Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

I will try to be brief given that people want to deal with a number of other amendments. Two substantive amendments in the name of Deputy Stanley deal with a range of issues. One, close to my heart, is to reverse the change that happened in the supplementary register system in 2002. I have no problem with a system that would ensure everybody on the register of electors had to produce a form of identification or at the very least when it came to the supplementary register to avoid any type of electoral fraud or any kind of rush of blood to many people's heads to register several times. In many ways this year we were very lucky that the register of electors had come into being and that most people had the opportunity to be on it. However, normally elections are held in either June or October. There is a substantial period between the creation and confirmation of the register in November and February, respectively, during which time people may have reached the age of 18 years or moved house. Their only facility to register is to sign the supplementary register. However, people in working class areas are not inclined to attend Garda stations to have forms stamped. In most cases, politicians only find out that people are no longer on the register or have not submitted their forms when they knock on doors in the run-up to an election. This causes a difficulty. Every Deputy in the Chamber and everyone who took part in the general election will have found people who were not on the electoral register and did not manage to record a vote and enjoy the benefits of citizenship.

The amendment would return us to the old method, whereby people were able to submit a form to be placed on the electoral register. The change would require everyone seeking to be placed on the supplementary register to produce identification. When the last change was made, people claimed it would prevent electoral fraud, but that has not been the case, given how some are still being arrested and charged. The mechanism proposed in the amendment would prevent it in this instance.

The other change has to do with the system of postal voting for persons away on service, in hospital or on holiday. In almost every other country there is a better and quicker mechanism that recognises that people can be absent during elections and allows them to be enfranchised in advance. People could be allowed a postal vote if they have documentation proving they have booked their holiday. Many families take their holidays in June. For example, many teachers, shift workers and so on are away for the month of June because they cannot afford to take expensive holidays in July and August. They could show that they would be travelling and convey their preference to be temporarily included in a register of postal voters. The same is true of patients in hospital. In the light of long waiting lists, one would not want to turn down the chance to undergo an operation or other medical procedure because one also wanted to cast a vote. It should not be an either-or. If one has proof that one will be confined to hospital, one should be able to enjoy the benefits of a postal vote.

The proposed changes are logical and were requested of the previous Minister. No Minister with whom I have spoken so far has opposed our proposals, although no one has ever managed to include them in legislation. Deputy Stanley's amendments would facilitate them.

On amendment No. 9, when the previous Minister for Social Protection introduced what was then the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Bill 2010, I asked her to make this facility available, as she was changing the groups which could use PPS numbers. I asked that she include local franchise offices to facilitate the proposal contained in the amendment. However, she stated that it was a rushed Bill and that the Electoral (Amendment) Bill which was to be introduced would be the appropriate place in which to include the provision. We are trying to include it, but its inclusion is being blocked. This mechanism would prevent multiple registrations because a person only has one PPS number. While there are problems with the idea, we could address them to ensure live PPS numbers were used. It would also allow automatic registration on someone turning 18 years and for automatic deletion when someone passes away. A little more work needs to be done on the mechanism, but it would form the starting point for an electoral register based on PPS numbers. The amendments should, therefore, be accepted.

See this speech in context