Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There was confusion earlier in that a group of amendments is being taken together. Amendments Nos. 7a, 15 to 17, inclusive, 17a, 18, 18a and 19 to 23, inclusive, are being taken together. The group of amendments relates to section 4.

The substance of the amendments was discussed on Committee Stage. Section 4(1) is necessary so the registration authority can get the information required for it to perform the functions under law. As I explained on Committee Stage, the bottom line here is that we cannot take away from the core objective of the section which is to ensure registration authorities can require the minimum information they need to do their job properly. The issue before we adjourned was the amount of information they would require.

I accepted the genuine concerns a number of Deputies expressed on Committee Stage and I undertook to discuss this issue with the parliamentary counsel. Unfortunately, none of the Deputies who were present on Committee Stage are here. I undertook to go to the parliamentary counsel to see if there was scope to devise an alternative formulation which would allow some greater flexibility in setting deadlines. This has been done and Deputies will see the amendment I have tabled brings forward two new subsections — section 4(2) and 4(3) — which will be substituted in place of the original provision.

The revised provisions clearly recognise that formal deadlines need not always be set and provide local authorities with the reserve power to set a deadline when the local authority considers it necessary in the particular circumstances of a case. This is clear from the new subsection (2) and the use of the words "may specify" a deadline instead of the previous mandatory requirement to do so. Where no deadline is set, it will be a matter for the prisoner to reply in the time he or she needs to given the circumstances involved. This goes a long way to meet the concerns Deputies had about this issue of an inflexible time which could operate to the prisoner's disadvantage.

I again make the point that I expect local authorities to set guidelines only when needed and when doing so to give the maximum time possible. As I explained on Committee Stage, there could be times in the best interest of the prisoner that a relatively short deadline has been set.

The concerns expressed by Deputies Cuffe, Morgan and other Deputies who contributed have been dealt with. I ask the Deputies to accept the bona fides of amendment No. 18 which meets all the requirements put to me on Committee Stage and to withdraw their amendments.

Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister spoke about extra time. About what length of time is he speaking?

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I made it clear if the Deputy followed the point I made. During the Committee Stage discussions, Deputy Gilmore raised a concern and wanted to delete the word "shall" which he said was inflexible and substitute the words "may be required to". The general tenor of the discussion on Committee Stage was that it would be wise to try to introduce a more flexible arrangement.

To answer Deputy McCormack's specific question, section 4(2) provides for the specification of a deadline but it gives councils the reserve power to set a deadline when the local authority considers it necessary in the particular circumstances of the case. The words used are "may specify" a deadline instead of the previous mandatory requirement which stated "shall specify". The idea is to give the flexibility which members of the Opposition, who raised this issue, sought.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 5, to delete lines 7 to 13 and substitute the following:

"(2) If a registration authority makes a requirement pursuant to subsection (1), it may specify in the requirement or in a subsequent notice given by it in relation to the requirement the period of time within which the requirement shall be complied with and, if the applicant does not comply within the period so specified, the application referred to in subsection (1) shall be deemed to have been withdrawn.

(3) The period of time (if any) specified in the requirement or notice referred to in subsection (2) shall not be less than 7 days from the day on which the requirement is made or the notice is given, as the case may be.".

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 27 to 30, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 10, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:

"10.—The Act of 1992 is amended by the substitution of the following for section 7:

"7.—(1) A person shall be entitled to be registered as a presidential elector in a constituency if he has reached the age of eighteen years and if he was, on the qualifying date—

(a) a citizen of Ireland, and

(b) ordinarily resident in that constituency.

(2) A person who reaches the age of eighteen years and is or shall be, on the qualifying date—

(a) a citizen of Ireland, and

(b) ordinarily resident in that constituency,

shall be automatically registered as a presidential elector in the constituency referred to in paragraph (b), unless he or she instructs the registration authority otherwise.

(3) For the purposes of—

(i) the Presidential Elections Acts 1937 to 1992,

(ii) the Referendum Acts 1942 to 1992, and

(iii) this Act,

'presidential elector' means a person entitled to vote at an election of a person to the office of President of Ireland.

(4) In the Presidential Elections Acts 1937 to 1992 'elector', when used alone, means a person described in subsection (1).".".

