For the information of Members, there are three additional lists to the main amendment list. The third additional list contains the amendment tabled by Deputy Gilmore on the second additional list, with an amendment to it by the Minister. Amendment No. 9 in the name of Deputy Morgan, on the issue of prisoners proving their previous ordinary residence, has been disallowed as it does not arise out of Committee proceedings. The substance of the amendment was not raised in select committee.
Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2006: Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, line 11, to delete "ENACTMENTS" and substitute "ENACTMENTS,".
Deputy O'Dowd and I have had many a joust on the issue of the comma as the issue seems to arise often. There appears to be a difference between the parliamentary draftsman's office and the draftsman who has given advice to Deputy O'Dowd that the comma should be included. I regret I cannot accept the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 is in the name of Deputy O'Dowd. Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 24, 26 and 26a are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
""candidate for election" means any person who has been properly nominated (and whose nomination has been deemed to be valid by the relevant returning officer) as a candidate in—
(a)a presidential election,
(b)an election to Dáil Éireann,
(c)an election to the European Parliament,
(d)an election to a local authority, or
(e)an election to Údarás na Gaeltachta;”.
The Fine Gael and Green Party amendments repeat amendments which were debated extensively on Committee Stage. Deputy Morgan's amendment, which has been struck down, related to much the same issue. These amendments may be summarised as the provision of information and assistance for the prisoner in the registration and in the voting process. We had fun with this on Committee Stage when we discussed cell to cell canvassing.
We must bear in mind that we need to strike a balance between providing for and facilitating, as much as possible, the prisoner's right to vote and the need to maintain an orderly and appropriate regime within our prisons. The proposed amendments should be considered in the context of the approach being adopted to support and promote the provision of practical information and assistance.
Section 5 of the Bill already requires local authorities to give public notice of the availability of prisoner postal voting. Under this section, application forms must be made available by the local authority, including in every prison. These forms will contain appropriate explanatory information as to what needs to be done. Complimenting this, it will also be possible to arrange for appropriate posters to be devised advertising the new arrangements for the prisons and for leaflets to be made specifically available through the Prison Service.
It is the case that prisoners must receive information on their arrival in prison. I mentioned on Committee Stage that guidelines would be issued to ensure we have a common approach in this regard. Library facilities in prisons are an important focal point. Prisoners have access to a wide range of media and they have access through their families and organisations representing prisoners. To the greatest degree that is practically possible, the Bill allows for information to be made available.
The issues raised by Deputy O'Dowd's proposed new section 6 and Deputy Cuffe's proposed new section 8 relate to information and assistance. The relevant official in the prison will have an important role in helping the process and further informal arrangements may well emerge at local level. It is not necessary or appropriate that we place a direct role on the relevant official, or the Prison Service generally, beyond that already specified. It is specified in the Bill that there will have to be designation of a specific official. Overall, the arrangements being put in place are more than adequate to ensure that prisoners will have access to both information and assistance.
My Department will collect data on the number of prisoners taking up postal voting, which will provide a basis for monitoring the process. It would become quickly evident, particularly as prisoners' rights organisations will also be very interested in this aspect, if there was, for example, a disproportionate under-registration in any prison. That in itself will operate as a reporting mechanism.
For those reasons, it is not prudent for me to accept the amendments. This is not because I wish to be difficult or obdurate but because sufficient devices are already in place.
I agree with the intention that full assistance would be given. However, there has historically been a serious problem with the numeracy and literacy of a significant number of prisoners. In that context, perhaps those staff involved in education in the prison might be able to assist in this area. While I do not want the Minister to be prescriptive on this issue, it is important that those involved in education in the Prison Service would address this issue and that part of the curriculum would deal with it. Staff within the prisons, who would not be seen as administrators, such as chaplains, might usefully become involved.
One issue raised on Committee Stage was the question of the oversight of this process within the prison system. While I accept totally the integrity and professionalism of prison officers and governors, there should be another presence, although not one who is in control or in a position where he or she could be placed in physical or other danger. There should be a verification process and a signing off of the process so that it is as the legislation states. In that context, perhaps an official of a local authority could be placed within the system, although not in a position of physical danger, so that there would be an independent verification of the process in the interests of transparency. I do not doubt the integrity of the process but wish to avoid criticism or other issues.
