Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)

It is good to hear Senator Kitt agree with some of what is in the Fine Gael motion. This is only proper as there should be common ground among politicians on what needs to be done. We all agree the electoral register is a shambles. The Irish Times reported today that between 300,000 and 800,000 names on the register should not be on it.

As Senator Kitt said, we are very dependent on officials for the register. This is a reason I agree with Senators Bannon and Brian Hayes on the need for an independent electoral commission. We are dependent on officials to keep the register accurate. I agree with Senator Kitt that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have been less active in recent years with regard to detailed examination of the register. Both parties used to be more active on this. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about it.

We must ensure clear guidelines and instructions are given by the Department to all local authorities. Much of the content of our motion is basic common sense as are many of the suggestions in the Government amendment. Between us, we should be able to devise what should be done in the best interest of all. We did well to remove those with political interests from polling stations, thereby ending the intimidation many voters felt occurred.

We cannot get away from the seriousness of the issue of the electoral register. Today's editorial in The Irish Times states: "The Government's lackadaisical attitude to the integrity of the electoral register and abuse of the democratic system has been nothing short of shameful". We all agree that there are gross inaccuracies that cannot be ignored. It is a basic duty of Government to ensure the register is correct. We will never get 100% accuracy as people will always move house or location. It is a significant failure of the Administration that the register is in the state in which we find it today. This could easily influence the composition of a future Government, which would be appalling.

We know the potential for abuse exists. The Government's responsibility is to protect democracy and correct the electoral register and we will support it on that. We are all together in that sense. There are various reports on the figures, but they are significant whether we go for the higher or the lower figure. The inaccuracies are not just in one constituency, but in many of them. I do not understand why the recent Labour Party proposal to use non-confidential information from the census was ruled out. According to The Irish Times editorial, the Minister has ruled out the request that personal identification be required of voters. I look forward to hearing the rationale behind that.

The editorial further states: "... you cannot conduct a bank transaction or travel abroad without identification. Local authorities will not even issue a parking permit in the absence of a personal utility bill. So what is the problem about producing such material when it comes to protecting democracy and electing a government?" We need an answer on this. The editorial is damning in its final statement on the matter: "Their failure now threatens the very fabric of our political system and they must put it right". We all want to see it put right. That is the reason we have not yet heard any specifics on the way that will be done. We await the Minister of State's contribution in that regard.

To deal with the points in the motion, if up to 800,000 individuals are inaccurately recorded on the electoral register, we all know what happened. Many of those, undoubtedly, are deceased. We are all aware of instances where the names of deceased persons were not removed from electoral registers. Forgive me if I digress for a moment but in the 1961 election in south Kerry the names of 40 deceased persons were on the register in a pooling booth in Glencar — I will not mention which of the three. There was something like a 99% turnout and, coincidentally, there were 40 "plumpers" in that box for a successful Deputy at the time who has gone to his eternal reward. That was only 40 names. How many are on the register now? That is happening everywhere. I fail to comprehend how the inaccuracies we are hearing and reading about occurred. There is great potential for disenfranchisement and voter fraud arising out of that and it is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to ensure we have a modern, proper electoral system. We wait to hear from the Minister of State what is being proposed in that regard.

What is wrong with the automatic registration of individuals who turn 18 years of age by utilising the PPS registration system? Surely there is merit in that approach. I do not see anything wrong with that but we will wait to hear what the Minister of State has to say on it. Like Senator Brian Hayes, I am strongly in favour of an independent electoral commission because it would ensure greater accuracy of the register. That would be its specific function. It is falling between various stools, so to speak, at present and it must be improved.

On e-voting, I listened to the contributions of Senators Brian Hayes and Kitt and with no disrespect to the eminent people on the commission — we will hear from them whenever they produce their final view — there are three basic things wrong with e-voting. First, there is no paper trail and that does not instil confidence in anybody. Second, and equally important, it was not designed to cater for the intricacies of the proportional representation system. It may be appropriate for a first past the post system if there was a paper trail, of which there is not, and as a result there is no confidence in it. If there is no confidence in a system we would be foolish in the extreme to try to tamper with it or even improve it, if it can be improved. Third, as Senator Kitt said, there was a total lack of consultation. We await hearing from the commission but I do not believe we will be able to come up with a system to cater for proportional representation with a paper trail in which people can have confidence. If there is no confidence in the system, we will not get anywhere with it.

There is great merit in a student summer scheme. There is no mention of a student summer scheme in the amendment but I believe agreement could be reached on that issue. I do not see anything wrong with an obligatory photo ID. In addition, polling stations should be located closer to communities. With no disrespect to returning officers, who are often county sheriffs or county registrars, the local authorities should be better clued in to the areas where it would be more appropriate to locate polling stations, particularly if there was an instruction from the Department, which should be the case.

Regarding the appointment of presiding officers, and this is a frightful scandal — thankfully, it does not happen everywhere — there have been some noted cases in various constituencies arising from the last election. It is an essential part of the function of presiding officers to ensure each ballot is stamped. Members will be aware, when the disputed ballots were up for examination, of the shameful number of ballots that were disallowed because they did not have the required stamp. That is the first requirement. The voter often does not understand that it is necessary. That is happening for one of two reasons. Either the returning officer and-or the polling clerk are dithering or it is being done deliberately. In either case it is wrong, should not be tolerated and any such person should not be reappointed as a presiding officer by a returning officer. The Department should make an instruction in that regard and ensure it is carried through, and that any such person is not reappointed.