John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and the opportunity to speak on this motion. It is difficult to find major disagreement between the motion tabled by Fine Gael and the Government amendment. Valid points are made in both. The issue we are debating is above party politics. The inclusion on a register is necessary to give reality to the individual's right and responsibility to participate in the democratic system. An accurate register is integral to our method of expressing that democratic right. It is only eligible electors who should engage in the voting process and we must guard against multiple voting, personation, etc.

We all recognise that the accuracy of the register must be improved. The issue we are debating is what can be achieved in the short term to do that but, equally, it would be remiss of us not to admit that the current system is not working. We must take a long-term view, post the next general election, of the way we can change the method of compiling the register. We have two objectives. The first is to get the register as accurate as we possibly can between now and the next election and we should have a long-term strategy in that regard. We should not debate just before the next election how we can improve the system, or adopt a new system of compiling the register.

There are many reasons the register is in its current state, including the rapid population growth, the physical development of the country, increased personal mobility and increasing numbers of gated apartment complexes to which enumerators have difficulty getting access. A concerted effort was made over the years to get people on the register and not necessarily to remove those who should not be on the register — those who have moved, are deceased or have emigrated. Some people, particularly those in the 18 to 25 age category, are unable to vote because they are not on the register of electors. Based on the 2002 census, approximately 500,000 people aged between 18 and 25 are eligible to vote but research carried out by the National Youth Council of Ireland and the Central Statistics Office in recent years suggests that approximately 20% of that group may not be registered to vote and as many as 100,000 of the 0.5 million young people who have a right to vote may not be on the register.

There are discrepancies of some 300,000 between the number of people on the register in 2002 and the census figure of 2002. I am concerned about people being on the register who should not be on it. I am concerned about people in the Border counties coming across the Border and registering. We are open to that practice. A number of solutions have been suggested. The local authorities are legally tasked with compiling the register. Do they have the time, the resources and the expertise to do it?

In the past, when the system was based on rate collectors, there was a vested interest for the local authority in compiling the register. Local authorities have a vested interest in collecting charges. If a person does not pay his or her local authority charges, his or her bin will not be collected. The system works because local authorities have a financial interest in ensuring that it works. What financial interest do local authorities have in the compilation of the register? When we talk about making more resources available to local authorities, we should do so in a way that rewards them for accuracy. Alternatively, in the longer term, we should consider franchising out this process, be it to An Post or an independent commission, although I accept that this cannot be done before the next general election. There must be an attractive financial incentive for the agency compiling the register for it to deliver a degree of accuracy in the interests of our democracy.

It is a pity that the recent Labour Party Private Member's Bill was unworkable for a number of key reasons. One received the impression that the Bill would have created an all-powerful quango. The use of PPS numbers in compiling the register has been raised in this debate but it would present difficulties because not everyone has a PPS number. Going down this road in the short term between now and the next general election would not achieve the desired degree of accuracy. This does not mean that it should not be adopted as a strategy to include people in the long term. Under such a strategy, a person would be automatically entered on to the register once he or she received his or her PPS number.

A number of commentators have spoken about the use of photo identification. It is interesting that the people who promote the use of photo identification, with which I agree, raise the spectre of Big Brother whenever the introduction of national identity cards is mooted. A national identity card system has worked well for many years in France and the UK is considering adopting such a system. We may be forced to go down that road because of freedom of movement between this jurisdiction and the UK. If we are forced to introduce identity cards, will they make the compilation of the electoral register easier? People must produce personal identification if they wish to obtain an ESB connection and many other services yet if they wish to exercise their democratic right to vote, they do not have to produce such identification in all cases. We must examine this issue seriously. We cannot speak out of both sides of our mouths about it.

The Government is determined to take action between now and the next general election and local authorities must make a concentrated effort to improve the register. However, it is not sufficient to leave it at that. The package announced by the Government, which contains some very straightforward proposals, is welcome. Among these proposals are the use of census enumerators or other temporary personnel, such as the student scheme proposed in the motion, to gather information. From my practical experience as a politician who has spent time knocking on doors, such information gathering must take place during the evening. It is impossible for people to collect this information during the day because they will only obtain a 20% to 30% response. A higher response rate and concomitant accuracy can only be achieved by gathering information late in the evening between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m.

Increased ring-fenced financial resources for local authorities to allow them to update the register are important. It again reinforces my point about making it financially attractive for local authorities to update the register. We should be able to link the register to every time a member of the public comes into contact with the State through agency like the Department of Social Welfare or the Revenue Commissioners. We and these agencies can interface with the public in an effort to keep the register accurate by including one more question on whatever forms members of the public are filling in or compiling. Given the existence of modern databases, why can this question not be forwarded to the relevant local authority? There should be a section or column dealing with the register in every form arising out of interactions between members of the public and State institutions.

New IT arrangements to delete deceased persons from the register have also been put in place. It is not acceptable that when we record deaths, we do not delete the deceased person's name from the register at the same time. It does not make sense. In our own limited way, we know the embarrassment this can cause when we communicate with deceased people using information from our own databases.

This is a serious topic which is being taken seriously by the Government. I hope we can inspire local authorities to take it seriously. Significant steps can be taken and local authorities can do more even in the absence of new packages. For example, new local authority housing estates have been constructed but their residents do not appear on the register. It is inexcusable for a local authority to allocate a house to someone but neglect to put him or her on the register at the same time. The variation in quality between one local authority and another is not understandable. Why is one authority more efficient than another? It comes back to my argument that it must be made financially attractive to maintain the register. Local authorities do not slip up when they are collecting their own charges.

The individual also has considerable responsibility. He or she is responsible for registering himself or herself. No matter what action we take, we must run parallel educational and information programmes and provide easier IT access to check the register and enter one's details. I am aware that this measure is coming forward. We must continuously remind people of the importance of checking whether they are on the register.

Short-term progress on this issue is most likely to be achieved by gearing up the local authorities, working with the current organisational framework and pushing them forward. However, we also need a long-term strategy for compiling the register. No matter how much Senators might protest otherwise, none of us can escape the reality that we must work with the system we have. There is merit in many of the arguments made here tonight and I hope the Government takes them on board.