Amendment No. 26 seeks to have responsibility placed on the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, in co-ordination with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to ensure that it is the responsibility of the Prison Service to ensure that registration forms and ballots are available to people in prisons. I am concerned that if responsibility for the provision of ballot papers and the process is not tied down, there may be a void between these agencies. There could be a metaphorical scratching of heads, looking at one another and wondering who is actually responsible for making this happen.
I am disappointed the Minister does not intend to address amendment No. 9 which seeks to ensure that if prisoners were not in a position to prove their previous ordinary residence to the satisfaction of the registration authority, they would not have the right to vote. Many people in prisons come from a homeless background or from a background where they were moving from house to house and simply did not have what would be considered a permanent residential address. I am concerned that such people are not catered for in the Bill. They would stand to lose their franchise — their right to vote — on foot of their previous circumstances. It is most unfortunate the Bill does not deal with this serious issue, which applies to a considerable percentage of the prison population.
I ask the Minister to consider amendment No. 9. While it was suggested it was not discussed or dealt with on Committee Stage, I contend otherwise. However, I will not labour the matter as it is not properly before the House.
Deputy Morgan has cleverly slipped the matter under the door. He is correct. The relevant official in the Prison Service will be at deputy governor or governor level so there will be responsibility over this process and, for example, there will not be a situation where the local authority does not send out forms and they end up in the bin. It is a serious matter.
To return to Deputy O'Dowd's earlier point with regard to monitoring, one of the best indications as to whether a prison offers this facility will be if a disproportionate number of people are not registered. For example, if there is a large registration in one prison but not in another, that will be an indicator. I have great sympathy with the point made by Deputy O'Dowd. To make people accept part of the responsibilities of citizenship is very positive in terms of education and the development of the person.
There are 200 whole-time equivalent teaching posts in the prisons and the prison education service will play a major role in this area. It would be over-prescriptive to prescribe this in law. However, I would expect and will ensure that a communication is issued to ensure the work is done properly.
I ask the Deputies not to press the amendments as the issues have been dealt with.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 3, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
""registration authority" has the meaning assigned to it by section 6 of the Act of 1992;".
I read this amendment with some interest. I am advised it is not necessary to include a definition of "registration authority" in the Bill as proposed, although I understand the Deputy's intention. Section 18(2) already provides that the Bill when enacted is to be read as one with Electoral Acts 1992 to 2005. These Acts include the appropriate definition of regulatory authorities, and it is in these Acts that the definition is captured. It is captured particularly in section 6 of the 1992 Act, which refers to city and county councils. It would be unwieldy if we were to always repeat definitions and use the collective construction provisions, as in section 18(2).
My advice is that as this is already captured in the other legislation, and as this legislation is to be read as one with the Electoral Acts 1992 to 2005, the desire of the Deputy for clarity in this regard is captured. If the Deputy's draftsperson considers this point it will be seen that the collective description captures the definition.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 4, line 12, to delete "prison" and substitute "prison, save in the case of an Irish citizen".
An issue arises in this regard. Will the Minister clarify his statement on Committee Stage with regard to a person born in Ireland?
We were probably too weary at the end of the day, or something like that, to discuss this. A person can become an Irish citizen, or claim Irish citizenship, in a number of ways. Such a person might never have lived in this country. If someone arrives at Dublin Airport with a stash of banned substances in his or her suitcase and another prohibited substance in his or her pocket, and he or she is then detected, arrested, duly lodged in prison, charged, found guilty and imprisoned, the only time when he or she will have been resident in this country will have been the period he or she spent in prison. The person in question will not have established any prior residency here. In such circumstances, it would be unwise to give criminals a right that is not enjoyed by law-abiding citizens who are not resident in this country. It would be odd to create this right simply by reason of residency in prison.
What if the person had been born in this country? Would he or she automatically——
If a person who is sent to prison was born in this country, he or she would be entitled to ordinary residency and would meet the requirement.
Yes. That is fair enough.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 7a not moved.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 4, line 20, to delete "place" and substitute "constituency".
