Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

There is a logic to this amendment and to the idea of major changes to the electoral register, which have been debated not only in the House but at the Constitutional Convention and other places. This is a simple change that will allow people to register with ease right up to the current cut-off date. After that, it would be the responsibility of anybody on the supplementary register to show identification when presenting for a vote. That would be different to anybody who goes through the other process of just being on the register in the normal sense, in that they may be asked. This would allow people to get on the register in the first place.

The recent referendum showed the number of people who are not on the register, given that 60,000 people registered for the supplementary register in a very short period in order to be allowed to vote. It is scary that 60,000 people were not on the register and had not engaged somehow or other, or had not thought it that important to be on the register. It suggests how inaccurate our electoral register is in comparison to other countries where there is automatic registration once the person reaches 18, or countries where people can be fined or taxed if they do not vote. While we are not looking to go to that extreme, we are trying to ensure it is easier for people to get on the register.

Deputy Stanley referred to Garda stations. In my own area there are quite a number of Garda stations, so that would not be the problem. However, there are many people who do not want to be in a Garda station and, in fact, the last place they want to be is in a Garda station, so they are not going to go out of their way to go there. However, even in cases where they do attend at, say, the Garda stations at Pearse Street or Kilmainham, they could be half an hour waiting for a garda to present at the public desk to stamp any form, never mind a supplementary electoral register form.

There is an argument that we need to look at a more modern approach to a rolling register rather than applying the cut-off date that has been in place because of the huge burden on local authorities in the past as a result of the paper-based system. Years ago, before the advent of the computer, the local authority deadlines were November and February, but in this day and age it is a joke that we still have the same deadlines even though the system is computerised. This needs to be looked at with a view to getting rid of that system and allowing for a rolling register, where everybody registers in the same way until the set date, whether that is two or three weeks before the election, or a week after the election is called.

Nowadays we also have forms of photographic identification which were not available when, as Minister, Deputy Ruairí Quinn introduced this restriction on the supplementary register. I am old enough, or I was young enough, to remember Deputy Quinn bringing in the change which restricted how people got onto the supplementary register, so it is quite a new change. In this era, however, the vast majority of the population would have access to one of the forms of identification which are required, for example, a passport or driving licence, both of which have photographic identifiers, or the Department of Social Protection card, which now has a scanned photograph. As far as I know, by the end of this year or during next year, the vast majority of people will have photographic identification from the Department of Social Protection, whether they are claiming a social welfare payment or not. There is also student identification and the Garda national youth identification card.

There is a huge amount that can be done in this day and age. We have seen the whole discussion about everyone being able to register for the property tax, the water conservation grant, SUSI grants and housing applications. A lot can be done so why can we not bring the electoral register up to date in terms of the way it is inputted? This is one system that needs to be reformed, and the amendment is a simple one that addresses the difficulties some people have in getting on the register. For example, people move address and forget to register, and then, all of a sudden, the election is called and they realise they have forgotten to do it. Some people in our society could not be bothered and they will not go out of their way to register, whereas, if there is a form in front of them, they will sign it and send it in the post, as has been the case in the past. However, if they are asked to take the trouble to attend a Garda station, they will not do that.

In fairness to An Garda Síochána, in my own area they have sometimes facilitated people by having a garda go into community centres to stamp forms. I would encourage this and would suggest that, with an election forthcoming, the Garda and the local authorities would work together to try to ensure we register those people who, for some reason or another, have forgotten or could not put the extra burden on themselves to go to a Garda station.

Given the huge decrease in the number of Garda stations around the country now, it can be difficult for people who do not have their own transport to get to them. I know I am asking gardaí to do another job they should not have to do in asking them to be present to ensure there is no electoral fraud.

In regard to the register, I know from invigilators who travel around to ensure the register is accurate that the number of invigilators in Dublin has dropped substantially and that they have not been replaced in recent years. We used to have 15 invigilators for the city and they covered the whole city and got to every address every year. Now we only have nine, and they are only get to cover three or four postal districts each year. This suggests the electoral register in the city is inaccurate. If that is true of this city, I cannot say what the situation is in other local authority areas responsible for ensuring their registers are accurate. As I said earlier, this is a debate we need to have on a larger scale. I believe Deputy Stanley's proposal is reasonable.

See this speech in context