believe that an opportunity to bring in a broader range of people from different personal and professional backgrounds would be a welcome boost to our politics. Go raibh maith agat arís as an deis agus táim ag suil leis an díospóireacht.

Chairman

I invite the Vice Chairman, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, to make a brief response.

Deputy Jim O’Keeffe

Mr. Harmon makes a very compelling case and much of what he says certainly strikes a chord with me, in particular his point that we cannot afford to continue doing things in the same way and expect to get different results. We have to radically change what we are doing. We probably need to situate the debate in a broader context of other reforms. The way the Dáil works reminds me of a kind of script-reading factory. The Fine Gael position is that the number of Members of the Dáil could be reduced. What we should do with the Seanad is ceist eile. There have been about 12 reports on reform of the Seanad and the Fine Gael position is to let it be gone. There is also a question of what to do about committees. They do great work but we have to deal with the Abbeylara decision and this will mean change.

This brings me to the electoral system. Mr. Harmon seems to situate his approach on the basis of too much constituency work. He damns it with faint praise and it is not without merit. I would agree there is scope for both constituency and legislative work and I have tried from the depths of west Cork to do this over many years and get away with it so far as the electorate is concerned. Tip O'Neill said all politics is local and there is a local component in all politics.

On the electoral reform situation, I think it must be examined. My position is that any view I have within the Fine Gael Party will be very much informed by the submissions to this committee on the Constitution and by the kind of views being presented by Mr. Harmon, which have struck a chord with me.

Chairman

I invite the next student to make his presentation.

Mr. David Kehoe

Chairman, members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Constitution, ladies and gentlemen. "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." There is a view abroad that PR-STV is at odds with these immortal words of Edmund Burke. I will argue that it is not. My submission will address the concerns of those proposing electoral reform who believe that PR-STV is the root cause of the excessive constituency work demands placed on Deputies. I argue to the contrary that PR-STV is not the cause of this phenomenon and that its replacement would not necessarily signify the end of this form of brokerage, which has debilitated the legislative function of the work of Deputies. I will illustrate that it is this negative aspect of Irish political culture and not the electoral system, which needs reform, and that any attempt at its elimination under a new electoral system, cannot be successful.

Only through institutional reforms at local level and through the provision of an alternative, impartial system of address can we provide the constituent with a viable substitute for the forms of brokerage with which politicians have become so accustomed. The argument that PR-STV causes excessive amounts of brokerage, is weaker than one would imagine. This insufficient argument centres on the conception that brokerage is a result of the inter-party competition in multi-seat constituencies which PR-STV facilitates. We must remember that constituency work has seemingly always been a prominent part of our political culture. It was prevalent in the 19th century under a different electoral system of first past the post as it is today under PR-STV. However, this fact does not emphasise the weaknesses of either electoral system but only illustrates the robust survival of a political culture.

A study of either Denmark or Switzerland serves to prove that intra-party competition in multi-seat constituencies should not be regarded as the cause of a constituency work problem. It is rather the superiority of their relative systems of redress and local government and the fact that their citizens are well-informed about the correct and adequate avenues of inquiry, which has prevented the growth of a culture of excessive brokerage in both countries. Indeed there is proof that in Ireland, candidates from smaller parties, who are not burdened by intra-party competition, engage in just as much constituency work as their larger party rivals. I stress that it is not the failure of an electoral system which allows disproportionate amounts of constituency work to dominate. I would argue it is the failure of the political system to provide an adequate alternative means of addressing the concerns of constituents and to inform the public of its adequacy as an alternative means. I argue that the Deputy-constituent relationship is mired by an unfortunate interdependency where the behaviour of both actors has only served to incentivise and support the reactions of the other. We need to reform our political system with its inherent value of a close Deputy-constituent relationship which is overwhelmed by the time-sapping nature of constituency demands.

We need a revised code of ethics for Deputies, reinforced with the power of law, committing them to the pursuit of national and legislative as opposed to brokerage issues. A superior, decentralised system of redress is required, similar to the citizens' advice bureaux, which would provide an aid for constituents and effectively channel the concerns to the correct and appropriate service-providers. This proposed service would be both an impartial source of information and a centre for the formal assessment of constituency demands, presenting local issues to local government and forwarding concerns regarding the national welfare to the Deputy.

Of course, it must be stressed that none of this will provide any real change if it is not supported with a new binding code of ethics for Deputies, committing them to deal with national as opposed to local concerns. The pursuit of the common good can no longer be entirely sacrificed to brokerage and this must change. As another speaker said, electoral reform is the wrong answer to the right question. Only reform of the institutions of redress can genuinely improve the operation of our political system and transform the brokerage culture into a force for good.

Chairman

Mr. Kehoe has hit very close to the bone. I ask my colleague, Deputy Devins, to respond briefly to him.