This amendment arises from a submission that the Labour Party received from the Irish Penal Reform Trust. The submission drew my attention to the possibility that many prisoners were homeless before they were committed to prison. The Bill currently proposes to deem, for the purposes of registering those prisoners as voters, that they are ordinarily resident in the "place" where they would have been residing if they had not been detained in prison. I seek to change the relevant section to provide that prisoners be registered in the "constituency" in which they would have been residing if they had not been imprisoned. I am trying to make a wider provision for two reasons. First, it will not be possible to deem that people who were homeless before they went to prison had been residing in a "place" because they will not have an address that can be used to show they were residing there. Therefore, it is possible that people might not be capable of being registered if they were homeless before they were imprisoned. Second, it may not be appropriate in some cases for people to be deemed to have been resident in a place prior to their incarceration. For example, the prisoner may have been convicted of a serious offence, the victims of which are still residing in the place where the prisoner originally resided. I am thinking about horrendous cases of sexual abuse involving members of families, for example. It might not be appropriate, in the interests of the victims of the crime in question, for the prisoner to be deemed for the purposes of registration to be residing in the place where he or she is living, and to be registered at that place. For the reasons I have mentioned, it would be better to give consideration to the prisoner's "constituency" rather than to his or her place of residence.
I gave a great deal of consideration to this proposal. The Deputy's last point related to the use of the word "place" to refer to the place where the prisoner would have been residing if he or she were not in prison. This amendment, which was discussed on Committee Stage, seeks to change the text of the Bill to indicate that a person will be deemed to be ordinarily resident in a "constituency", rather than in a "place". On the face of it, the amendment seems to involve a relatively minor change of words. A person who is in legal custody may be registered as an elector under section 11(5) of the Electoral Act 1992. Such people are normally deemed to be ordinarily resident in the "place", as it is worded in the Bill, in which they would have been residing if they were not in detention. The text of the Bill follows existing law. It seems the word "place", as opposed to the word "constituency", has been used for the best part of four decades.
Deputy Gilmore made a specific point when he referred to the Irish Penal Reform Trust. I pointed out on Committee Stage that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government had consulted the trust and was aware of its understandable concern that homeless people, in particular, might have difficulties in establishing their links to specific places. Under the current system, such people face notable difficulties in engaging with the electoral process, regardless of the provisions of the Bill before the House. One of the Bill's fundamental principles is that it will not designate prisons as places of ordinary residence, because that is not what they are. The disproportionate effect that such a designation would have on certain constituencies would not serve democracy. I am sure Deputy Gilmore would not intend to have such an effect.
We need to consider the same question that we consider under the current system. What is the best way of linking a particular homeless person with a particular place? The only home a homeless person currently has is the place where he or she resides, not necessarily voluntarily. This matter is best considered by the local registration authority and the relevant person. People could be registered at the hostels and shelters where they were permanently or temporarily residing before they were imprisoned. Current practice suggests local authorities adopt a flexible and common sense approach to this matter. If a person who happens to be detained at Wheatfield Prison wishes to designate Wexford or Wicklow as their constituency because they are from such places or they feel some affinity with them, they can do so.
Deputy Gilmore raised a related issue on a previous occasion, although he did not mention it this evening. I refer to the good point he made about the need for documentation as proof of residency. He asked how a prisoner who was homeless before he was incarcerated can be expected to have such documentation. It is not necessarily the case that proof of address would be demanded in every case. Given the circumstances involved, local authorities should be reasonable and adopt a common sense approach in these and other cases. Guidelines will be produced in this regard as the best way of ensuring there is flexibility. Other options can be considered if there is a need for documentation. In the cases of homeless people living in hostels, I understand it is sufficient for them to produce letters saying where they were from. I appreciate that Deputy Gilmore is anxious to ensure homeless people have the same rights under this legislation. Nothing in the Bill as it stands is contrary to that wish in any way.
I am disappointed the Minister has not agreed to accept the amendment. I foresee that there will be practical difficulties in this regard. As homeless people do not have addresses, we cannot know the addresses at which they will be registered. When the Minister speaks again on this amendment, perhaps he will indicate whether it is intended to require that any given prisoner will be on the register on the basis of his or her home address, and with a "P" — standing for "postal vote" as opposed to "prisoner" — marked beside his or her name. If that is the case, it will not be possible to register homeless people who are prisoners because they do not have addresses. I would like the Minister to address a second aspect of such an approach. The home address of a prisoner who is a sex offender, for example, could be the house in which the victims of the sexual offences in question are still living. In such circumstances, the victims might not want the prisoner to be registered at the home address. As we know, the electoral register is used by people who send out all kinds of mailshots. If correspondence addressed to a sex offender comes through the letterbox of the victims, that might give rise to concern and upset within the household. I will summarise my queries. How will people who were homeless before they were sent to prison be registered, in practical terms? What facility, if any, will be made available to the families of prisoners who simply do not want them to be registered at the home address?