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 27 is very interesting. Amendments Nos. 27 to 30, inclusive, effectively cover the same issue and deal with the matter of automatic registration. They raise very significant difficulties. What is proposed is a system of automatic registration when a person reaches 18 years. There is a problem with the amendment, notwithstanding the fact that automatic registration might be a good route to take. Automatic registration is tantamount to compulsory voter registration, something we have never had. While some people feel it might be good, the matter should be discussed in its own right before taking that route. There are also other more cogent reasons to ask the Deputy to pause and reconsider the matter.

Automatic registration, with an opt-out, as proposed in the amendments, is complex. It is easy to contemplate, but difficult to see how it would operate. For example, what would be the process of securing automatic registration? I was born in Wexford, moved to Dublin where I spent many of my teenage and adult years and subsequently moved to various parts of Wicklow. How would the process of registration follow me as I move around the country? There is no requirement on me as a citizen, who has moved from one part of the country to another on various occasions, to register where I live and there is no process that could relate where I currently live to where I lived at the time of my birth. Most of us were registered as being born in maternity hospitals. While there is a certain attraction to automatic registration, there are practical problems.

Another problem for a voter who has just turned 18 years of age is how he or she would know of the process in place to exercise the automatic opt-out. Which registration authority would receive the automatic registration and how do we know that would be appropriate as young people move around quite significantly in their late teenage years and early 20s? What procedures should young people follow who want to tell a registration authority they do not want to register and what timescale would be allowed for that? A series of issues arise.

I do not wish to be negative. Deputy O'Dowd made the point that voter registration needs to be examined in a more holistic way. Currently, we probably have the worst system of voter registration. Our system goes back to the 19th century and is the responsibility of local authorities. Some of these do the job superbly, some moderately well and some not well at all. Some take it seriously, but others do not. Deputy Boyle mentioned that in our system — it happens in his constituency — local authorities adjacent to each other adopt radically different procedures.

It would not be practical to take this route until we have adopted a different system of voter registration. It may well be we should adopt a different system. I would not knock that. The concept of automatic registration deserves discussion in that context, rather than here. I am sure the amendment was tabled by Deputy O'Dowd with a view to airing that general point. It would not be wise to accept the amendment as a series of practical questions arise from it.

Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Would it not be possible to use PPS numbers for automatic registration? It would not matter then whether young people moved from one area to another or whether they were born in one place and now live in another. PPS numbers move with people wherever they go. Could we not have a system where the register of voters would be linked to PPS numbers?

We all agree with the Minister that the process of registering needs examination in view of the difficulties we have all experienced in our areas. I welcome the extension of the window of opportunity for correcting the draft register until 8 or 9 December. However, we must develop a system where we will have a longer time allowed for correction of the draft register.

On the proposed amendment, I am convinced the Minister agrees something must be done. If this amendment is not acceptable, what system will the Minister recommend that will allow automatic registration of people at the age of 18?

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am grateful to the Deputy for his remarks. The Deputy asked about the use of the PPS numbers. I have made the point several times that PPS numbers are primarily for use by the Department of Social and Family Affairs and were established for a particular purpose. We have approximately 5 million PPS numbers in the country and approximately 3.1 million voters. To convert PPS numbers to a voting registration system would be fraught with all sorts of difficulties, not least because PPS numbers do not necessarily reflect current address. I am sure many Members who have a PPS number do not necessarily have their most up to date address recorded for it.

I mentioned some of the problems associated with using PPS numbers earlier, probably when Deputy McCormack was not here. Between 1 May 2004 and 1 November 2006 some 295,771 numbers were issued to people from the ten new EU member states alone. PPS numbers are carried with the person from place to place, but they do not have to recognise where a person currently lives or whether the person is in the country. The PPS number is, so to speak, the equivalent of a person's barcode and is not designed for that purpose.

I do not wish to be negative on the issue of registration. The Deputy asked what I think is the right way to go about the matter. I think we need a rolling register, something which was mentioned by Deputy Morgan. The resources currently going into producing what can at best be regarded as a flawed, sometimes seriously flawed, register, should be taken and invested into creating a rolling register. As I said on Committee Stage, the PPS number could be very useful for verification when a person's name is being entered on the register. For example, the PPS number is currently used when people renew their passports. The idea would be to use it for the purpose of verification on registration.