Deputy Jimmy Devins

I thank Mr. Kehoe for his thought-provoking presentation. I am sure the committee will bear it in mind when it makes its final submission. There is a feeling that elected representatives have two roles — a legislative role and a constituency role. Some people think legislative work deserves a much higher priority than constituency work. I agree that both of them are part of the same continuum. Most, if not all, legislation comes about when a constituent makes a representation to a Minister or a Deputy at some level. The consultation, as we call it in medicine, is the most essential component of a Deputy's work. I do not know how much work is being done to analyse the consultation process. Perhaps some of the students in this college might see it as a fruitful subject for discussion in the future. I strongly believe that legislation comes from consultation. Consultation can vary enormously. When one meets a constituent on the street, he or she might look for a social welfare benefit or ask for a legislative change to be made. When the students present are doing their PhDs in a couple of years' time, perhaps they will write about the need for consultation.

Mr. Barra Roantree

This is the first time the flag of the Republic has been inside the grounds of Trinity College. I hope that is repeated in the future. I wish to focus on two issues in this submission — the arbitrary exclusion of approximately 100,000 young citizens from voting and the need for the electoral system to change if policy debate is to become a factor in voting. The resolution of the first issue necessitates a lowering of the voting age to 16. The resolution of the second issue involves changing the electoral system so that voting choices are framed at national level rather than local level.

It is inevitable that the minimum voting age will be arbitrary, to some degree. We need to balance the desire for the universal franchise of citizens with the recognition that it is probably not in the national interest to allow four year olds to vote. I suggest that the lower limit should be consistently arbitrary. The most relevant benchmark in this regard is the age limit set for mandatory education. If the State requires citizens to be in mandatory State-sanctioned education until the age of 16, it is implicit that society regards the development of citizens as incomplete until that age, at least. If we are not prepared to allow citizens between the ages of 16 and 18 to vote, we are keeping them in some kind of electoral purgatory. If we do not lower the voting age, we should raise the age of mandatory education. When I co-ordinated the "Yes" campaign on this campus during the second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, I noted that very few students in this college were registered to vote, whether at their home address or their term address. This problem could be solved in a practical manner if all students were to be registered at secondary school. If everyone is on the register of electors, there will be an increase in participation rates at elections.

On electoral reform, the current economic crisis shows that the Government and individual electors have failed to engage seriously with economic, social and environmental policies. The Irish national election study, which was carried out by UCD and Trinity College, found that the most important criterion for Irish voters when casting their votes is the ability of candidates to look after local areas. Policy did not rank highly in the study — just 4% of Fianna Fáil voters mentioned policy as a reason for choosing that party. That figure increased to 5% in the case of Fine Gael, 11% in the case of the Labour Party, 20% in the case of Sinn Féin and 50% in the case of the Green Party. These figures are much lower than one might hope they would be.

Of course it is valid to cast one's vote on the basis of local concerns, as there are huge problems with accessing local services and bringing such issues to the attention of elected representatives. I would prefer an electoral system that encourages voter engagement with policy. The PR-STV system used in Ireland tips the balance in the wrong direction. Our electoral system encourages the Irish people's tendency to view issues in a parochial and short-term manner, rather than trying to focus voters on national issues. The better balance that is needed could be provided by an open list system like that used in Denmark, which is very simple for voters and takes regional and demographic criteria into consideration. It does not have the pitfalls of a closed list system, in which the party apparatus controls voter choice. As a nation, Ireland badly needs a form of politics that has policy and the national interest at its core. The current electoral system does not provide for that. It is a question of nudging voters into the appropriate frame of mind.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Roantree on his excellent presentation. He mentioned that very few of those who vote for the main parties do so on the basis of policy. It might be appropriate, therefore, for me to ask Senator Boyle, whose party gets 50% of its votes from those who prioritise policy matters, to respond to Mr. Roantree.

Senator Dan Boyle

I thank Mr. Roantree for his presentation. He raised two interesting questions that are central to the joint committee's deliberations. If we recommend that the voting franchise should be extended to 16 and 17 year olds, it would certainly be an interesting and innovative recommendation. However, Ireland would not be the first country in Europe or the world to do so. There is a debate in Scotland on extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds for local and Scottish Parliament elections, not to mention a possible referendum there in the next number of years. Those aged 16 and 17 are already allowed to vote in local elections in certain German Lånder. This committee received a presentation from the chairman of the British Government’s task force on voter participation. He said that the opinion given to the British Government was that the franchise should not be extended to 16 and 17 year olds, although he offered the committee no empirical evidence in support of his thesis that the participation rate would not increase in such circumstances.

At the same session, the committee received a presentation from the Austrian ambassador to Ireland. Austria is the only country in the world to have extended the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds in national parliamentary elections. In a subsequent letter to the committee, the ambassador provided empirical evidence that Austria has successfully increased the participation of 16 and 17 year olds in the parliamentary process. Approximately 77% of the people voted in last year's Austrian elections. The same participation rate existed among 16 and 17 year olds who were voting for the first time. The voting rate of those between the ages of 18 and 30 was significantly lower, however, consistent with elections throughout the Western world. This seems to indicate that if young people are brought into the process at an earlier stage, they will be more inclined to vote and to stay voting. That is one of the reasons we have to consider this important proposal in detail. The ambassador also gave the committee some interesting political information. The Austrian proposal was strongly supported by the Social Democratic Party and the Green Party there. The traditional parties in Austria received the least support from 16 and 17 year olds. The Social Democratic Party received the least support from them. The Austrian People's Party and the Christian Democrats were second on that list. I think it is very indicative that the Green Party received its strongest support from 16 and 17 year olds who were still in education. Unfortunately, most of the votes of 16 and 17 year olds went to the two far-right parties in Austria. The lesson to be learned from that may be that young people are attracted to novelty.

