Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)

I stand in awe and admiration of the breadth of Senator Cullinane's contribution which somehow managed, dextrously and efficiently, to transform a section on definitions into a treatise on the health service. If ever there was to be a question mark over the future of this House, with respect to the Senator, anyone from outside listening in would wonder what the debate was about apart from the lecture by Professor Lynch. Senator Cullinane's contribution was close to a lecture to the Members of this House. I do not wish to take away from his right to say whatever he wishes but it one were to reflect on the business of this House, the debate should be about this specific Bill rather than a rant and rave about all that happened in the health service and all the things to which one is politically opposed.

I wish to focus specifically on amendment No. 12, which is in the name of Senator Cullinane and his colleagues, much of which I agree with. The amendment and the questions that have been raised by it brings back the hoary old chestnut of the efficiency of the electoral register and the manner in which information is gathered. That has been the subject of debate in both Houses and in all parties in recent years, most recently because of the significant surge in the population and also because of question marks that arose about practices that were indulged in by some parties in the context of putting forward candidates. It happened in particular in urban areas, especially in Dublin. People turned up on the register in apartment blocks who had no particular residence there other than that they got their name on the register and gave an address as to where they came from. I refer to Irish nationals. If the cap fits, those who know what I am talking about will know the history of the situation. That raised serious concerns in all political parties in the Republic, so much so that efforts were made in recent years to tighten up the regulations. In that context I welcome Senator Cullinane's conversion to having a more transparent and accountable register which will impose on all political parties and activists requirements to ensure that the integrity of the electoral register is not questioned.

The use of personal public service, PPS, numbers has regularly been suggested. Rather interestingly there was an item in today's Irish Independent which referred to a report from the Department of Social Protection to the effect that approximately 7 million PPS numbers have been issued. I hope I got my figures correct. There are only 4.5 million people in the country which gives rise to the question of how that could happen. From what I read in the article, the explanation is that the PPS numbers were given to non-nationals who came to the country from 2004 onwards, following the expansion of the European Union and that they have taken their PPS numbers back with them. One could ask if we were to introduce a PPS-based system whether it too would be open to abuse because of the enormous corpus of PPS numbers floating around Europe. Although this is an issue for the Minister for Social Protection, not this Minister, perhaps a time limit should be placed on these PPS numbers, whereby if they are not activated after a certain period of time they should lapse and it would be up to people to re-register. If we introduce the use of PPS numbers, which I believe to be a good idea in principle, we must be careful about how it is implemented.

The other issue is photographic identification. Again, I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on this and on the amendment in general in the context of how we can improve the register of electors to make it more accountable and transparent and to prevent questions being raised about people abusing our system. Abuses have taken place. All Members will be aware of the great slogan in the early years following the foundation of the State: "Vote early and vote often".