Also, if we had a system where PPS numbers were cleaned up and it was possible to use them for voter registration, we could also use the REACH system to allow people to vote on line. However, the idea that we can have an automatic system where every 18 year old will be allowed to vote, without putting into operation a structure to manage that, is not viable.

Deputy Morgan was right in the point he made earlier. In the North of Ireland where insurance numbers, which are the equivalent of PPS numbers, are used, a massive and hugely costly effort was made to prevent electoral fraud, and the national insurance numbers were introduced for that reason. There, they had to move to a system of a rolling register. To pass this amendment without putting into operation the infrastructure required to support it would create major difficulties, not least the practical difficulty of in what constituency a person would be registered.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the context of the overall point of this Bill as it relates to prisoners, this amendment deserves particular consideration. Our prison population is overwhelmingly under the age of 25. Also, significant numbers of young people between the ages of 17 and 18 reach the age of majority and acquire the right to vote while in prison. We need a mechanism to deal with their right to vote and participate while prisoners in the prison system. Even though we are on Report Stage, does the Minister accept this is a particular that remains to be dealt with and which we need to revisit?

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy was not present when I dealt with this specific point. The idea is that we would have a recognised official in the prison at senior level who will take responsibility for this issue and that, for example, the prison education service would have a specific role to play, a point made earlier by Deputy O'Dowd. Deputy Boyle is correct that a disturbingly high proportion of the prison population is young people, but to introduce an automatic system for every person of 18 years to be registered before all issues are resolved, such as where they reside or what constituency they would be associated with, would be fraught with evident difficulties. The problem the Deputy addresses, namely, the specific issue of getting young prisoners registered, is a matter that will be dealt with during the reception process, when their right to register to vote will be dealt with.

Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This amendment relates to voting at presidential elections. Does it matter where a voter in a presidential election lives? A voter would not necessarily have to be attached to a constituency to be eligible to vote in a presidential election. Can a distinction be made along the lines proposed by the amendment?

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Practical difficulties arise. We clearly could not have a separate register for each different election. There is no need to know a voter's address for a referendum, for example, but as the electoral register is difficult enough to construct once, to construct four or five different electoral registers would be extremely difficult.

The idea of automatic registration or, for example, a system for tying it in to PPS numbers, or using PPS numbers for verification, are all issues that belong to a wider debate on the issue of how one constructs the register. If, for example, one was to take on board the point I have just made, namely, that I would favour the idea of a rolling register with resources provided to make sure that rolling register is kept up-to-date and accurate, one could have a debate in that context. However, one could not introduce the arrangement suggested in the amendment without creating chaos.

Deputies:

Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?

Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will not press the amendment if the Minister will introduce a rolling register. Is that what he suggests?

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy heard me correctly. I have said it several dozen times. I have even said it in the Deputy's presence.

Deputies:

Amendment No. 28a requires recommittal. It will be discussed with amendment No. 30a.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 28a:

In page 11, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:

"11.—(1) The Table to Rule 1 (4) of the Second Schedule to the Act of 1992 is amended as respects, and only as respects, the preparation of the register of electors which comes into force immediately following the register in force at the date of coming into operation of this Act, by substituting—

(a) in paragraph 7, "9th December" for "25th November",

(b) in paragraph 8, "12th December" for "30th November", and

(c) in paragraph 9, "12th January" for "23rd December".

(2) In this section "preparation", in relation to the register of electors, includes any relevant act in relation to the register mentioned in the Table to Rule 1 (4) of the Second Schedule to the Act of 1992.

(3) This section shall be deemed to have come into operation on 25 November 2006.".

We have already discussed this amendment at some length. It is the nub of the work in this debate. The amendment seeks to insert a new section that will allow additional time for councils to complete their work on the electoral register, which Members have welcomed, and allow members of the public more time to return their registration correction forms to their city or county council. The dates are being extended to 2 January and 9 December respectively. The amendment provides for a new timetable to apply in the case of the 2007 and 2008 register.

Amendment No. 30a is a Labour Party amendment. I have indicated I support the spirit of the amendment. As Deputy Gilmore has explained, a number of Deputies, including Deputies Rabbitte and Crowe, sought to obtain lists of deletions and were not given these on the basis that there may be a problem with the data protection commissioner. I have indicated to Deputy Gilmore that I accept the point. Every Member of the House and every public representative should have had the list of deletions. I am happy to accept the underlying proposal that will make it publicly available.