Mr. Roantree also spoke about the central question being considered by the joint committee, which is whether the voting system should be changed. If we are to adopt a list system, should we adopt a closed list system like that used in Germany or an open list system like that used in Denmark? It may also be possible to provide for a variation of both systems, perhaps whereby the performance of members in single-seat constituencies determines their position on the list. There are difficulties with both systems. The system operated in Germany causes confusion about the number of seats in the Bundestag. A very big ballot paper has to be used in Denmark. Mr. Roantree has given us some food for thought.

Ms Julianne Cox

I thank the joint committee for the opportunity to raise the important issue of electoral reform. This submission is the work of Ms Eliska Drapalova and I.

The 2007 election returned 22 women to the Dáil, which translates into a weak 13%, well below the 30% target set by the United Nations. At present, the electoral system does not guarantee that issues relating to women find a voice in Parliament. Female under-representation in the Dáil has resulted in inadequate policies on women's rights and forced women to turn to the European Union for protection. Gender quotas constitute an affirmative action that seeks to correct inequality and guarantee women's representation in Parliament.

Ireland holds 84th place in the world classification of women's representation. We are among the worst countries in the world for women's participation in public life. A joint Oireachtas committee report on women in politics launched in November 2008 cited candidate selection as an inhibitor of representation in Parliament. In the 2007 election women comprised merely 17% of all candidates. The candidate lists show 60% of the constituencies in that election were dominated by male candidates. The Fianna Fáil Party did not field female candidates in 28 constituencies, while the Fine Gael Party did not put forward female candidates in 30 constituencies. In these cases, voters had no gender choice despite a national election study revealing that 64% of the public supported gender equality.

While political parties have recognised that action is required and taken steps to implement a gender equality plan, no party has committed to a definite gender quota. Senator Ivana Bacik, a member of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, stated that the most effective reform to encourage greater participation by women in politics would be the introduction of legislation requiring political parties to adopt gender quotas in their candidate selection process.

Rwanda, a country at the top of world rankings for female participation in politics, achieved equality through initiatives such as a constitutional quota. The Spanish equality law passed in 2007, which requires political parties to choose roughly equal numbers of men and women in candidate lists, means women enjoy 36.3% representation and dominate the Spanish cabinet. Spain's case shows that it is possible to obtain a positive, balanced effect by implementing this type of affirmative action. Thus, the critical mass of 30% representation of women has been achieved in other countries through legislation on quotas.

I recommend that political parties introduce the measures necessary to achieve gender equality. Gender equality is a principle of human rights and the Government should be accountable for its promotion. Female under-representation is a problem in Ireland and gender quotas offer a mechanism that can be used to improve the current position. I thank the joint committee again for this opportunity and look forward to hearing the resolutions it puts forward in future.

Chairman

I thank Ms Cox and Ms Drapalova for their presentation. I am genuinely embarrassed by the gender representation on the joint committee this evening. In saying this, I am reflecting the views of all members. The sooner we improve gender representation in the Dáil, the better. I ask Deputy Brendan Howlin to respond to Ms Cox's presentation.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

As the Chairman stated, Ms Cox made a compelling case but the platform makes an even more compelling case. The only female on the platform is not an elected Member of the Oireachtas. That is an embarrassment and we must do something about it. My redemption in being asked to respond to the presentation is that seven of the Labour Party's 20 Deputies are women. This percentage exceeds the United Nations target of 30%. Nevertheless, it is shameful that in the past three elections, Parliament has gone backwards rather than forwards in terms of gender balance.

I have changed my view on these matters. Senator Bacik, a member of the parliamentary Labour Party, has examined this issue as rapporteur for the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. Her report refers to changing the approach through legislation on candidate selection for elections. The Labour Party has introduced legislation which has not been accepted that would penalise, through the public funding mechanism, parties which did not achieve a certain level of gender representation. Candidate selection is not sufficient because one can put forward candidates in constituencies where they will not be elected. For the first time in my life, I have determined that aspiration is no longer good enough and we must set binding targets and provide sanctions for failing to achieve them. This needs to be done over time.

The presentation was timely and I hope the embarrassment caused by the gender imbalance on the platform will lead to a genuine legislative change. We should stop talking about gender imbalance and do something that will impact over a defined period.

Ms Kimberley Moran

I am presenting this submission on behalf of two of my classmates, Daniel Philbin Bowman and Colm Quinn, who are studying in Sweden on an Erasmus programme. Mr. Philbin Bowman and Mr. Quinn intended to present this submission in the form of a YouTube video. However, due to a difficulty with the technology in the examinations hall, this did not prove possible. Nevertheless, the class was of the view that the points Mr. Philbin Bowman and Mr. Quinn have identified may be of particular benefit and interest to the joint committee and should, therefore, be brought to members' attention on their behalf. In that respect, it should be noted that the views presented are not my own.

