Ms Petra Woods:

Those are good questions. We looked back at the evidence given by the Data Protection Commissioner in 2008. A key part of that is to look at what the options are and what problem one is trying to solve. We want to make sure that everybody is on the register who should be on it and that he or she is only on it once. The use of a unique identifier has long been a discussion point on the register. Currently, we do not have one, partly because we have 31 separate registers managed by each local authority. The provisions set out in the general scheme are designed to work with that.

This speaks also to a previous question. The PPSN will not be used in polling stations. It will not appear on the register. It will not be the electoral identity of an individual but it will be used to check and match the data that have been provided on a form by an individual to ascertain that all the pieces of information such as name, date of birth and PPSN are coherent, that they relate to the same individual and that the data are also matched to existing data held by another public sector body. In this case, we are looking specifically at the Department of Social Protection. That information will be shared on a yes-no basis, as in, there will be confirmation of that information and then we can carry on and register the person or make the changes to his or her record. Where no match is possible, the registration authority will then go back to the individual concerned and ask him or her to bring a form of ID or some sort of documentation back to the registration authority or get a form signed at the local Garda station, much like the supplement provisions now.

That would only be the case if a match was not possible on the information provided.

On how we get from the existing register to a modernised register, we are not proposing to start from scratch. It is a strategy but not necessarily the one we believe would be the most effective here. We have a register that works and has served the country very well. We all acknowledge that it does need work but we are not suggesting that we risk a situation where large numbers of people would be removed from the register because they do not meet a certain deadline or so on. We propose a two-step process, including a major awareness campaign. Once we have made it easier for people to update their details, which we hope to do in the course of this year, we will engage in a large-scale public awareness campaign to really encourage people to engage with us to help us to update their records on the register. Giving people the opportunity to update their own information is one of the key provisions. Minding the accuracy of their own data is also important under data protection legislation. Where we cannot identify a person or where we do not have records that are addressed by individuals we will then seek to identify where people may have passed away. We will do this through other data we can access safely, such as a date of death for example, that is linked to a person. To be clear, we are not talking about removing people from the register without a significant number of attempts. The general scheme of the Bill provides for three documented attempts with an individual before he or she is removed. The person will have ample opportunity and it will be covered by a large-scale public awareness campaign to make sure people are aware of what is happening. I hope this helps the committee and I am happy to answer any questions.