Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 7, line 28, after "entitled" to insert "and registered".

Amendments Nos. 14, 22 and 61, and indeed some other amendments that will be ruled out of order, relate to the transitional arrangements for the creation of the new register and the danger that its creation may lead to the disenfranchisement of many who are currently entitled to vote. It would be a really poor reflection on us, in light of the demand for the expansion of the franchise from about 1979 and including 2013, which demand has been so inadequately responded to in this legislation, if we ended up with backward steps.

Amendment No. 14 is a very small one. It relates to the transitional arrangement for moving from the status quo, with two separate university constituencies and hundreds of thousands of graduates currently registered to participate in elections, to a new higher education constituency. Our concern is that the Bill does not provide a mechanism for current voters to transfer their data automatically to the new register. The Bill instead proposes the tearing up of the current register and the taking away of votes from all those currently on either the Trinity register or the NUI register so as to start from scratch. In the first instance, the Bill will effectively disenfranchise the 200,000 individuals currently registered to vote in a parliamentary election in the hope they will seek the opportunity to register again. Our amendments propose a very different approach. Amendment No. 14 would see the registration of all qualified graduates on the current register. This is our preferred option and it is the appropriate one.

Issues have been raised regarding the clarity of the register and who is currently on it. The argument was made on Second Stage that there are many addresses out of date and so forth, but that is also true of the register for Dáil and European elections. With other registers, we do not have the practice of disenfranchising everybody and then requiring them to go through the hoops again. We talked about wanting people to have faith in democracy but there is nothing like the sense of disenfranchisement felt by a person expecting to vote who is told he or she has been removed from the register. That is now going to happen to tens of thousands, given the way the Bill is currently set out.

On the idea that some data on the register are out of date, as mentioned on Second Stage, I have proposed several amendments. When we come to them, they will be ruled out of order, but they are directly relevant. I set out a variety of mechanisms to deal with the issue. My preference, and what I believe is the democratic thing to do, is to transfer all who are on the current register to the new register. Amendment No. 14 simply allows that anyone entitled to vote would be allowed to do so through inclusion on the new register. One would not be transferring people's data without their permission but simply ensuring the new register included all those entitled to vote according to the old register. Consider the concern that there are many out-of-date entries. We know many addresses and so forth are out of date, but the fact that one address is wrong does not invalidate the register.

Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 all address the same point, which concerns the circumstances that apply even if one does not want to ensure everybody is automatically entitled to be included on the register. What is the excuse for not including those who have voted in the past three elections, or, if data protection is a concern on the basis of the time period for three elections, the past two? I am referring to persons who, within the period covered by any data protection laws, or within the past 12 years, have provided their details to Trinity or the NUI and who have indicated they have voted. These are active voters. Those who voted in the last election, whom I also include, used their votes during the Covid pandemic, when it was extraordinarily difficult to do so. They had to go out during a global pandemic, find a witness and send in their forms, thereby showing great and unusual commitment to utilising their votes. Again, the idea that all those persons should be automatically removed from the register is an insult to them. In some cases, they made an extreme effort to use their votes in the last Seanad election. At a minimum, it seems that those who vote in the next general election, or the one that is likely to be prior to the coming into operation of this Bill, should be automatically included on the register. If there is an issue with being clear on what will happen, there should be none with retaining data on those who will exercise their votes in the next election and with ensuring they are automatically included on the register of electors as eligible to vote.

I refer to three elections, two elections and one election because doing so, while it addresses the question of out-of-date information, ensures those who use their votes will not be cut from the register or have additional obstacles placed in their way. This relates to amendment No. 61.

Amendment No. 61 addresses one of the problems we have with the register. With regard to the register for NUI graduates, it used to be the case that there was automatic enrolment. There was a streamlined process whereby all graduates, except those who opted out, were included. In the early 1990s, around the time of the introduction of free education, when there was a great widening of the cohort attending university, notwithstanding that some will argue we still do not really have free education, you had to choose to add yourself to the register and go through a process in that regard. I do not know whether this was coincidental or just unfortunate timing. The change affecting enrolment means that while so many people in their forties, fifties and sixties - I came in just at the very end of it – were automatically included, many younger graduates are less represented on the register because they have a more cumbersome process to add themselves to it and thus gain access to a vote. Amendment No. 61 is very small and practical; however, by replacing "may" with "shall", it would require universities to automatically send the chief registration officer the details of newly qualified graduates, with their consent, for the purpose of including them on the electoral register.Again, it is streamlined process whereby the universities would have to ask their graduates if they wished to join the register of electors for the Seanad election, and if so, there would be a wholesale transfer to the chief registration officer of data for all those who have consented. Again, it makes it a less burdensome process for persons to gain access to their vote. If we believe, which I do, that it is a public good to have as many people as possible voting and participating in decision-making, we should try to make that process as easy as possible. We have seen that the more cumbersome process, as faced by current graduates, has led to a lower level of registration, certainly in the case of NUI voters, than previously when we had a more automated system of transferring newly qualified graduates.

There two more amendments on this theme. On amendment No. 22, as I said, and I have been very clear, I believe the better thing would be to transfer all those who are on the current NUI and Trinity registers. If not, I have suggested options to include those who have voted in the last one, two or three elections. At a minimum, there should be a responsibility that all those on the current register would be explicitly contacted, not simply through an information campaign - we, or the State, have their addresses - informed that they need to transfer to the new register and given the opportunity. As I said, a general information campaign and so forth is not sufficient. There needs to be an explicit invitation to the new register. Otherwise, what we will have during the Seanad election after this legislation is enacted is a large number of people who expect to use their vote who discover they are not on the register. Nobody becomes more disaffected with democracy than the person who finds themselves with a vote taken from them, except perhaps, for those who are never given a vote at all, which is the wider public in terms of the Seanad. I think I have covered amendment No. 14. Amendment No. 22 is about the contact point. Amendment No. 61 is about the automated process for individual universities to engage with the chief registration officer and facilitate their graduates in accessing their franchise.

There is also an important point regarding an amendment that was ruled out of order, and it is very unusual, which is the fact there is no supplementary register. A supplementary register in this instance may be particularly important when so many persons may find themselves removed from the register and realising they need to add themselves only when an election is called or about to be called. Under the current system - again this was a very easy issue to fix - we have an anomaly whereby those who graduated in September 2019 were not entitled to vote in the election of spring 2020, because it is almost a once-a-year opportunity which does not abide by the graduation process. For example, those who graduated this September will in all likelihood not be able to vote or register to vote, or have an opportunity to do so, in the election that might take place in early 2025 or spring because there is no supplementary register. It is a real gap. New graduates almost need an 18-month run-in to get the opportunity to vote in a Seanad election. Again, it seems to be a small issue that could be fixed. This is an opportunity to fix it. It is an issue that will be especially pertinent because we know that people will be very frustrated when they realise they have been removed from the register. If we do not at least have a supplementary register they can be directed to, there will be large-scale frustration and disappointment that is completely avoidable in respect of the first Seanad election that will take place under this new system.

These are practical suggestions. I have given multiple options. I ask the Minister would look to them when he is in the Dáil. We do not want a message of disenfranchisement to come out alongside what the Government would hope to be a first step forward. It would be a pity to have a step backward attached to that.