Mr. Philbin Bowman and Mr. Quinn identified two key distinctions between politics in Ireland and Sweden, namely, the lack of women in Parliament in Ireland compared with the almost equal representation of men and women in the Swedish Parliament, and the amount of time parliamentarians in Ireland spend on local issues compared with Sweden where parliamentarians deal almost exclusively with national issues.

On the issue of the higher number of women in Parliament in Sweden, there is no doubt that the Swedish electoral system, which is based on regional closed lists, allows parties to more easily position women for winnable seats. Parties have also introduced voluntary quotas, which ensure that at least 40% of candidates nominated by parties are women. Many people criticise the Irish political system on the basis that parliamentarians spend much of their time on local issues. While some of this criticism is deserved, it is interesting to note that in discussions with political scientists in Sweden, Mr. Philbin Bowman and Mr. Quinn learned that there is some debate on whether parliamentarians in the Swedish system focus too much on national issues and do not spend sufficient time on local matters.

As part of their research for their video presentation, Mr. Philbin Bowman and Mr. Quinn met with Professor Jörgen Hermansson, a lecturer in Uppsala University and one of Sweden's foremost researchers on electoral systems and reform. I suppose one could describe him as the Michael Gallagher or Michael Marsh of Sweden. Professor Hermansson has just completed a short book examining how Sweden's electoral system could adopt some aspects of the German mixed member system and Irish PR-STV system. This makes his research particularly interesting for the purposes of our discussion, given that we are hearing calls for elements of the German system to be introduced here. The professor's study shows that, far from being totally imperfect and fit to scrap, other countries are examining the Irish electoral system when considering how to improve their own systems.

To briefly summarise Professor Hermansson's study, he concludes that the ideal electoral system would be a modified version of the German mixed list system. Local seats would not be single seat constituencies, as is the case under the German model, but multi-seat PR-STV constituencies akin to those we have here.

While Mr. Philbin Bowman and Mr. Quinn see merit in the German mixed member system, they caution that if the aim of reform is to introduce greater diversity of opinions and greater proportionality, it could prove foolish to adopt the German system directly. There is a danger that with single seat constituencies, one party could easily win a disproportionate share of the constituency seats. In Ireland, this would traditionally have favoured Fianna Fáil, although there is no guarantee this would continue to be the case in future.

Mr. Philbin Bowman and Mr. Quinn suggest that while electoral reform has a place in the overall process of political development, if we look to electoral reform alone to solve issues such as the lack of women in politics and the heavy focus on local issues, we may be disappointed. Electoral reform must be combined with other issues such as reform of local government if it is to have the strongest effect. In addition, certain issues that impact on our political process cannot be changed by legislation but run deeper in our political culture. These questions also need to be addressed.

Chairman

Perhaps Ms Moran will say a few words on her other presentation on voting rights for the diaspora.

Ms Kimberley Moran

I do not have a script but my personal view, as someone who has lived overseas for 18 years, is that Irish expatriates should have the right to participate in Irish elections because they still have considerable economic, social and legal protection and recognition under the Irish State. Political citizenship, by virtue of allowing expatriates to vote in local and national elections, would entail recognition of them, as other countries have done for their expatriates across the globe.

Chairman

I thank Ms Moran. I invite Senator Regan to respond to the question on expatriates and gender balance, and whatever else he wants to say.

Senator Eugene Regan

Ms Moran said that she did not have a script on the diaspora and the right to vote of Irish citizens living abroad, but that did not handicap her in her presentation. She put the case very well. I will deal with that question first. Ms Moran mentioned votes for expatriates as more of a right, and there is an issue of enlightened self-interest for this country at a time when we have a serious economic recession. We had a meeting in Farmleigh in August of last year and the importance of the diaspora to this country and its economic revival was recognised. I think there is a strong case to be made for a vote for Irish citizens who are not resident in Ireland but living abroad. The question is how we do it.

The issue arises of representation without taxation, which is the reverse of the old American adage, "No taxation without representation". Forced emigration is an issue at present. There is scope for a move to do something in that regard, for example, in the election of the President or of Members of the Seanad. I accept there has been talk of abolishing the Seanad, which is to be put to a referendum, so it is for those present to decide, but there has been representation in the Seanad for representatives from Northern Ireland with a view to ensuring representation from that part of this country. Citizens who are graduates are not disenfranchised from voting in Seanad elections by virtue of their residency status. The principle has been established. Change could be made in that direction, especially in those two areas, if only as a first step. As to the mechanism, we do not have an electoral register system that works. We would have to have a better system to expand it. The Danish model has been mentioned in other respects. We must have a system such as that based on central registration. People are on that system even if they emigrate. That mechanism would have to be put in place.

On the question of women in politics, we have regressed in recent years. That has to be dealt with. How it is done is a question this committee is taking seriously and on which we will come up with proposals.

