Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

I thank Senators for their contributions to the debate. The comments referred both to the Bill itself and to the general electoral agenda. It is not possible to respond to all the comments made but I will attempt to cover as much as possible. We will go into matters in more detail on Committee Stage.

Senators broadly welcomed the extension of voting facilities to prisoners. It may be helpful to set out how the prisoner voting system will operate. The practical arrangements for individual prisoner voting may vary from prison to prison, but I am assured it is the Prison Service's intention to maintain the integrity of the voting system. Arrangements will be put in place for prisoners to exercise their vote in the presence of the relevant official, away from the scrutiny of staff or other prisoners. The relevant officials will usually be at governor level and will be peace commissioners.

As a practical example, prisoners may cast their votes in their cells in the absence of other prisoners, in a designated area on a landing or at a location to which prisoners would normally have access during cell unlock times, such as libraries and recreational areas. The aim, where security allows, is to keep the arrangements as similar as possible to those that pertain for regular voters. Voting areas with booths, for instance, may be used. Once the ballot paper is marked in secret by the prisoner and sealed by him or her in the accompanying envelope, it will be handed by the prisoner to the relevant official, who will arrange for all votes to be forwarded to the appropriate authority in a secure manner.

Senator Bannon argued that there is potential for voter disenfranchisement when the current electoral register process is complete. This is simply not the case. There is no reason any eligible person should not be included in the final register. The draft register has been available for consultation for almost a month, and voters have until 9 December to notify their local authorities of any errors or omissions. Even when the final register is published next February, eligible persons may secure their votes via the supplementary register until 15 days before polling day. Claims that voters will be disenfranchised take no account of the systems in place to accommodate people in this way.

Senator O'Toole related some difficulties he had experienced with the www.checktheregister.ie website and requested some changes to its functionality. I do not have information on this but I will ask the departmental officials to communicate a response to the Senator. I agree with his observation about the illogicality of the lack of some particular functionality.

I agree with Senator Brady's comments on the good work done by local authorities in preparing the register. Much of the publicity surrounding this issue has been most unfair. Mistakes undoubtedly have been made but one must bear in mind that it is a complex exercise. The constant movement of people, for example, especially in cities, means it is almost impossible, on any given day, to be clear on who is resident in a particular house. There is room for improvements. The recent campaign urging citizens to check the register will be useful. Ultimately, it is each individual's responsibility to ensure his or her inclusion on the register, and we have provided adequate opportunity to effect that inclusion.

Senators Tuffy and Bannon suggested a further extension of the deadline for inclusion on the draft register to the end of January. This proposal is simply not sensible. The current register will cease to have effect on 14 February 2007. If the deadline were extended to the end of January, it would be impossible for local authorities to have the new register ready in time to replace the existing one. I do not believe anybody would seriously suggest the life of the current register, which was prepared in the autumn of 2005, should be extended. Such a suggestion would be completely illogical given the scale of activity that has been invested in the quality of the new register.

Senator Bannon also suggested that PPS numbers should be used to compile the register. Such a system would not solve the problem of inaccuracies in the register before the next general election. PPS numbers are not immediately adaptable for electoral purposes. There are more than 5 million PPS numbers in existence but only some 3 million voters on the register. PPS numbers do not reflect the current residence of many voters or their citizenship status for electoral purposes. A national electronic register that interfaces with the PPS database would have to be put in place if PPS numbers are to act as a security check. We know from experience how long major information technology projects can take to complete. A PPS number linkage would require starting the register from scratch, which would be a potential major inconvenience, particularly to elderly people who may not be accustomed to producing their PPS numbers. It is not a practical suggestion.

I am pleased to advise Senator Tuffy that section 19 provides for the lists of deleted electors to be made publicly available by local authorities.

I thank Senators for their contributions and I look forward to further debate on these important issues on Committee Stage.