I agree with Deputy Gilmore. I understand that if a person does not want to be registered at an address, he or she can be registered at a certain street — such as West Street in Drogheda — without the number of the house on the street being mentioned. One does not necessarily have to be identified by a specific location. One could opt to be on a street and not necessarily have to be at the address, but I would like clarification on that.
I see the point the Deputy is making. Deputy Gilmore made the point that if an offence had been committed and a family did not want one of its members registered at that address the local authority would have to work out an appropriate way of registering the person. In the case of a prisoner who does not have a previous address or who is homeless, the association will be at some hostel or some place where the person lived at some stage. It will be difficult for the local authority to find out the address of people who cannot remember their last address. If a person says he is from Wexford, it will be up to the local authority to try——
I think the person does not have to give a specific address.
There must be flexibility on the issue.
Is it not the case that a person does not have to be registered at his or her own address?
The problem is if the person does not have an address. Deputy O'Dowd is talking about somebody who does not have an address. He or she is transient——
The person who wants to register does not have to be——
Members of the Traveller community can currently be registered at the side of the road. That flexibility could apply. I am more concerned about the other point made by Deputy Gilmore. He is worried about two things and one of them is the problem with homeless people registering, but practical arrangements can be made in that respect. His other concern was about someone who might be put in jail for incest. It would be an embarrassment to the family that the person would be registered in the family home. The address to be listed would have to be another place where the person might have been residing. The Deputy made a good point and I have not given a particularly coherent answer. I will look at how that issue can be dealt with in the guidelines. It is better to do it there than in primary legislation.
It applies in the case of gardaí who can be registered without having to provide an address for security reasons.
That is correct. A garda will do that to be secure. Deputy Gilmore's point is a bit more subtle, if I read him correctly. Someone of evil intent who wants to punish his or her family might try using the register.
It could be that, or it could be an inadvertent discovery.
The Deputy has raised a subtlety that is not easy to capture in primary legislation. That may happen in one in a million cases, but the case in which it happens is the most important case. I think it could be dealt with in the guidelines.
I will accept the promise on guidelines and I will not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 9 is out of order.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
I will not move amendments Nos. 10 to 15 if that facilitates the passage of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 10 to 15, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 4, line 46, to delete "shall" and substitute "may be required to".
This amendment deals with the documentation. There is a degree of overkill in requiring all imprisoned applicants to submit all of their documentation, as many of them will not be in a position to do so. The amendment would make the furnishing of such information discretionary rather than mandatory.
We discussed this on Committee Stage. I undertook to discuss some of these matters with the Parliamentary Counsel as they were to do with text. I am advised that it would be wise to leave the wording as it is, and I am following that advice. A whole group of amendments are being taken together because they are textual in their nature. I am advised that it is not required to go for an alternative formulation of words.
I should have advised that amendments Nos. 7a, 15 to 17, inclusive, 17a, 18, 18a and 19 to 23, inclusive, are related and should be discussed together.
I wish to speak on amendments Nos. 17, 20 and 22. Amendment No. 17 is aimed at people who have difficulty in proving identity. If they have problems in producing identity, then surely the registration authority should rely upon the information that the Irish Prison Service has on prisoners' identity. That is reasonable because I do not suspect that there are hundreds of people in prison under false identity.
Amendment No. 20 seeks to extend the period, from seven days to 28 days, to allow a prisoner obtain information from outside. The Irish Prison Service allows one statutory visit per month. If the prisoner was to lose the privilege of additional visits, the one visit per 28 days would be a reasonable period of time within which to secure the information. I know that seven days is the minimum and I accept the point the Minister made, but I would prefer to see the minimum set at 28 days just to be sure.
Amendment No. 22 states that the registration authority shall rely upon the identity details of the applicant provided by the Irish Prison Service for the purposes of processing that person's application. If a person is in prison under a particular identity, surely the weight of the deprivation of the person's liberty and the details provided the Irish Prison Service should be sufficient to satisfy the terms of the registration authority, especially if that prisoner is not in a position to secure other information. There could be a breach from the family or the person may not even have a family.
Debate adjourned.