Having been a local councillor and now as a Member of the Seanad, I recognise the issues that arise in terms of local representation versus national representation. It is a dangerous thing to get out of touch with the electorate. People want to know that their representatives have their feet on the ground and that they know what is going on locally because that is the area they represent. However, it is important that the emphasis at national level and in the Oireachtas is on national legislation. The proportion of time that Oireachtas Members spend focused on policy formation and discussion is a small percentage, in many cases possibly only 10%. It is different for a Government party where Ministers have a range of staff to deal with constituency issues. We have to be concerned about local issues and we have to get the balance right.

Chairman

I thank Senator Regan. I invite Ms Housman to make her presentation.

Ms Talya Housman

I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to address the committee on this important issue. This proposal is also the work of Ms Moran. First, I wish to address the two points made by Senator Regan. On his point about representation without taxation, some expatriates are still taxed for their pensions. Therefore it is taxation without representation for them.

In terms of the point about the electoral register not functioning sufficiently to promote absentee voting, currently postal votes are in place for certain citizens such as ambassadors and members of the Defence Forces posted abroad. We merely advocate that this opportunity should be granted to the wider citizenry. Given that the system is already in place to some extent, the electoral register should be able to handle that.

Tonight I would like to discuss an Irish citizen's fundamental right to vote in Irish elections. Currently, an Irish citizen's right to vote is dependent on his or her geographic location on election day. With few exceptions, Irish citizens abroad are consistently denied the right to vote, which challenges Irish democracy. Absentee voting is a means of preserving the process of democracy by ensuring citizens, regardless of their geographic location, maintain the right to participate in the political system. The proposal to install a system of absentee voting incorporates a crucial section of the Irish citizenry that is currently disenfranchised on the basis of their status as expatriates. According to Collyher and Vathi, denying citizens the right to vote is widely interpreted as denying them full citizenship and therefore challenging their identity as members of the national community. By endorsing such a view, the State is currently denying Irish citizens outside the Republic an intrinsic right based on the citizen's geographic location. However, while traditional interpretations of citizenship have elevated the importance of territoriality as a requirement for citizenship, Taylor E. Dark of California State University establishes that this interpretation is out of touch with the reality of a growing global electorate.

According to a study done by the University of Surrey, out of 144 countries, 80% allow citizens who are permanently resident abroad to vote. Sadly, Ireland is not one of the countries that allows that. This country continues to deny citizens abroad the right to participate in the Irish political system. Our proposal protects the rights of several groups of people currently not granted absentee voting rights under Irish law, such as expatriates who continue to hold strong financial or personal ties to this country, while also enabling Irish citizens who are absent from their local polling station the opportunity to participate in an election.

Our proposal is not drastic. It simply follows international precedent in extending the rights currently granted to a select group of citizens, such as diplomats, to the wider citizenry. In the past 30 years many countries have enfranchised their citizenry abroad by extending the exemptions already in place for military personnel and ambassadors to encompass the expatriate community. I thank the Chairman, Deputies and Senators for their attention to this issue. I am confident they and the rest of the committee will resolve the problem soon. I look forward to seeing the committee's solution.

Chairman

I thank Ms Housman for making such a strong case for postal voting and voting for expatriates. I invite Deputy Kennedy to respond.

Deputy Michael Kennedy

I thank Ms Housman for her interesting paper. She has raised a number of issues. I have always believed that people temporarily abroad, for example, on holidays or business, should have the facility of voting by post or by electronic means. That brings me to the key issue of personal identification, to which some people object. Most other countries have some form of ID that people use when they are abroad. The issue of voter fraud arises.

The issue of votes for emigrants needs much consideration and Ms Housman has evidently given much thought to the matter. What is the position on somebody who has left the country permanently rather than somebody who has gone abroad temporarily to work in Australia or the United States with the intention of returning? I refer to those who are raising a family and paying taxes abroad and who have cut their ties with Ireland, although they are still Irish. How are such emigrants categorised? Does the delegation distinguish between those emigrants who are gone for five years and those who are gone for ten years or more? Do emigrants to the US vote for the Irish President? US citizens in Ireland only vote for their President and go to the US embassy to cast their votes. I do not believe they can vote in state elections but I could be wrong.

Consider the position of students who have left their homes and who have come up from the country to live in Dublin to attend Trinity College, for example. Where there is a general election, should they vote in their original constituency or their new one? These questions need to be answered.

We need to address the issue of voting abroad in some form. I thank the delegates for their paper.

Ms Ciara Begley

The system of PR-STV has been approved by the Irish electorate both times it has been put to referendum. The system has a number of benefits and has proven popular among the Irish. Reform is not wanted or needed, instead there are a number of minor changes that could enhance the practice of PR-STV. My submission aims to focus on two of these, the availability of candidate policy details, particularly in rural local elections, and the use of the random sampling method of transferring votes. Both are worthy of consideration. The electorate is entitled to information about the individual policies of those seeking their vote. The resources to make this information widely available exist, yet voters are often directed to party websites when questioning candidates. This is not adequate under a system of PR-STV in which votes can be individualistic as well as based along party lines.

The second change sought by this submission is based on the mechanics of STV. It seems antiquated for returning officers to be pulling ballots out of boxes and manually transferring them based on what is thought to be a random selection. I suggest fixing these minor problems by banning posters in exchange for information booklets and introducing the Gregory method of calculating transfer votes and, potentially, the use of vote-counting machines to facilitate this method.

The amount of information available to the electorate, particularly in rural local elections, is minimal and the focus is on advertising rather than informing. The PR-STV system creates this problem in that there is often more than one candidate running from the same party. Differentiating them solely according to party policy is often not viewed as an adequate motive for voting for a candidate. If the use of PR-STV is to continue, a complete overhaul of the approach candidates take during elections is needed.

During Irish elections, widespread use of posters can be observed. These serve absolutely no purpose. A poster tells the electorate very little about candidates other than their party, sex and name. They also suggest their age. If voting is indeed based on this information, we all ought to be concerned. If the campaign money spent on these wasteful adverts were instead channelled into informing the electorate, PR-STV would function more effectively. Campaign money ought to be used to provide every household in each constituency with a booklet that details briefly but clearly the policies each candidate up for election in a constituency is seeking to promote. The clear environmental benefits of this simple change are very obvious. The electorate does not need to see adverts, it needs information that will facilitate the choice of candidates.

The second point is an important technicality. The use of the random sampling process of transferring votes is no longer tolerable given the nature and scope of widely available modern technology. PR-STV seeks to be as equitable and representative a system as possible. Consequently, it is concerning that the approach to transferring votes has an easily eliminated arbitrary dimension. The paper by Professor Michael Gallagher and Mr. A. R. Anwin explains in detail the potential distortions that the use of the current method can cause. I have included the reference in my written submission.

The problem arises in using a random sampling method as there is no way to be certain that the outcome of the sample would be the same if a different sample were used. This problem is exacerbated by the small size of the Irish electorate. If the ballot boxes are not mixed thoroughly, the sample is not satisfactorily random. The use of the Gregory method is preferable. This method entails the counting of all second, third or fourth preferences, and so on as required, and weighting them according to the surplus votes above and beyond the droop quota. In the Scottish local elections, the use of voting machines facilitated these counts. I recommend my proposals to the committee and thank it very much.

Chairman

I thank Ms Begley. Mr. Barra Roantree said only 5% of Fine Gael people thought about policy when voting for their candidates. I ask Deputy Denis Naughten to respond with the contrary view.

Deputy Denis Naughten

I thank Ms Begley for her presentation, which was very interesting. It raised quite a few points that we could spend the whole night debating. A former Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is present and another Minister is to attend later who would be able to debate posters. However, I will park that issue because it is a separate one.

Ms Begley raised a very important point about local elections and the issue of information. She argued that if the public had more information on individual candidates and their policies, they would be more informed when casting their votes. The difficulty is that voters' decisions are focused very much on the identity of the local candidate rather than on party political considerations. This is particularly the case in respect of local elections but is also the case in respect of rural constituencies in general elections. I come from what is probably the most rural constituency. It is so long that its length is the equivalent of the distance from here to Athlone. People vote according to whether the candidate is from Leitrim or Roscommon or a part thereof. One would not be able to remove that dimension of voter decision from the electoral system in Ireland.

At general elections, a litir um thoghchán is delivered to every house. This has not successfully delivered information on individual candidates because the political parties have taken control of it. If it were delivered at local elections, the same thing would happen.

Ms Begley's point on random sampling is very valid. I hope the Minister for Transport, Deputy Dempsey, when he arrives, will answer the question in this regard. One cannot sample manually. The elections in Ireland take three days but if one were to count all the preferences it would take weeks. The strongest argument in favour of electronic voting, but which was never used by the Government at the time it attempted to introduce it, is that it gets rid of random sampling in regard to the transferring of votes. For some bizarre reason, the Government decided to include random sampling in its software and this is what scared a lot of people away from electronic voting at the time. Voters asked who would set the parameters in regard to the random sampling. This led to the downfall of electronic voting. There is an argument in favour of putting in place the truest form of PR-STV by having some type of electronic counting. The committee could consider this.

Reference was made to bigger constituencies. We debated this matter in the Oireachtas during the last Constituency Commission review because of the implications it had for County Leitrim, which was divided in half. The county no longer has a Member in the Dáil. This issue will arise in other constituencies after the next boundary review. We will have to examine the possibility of bigger constituencies with six, seven and eight seats.

Mr. Barry Cahill

I thank the Chairman and distinguished members of the Joint Committee on the Constitution for the opportunity to make this submission. I, much like my colleagues in the junior sophister Irish politics class, have given great consideration to the privilege of addressing the joint committee and an assiduous attention to the civic virtue these submissions embody. It is with great humility that I put forward the proposal regarding the order in which candidates' names appear on ballot papers. Since the foundation of the State they have appeared in alphabetical order.

Deputy Jim O’Keeffe

This is a very important issue.

Mr. Barry Cahill

In 1910, none other than Woodrow Wilson noted some candidates legally change their names to get a higher position on the ballot paper, reaping the rewards that come with it. Ireland continues to arbitrarily advantage those with certain surnames.

It is hard to imagine why some elected officials opt for such an unnatural practice as to drop the "O" from their surnames, if not to obtain the undoubted advantage that comes with being higher on the ballot paper. The seemingly impartial system of alphabetisation of candidates on ballot papers is one not without its flaws.

The solution I propose is that we introduce a system of a rotating order of candidates on ballot papers similar to the one operated in the Tasmanian Legislative Council, the Tasmanian House of Assembly and Australian Capital Territory. Many Australians, just like many Irish people, are particularly proud of their electoral system. When the rotation system was suggested in Tasmania in 1979 by the Honorary Neil Robson, MHA, it was adopted in the belief that the father of their STV system, Thomas Hare, was constantly looking for ways to improve representative democracy. Hare was a political scientist who believed that, in the absence of sensible objections to certain reforms, we owe a duty to implement them.

After only six years of operation in the Australian Capital Territory, it was decided the system was having such a positive impact that a greater number of rotations needed to be introduced. The 1986 Tasmanian elections dramatically showed how a more level playing field for candidates can deliver results that would be unthinkable in other electoral systems where parties choose or, in the Irish case, the surname determines position on the ballot paper.

In that election, although major parties retained the same number of elected members, 19 Liberal and 14 Labour, the only change in party numbers was two Green members in place of a democrat and an independent. There was, however, a dramatic change in the faces in the house, with more than half the members being new. Four members elected in 1982 did not stand but 15 sitting members contested the election only to be rejected by the voters.

Although such a change to the Ireland ballot system would not nearly be as radical as these, as the change would be from an alphabetised list not a party selected column, it does highlight the impact of the order of candidates. Criticisms of this system include the idea that it may not be as easy as we could possibly make it for voters to find the candidate they are looking for. Also, it means parties may no longer show a specimen ballot to instruct how loyal party members should vote. These are not large enough considerations to oppose the introduction of a rotation system.

The system used in Tasmania to print numerous ballot papers in rotating order from batch to batch links the number of rotations to the number of candidates. The cost of doing this relatively small task in comparison to the overall election is small. The number of rotations can also continue to be increased in line with the reasonable and practical costs involved in doing so.

To not even attempt to redress the advantage of ballot positioning is regrettable. The idea that ballot paper ordering matters more for candidates who the public know little of is reinforced by a recent study of the Californian governor recall election from several years ago. Minor candidates were helped or hindered by their ballot paper location while the front runners, such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, were not. The study clearly shows that ballot ordering has more impact on candidates with lower profiles. This is why I would propose initially to introduce this ballot paper rotation in local elections first. It is with great pride I commend this system to the committee.

Chairman

I am not fully convinced but I will ask Deputy Michael Woods, a name on the other end of the alphabet to mine, to respond.

Deputy Michael Woods

I thank the Chairman and commend Mr. Cahill for an excellent and clever contribution.

When one looks at the names of those elected to Dáil Éireann, one will find plenty of "Ardaghs" and "Andrews" and "Aherns". There is something in this argument about the "As". I have managed to survive in this environment but some of my friends would say as I am last on the list, I cannot be missed.

Tasmania, or what we knew as Van Diemen's Land, is a beautiful place, except for the prison. We must consider Thomas Hare's point that in the absence of sensible objections to certain reforms, we owe a duty to implement them.

In 1986, the Tasmania electoral authorities used the system successfully but by the 1992 election the only change in party numbers was two more Green elected representatives, a point Senator Dan Boyle should take on board. In Ireland, it should be remembered that in each election between 25% and 33% of sitting Deputies lose their seats. There is the criticism that it might be difficult to find a name on a list. However, the introduction of candidate's photographs on ballot papers has changed this. If a candidate looks well in a photograph, one gains somewhat. Mr. Cahill has proposed the rotation of candidates on the ballot paper for the local elections which is a reasonable approach and it certainly deserves serious consideration.

I was reminded of John Healy when we spoke earlier of all politics being local. He said all politics is about power. Originally, I was somewhat frightened by that as I only wanted to work with the people. However, I now think he means it is the power to represent people and the country, making things happen. People judge how successful a politician is in that regard.

Deputy Michael D’Arcy

As a first-time Deputy, I have been struck by several issues affecting politicians such as the separation of powers. Earlier we discussed the competition between constituency and legislative work. Outside of the Government, there is zero legislative work. No Private Members' Bills have been passed in this term. Only four such Bills were passed from the mid-1960s to mid-1990s, probably dealing with law matters and most were probably introduced by Deputy Alan Shatter. If we want to talk about competition between constituency and legislative work and the separation of powers, alas there is no separation of powers. The Government parties will vote down everything that comes before them and that is it.

I should like to address the situation within constituencies between inter-party competitors. Deputy Howlin and I are the only two people on the platform from the same constituency. The reality is we are moving towards single-seat constituencies by stealth.

There are four electoral areas in Wexford. I live closer to Dublin than I do to the southern part of my constituency. Four of the five Deputies who were elected in County Wexford on the last occasion shared over 6,000 votes in each area. Deputy Denis Naughten touched on this earlier in relation to areas that are voting geographically. Whoever is first up, best-dressed, with the best candidate in the area in four seats out of five, will be elected.

Those are just two of the areas I wanted to touch on, but the most important thing in Irish politics is likeability. If people like one, they will vote for one. If they do not like one, they will not.

Chairman

We shall now have a Labour Party senatorial perspective from Senator Alex White.

Senator Alex White

I congratulate all the contributors this evening. I have found it most stimulating and interesting. I have three quick points to make. First, it is really important that we do not lose sight of what the overarching objective is in bringing change about. Like many people in this room I spent four years in the department of political science in Trinity, debating and discussing precisely the issues that people have elucidated this evening. Much of it has to do with the nuts and bolts of the system.

I do not denigrate the nuts and bolts of the system, because they are very important and hold the electoral system together as regards how elections are run, who should vote, the voting age and all the issues that are vitally important to democracy. A number of people have alluded to the fact that there is now an enormous lack of confidence in the political system and within parties as regards the ability of the system to step up to the plate in times of crisis. That is the problem we are trying to address.

It is not an exaggeration to suggest that a revolution is needed as regards the sense of engagement people need to have with our system. It is amazing that in a country where, up to last year, it was said practically everybody had actually met the Taoiseach of the day, that political engagement is still at such a low level. There is something paradoxical and very odd about this that needs to be addressed. The nuts and bolts are very important, but the overarching objective of changing the way politics actually works, in light of the sense of dislocation people have, is most important.

I agree with Deputy D'Arcy, who anticipated a point I was going to make, as regards the Executive. We have a very powerful Executive in our system. I have been in Leinster House for just two and a half years, and without attacking particular individuals, there is no sense of politicians of the Government parties being taken that seriously in relation to legislation. Take NAMA, for example. All the work was done by the Executive, all the teasing out and scrutiny as regards the various options. One might expect that when it got to the Dáil, or to a lesser extent, the Seanad, Members of the Oireachtas were all involved in teasing it out. We would have made an effort in that regard, but the decisions are made by the Executive and we do not really have a system that puts the Parliament at the centre of things.

All of us are pointing to different things that need to be changed or addressed and revised. Can we forever leave out of the equation the political parties? Perhaps people might expect someone from the Labour Party to say this, but I enthusiastically include my party as well, as regards the extent we want choice. Elections are supposed to be about choice. People go to the polling station to make a choice. Are we really presenting them with genuine choice in terms of a different way of doing things through the party structure we have, particularly one in which the two main parties share differences over many decades without people being able to see what the relevance of those differences are now?

Chairman

Finally, from the real capital of Ireland, we have Deputy Ned O'Keeffe.

Deputy Edward O’Keeffe

I am very impressed with all the contributions, which were wonderful and very radical in some cases.

I come from a four-seat constituency, Cork East, and had to get in excess of 11,000 votes to get elected in the last general election. I had the privilege of being a county councillor for a long time until the dual mandate was removed from us. I wonder how the issue about which we have heard a good deal this evening can be avoided, namely, Deputies doing constituency work. People such as teachers and so on do a good deal of work for constituents as favours and for friends. I do not believe we can get away from that, regardless of the system that is in place. However, from working in the Dáil, and having been on the backbenches for a long time, I can say that it is the role of the backbencher in a Government party to keep the Executive in power, and if one rocks the boat one will never see high office.

That is a problem, and it is not very exciting to be a backbencher in government. However, it is very exciting to be a backbencher in opposition, because one has considerable say in attempting to amend legislation. It is the other way around in government.

I am very committed to single-seat constituencies as the cleanest system we could have. I look at the first past the post system in Britain. There is no system as efficient and as good as that. In the area I come from it would fit perfectly, and I am rather surprised that this has not been pushed more this evening. Essentially, it is a two-party system that ultimately works well in Britain. I should be in favour of that. My party, Fianna Fáil, is the biggest in the country at present.

Deputy Michael D’Arcy

It used to be.

Deputy Batt O’Keeffe

Opinion polls do not always say everything. I believe we have to look at a more radical electoral system to get away from the type of problems that have been dealt with here. We got rid of the dual mandate as between councillors and Members of the Oireachtas and that did not improve the situation greatly. We are still doing local constituency work, the same as before, dealing with housing matters and all the rest. The only way this can change is through single-seat constituencies.

Chairman

I want to welcome, in particular, two former Ministers who are here, namely, former Deputies Síle de Valera and Gemma Hussey.

We also have with us Deputy Joanna Tuffy of the Labour Party who is very interested in electoral reform and has made a submission to the committee. She is very welcome and I thank her for coming.

As we conclude the meeting, I want to thank all our guest speakers. It was a most interesting and informative meeting. The committee has been presented with a range of very challenging propositions and perspectives, and we shall certainly consider everything that was said. I should like to thank all the people who organised the meeting. We are going to hand over to Dr. Bowman and guests for further discussions. We were supposed to have finished here at 8.20 p.m. and it is now 8.29.30 p.m. I am delighted to have RTE time at our disposal. The meeting is now adjourned.

The joint committee adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 10 February 2010.