JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT debate -
Thursday, 15 Dec 2005

Register of Electors: Discussion

Chairman

Our business today is a discussion with officials from the franchise section of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government concerning the register of electors. The joint committee will now consider the register of electors and the guidance for registration authorities documents prepared by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I draw the attention of members to the Department's invitation to express views on the guidance documents. Comments are invited to be made by Friday, 30 December. I suggest that members' comments be in the form of specific proposals. If we can agree on a proposal today, we can submit it to the Department by the deadline.

I welcome Mr. Maurice Coughlan, Mr. Dave Walsh and Mr. Barry Ryan, principal and assistant principal officers from the franchise section. Today's meeting will begin with a brief presentation by the officials followed by questions from members.

I draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, this privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are also reminded of long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Mr. Maurice Coughlan

I thank the Chairman and members for this opportunity to brief the committee on the new draft guidance on the register, which has been prepared in the Department. In these opening comments I propose to set out the context for the guidance, outline its main provisions and detail the next steps in the process.

The Department has responsibility under the Minister for policy and legislation relating to the electoral system. In terms of electoral administration, there is a complex organisational environment involving a range of actors, including local registration authorities, returning officers and a number of statutory independent commissions.

In recent times electoral reform has focused on a number of areas, including the modernisation of electoral law. The 1990s saw the enactment of the Electoral Act 1992, relating primarily to Dáil elections, and subsequent renewal and enhancement of the presidential, referendum and local elections codes. The Electoral Act 1997 established the regulatory regime on controls on election spending and donations and was followed by further related legislative change, principally in the Electoral (Amendment) Acts 1998, 2001 and 2002. The voting and counting system has received significant attention over recent years.

Electoral reform has also focused on enhanced legislative provisions in respect of the register. These have given increased access to the register, for example, by expansion of the categories eligible for the supplement and the establishment of supplements to the postal voters list. The reform agenda has also involved computerisation of, and arrangements for on-line access to, the register.

Under electoral law, the register is the responsibility of each registration authority. It is the duty of each registration authority to ensure, as far as possible, the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the register for its area. In carrying out this work, registration authorities depend to a significant degree on the co-operation of the public.

The focus of the Department's work on the register is to support and assist registration authorities through, among other things, ensuring that an appropriate legislative framework is in place, developing best practice guidance and overseeing related national awareness campaigns. The Department does not have a role in the day-to-day implementation by registration authorities of their registration duties.

It is generally acknowledged that the task of compiling the register has become more difficult over the years. Factors such as rapid population growth, expansion of urban areas, development in rural areas and increased personal mobility all present new challenges for registration authorities in preparing and maintaining the register.

In light of this, the Department has recently completed the best practice guidance for registration authorities which is now before the committee. The guidance updates a previous version published by the Department in 1997 and incorporates the significant legislative changes to the registration process that have been enacted by the Oireachtas in the intervening years. It has also been re-organised extensively to provide greater clarity on the steps to be taken in preparing, publishing and updating the register.

The committee will recall that the Minister, in conveying the guidance to it, stated that the aim is to support registration authorities in working to secure significant improvement in the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the register. Accordingly, the guidance focuses on securing realistic, practical improvements to the register in the context of the current policy and legislative framework. It is without prejudice to any future developments in these regards.

The guidance is not a definitive statement of the law on any point. Where there is doubt as to the legal requirements, the guidance should be regarded as an initial point of reference and the relevant legislation should be consulted. The guidance has been sent to registration authorities and returning officers as well as to this committee. In view of the importance of the matter, registration authorities have been advised to implement the guidance immediately.

The guidance and associated appendices are extensive but I will try to summarise some of the main points. Specific features of the guidance include a full account of the law in this area, which has become increasingly complex over the years with the introduction of new measures such as those relating to supplements; a more user-friendly format for registration authorities; a timetable of the key activities and milestones in preparing and publishing the register in its various forms, along with the relevant legislative references; more detailed guidance on the structure of the register with samples of the different page formats; guidance on the definition of ordinary residence for categories such as students, the Traveller community, emigrants, and residents with holiday homes; details of the law on the prohibition on people being registered as electors at more than one address; information on the categories of voters who are eligible to register on the postal and special voters lists and the procedures to be followed to deal with applications for entry onto these lists; guidance on operational matters relating to the compilation of information by registration authorities, including advice on the collection of data, on the employment, training and supervision of sufficient field personnel to conduct house-to-house inquiries and on regular monitoring and quality control of the data; and emphasis on the importance of periodic reviews of overall procedures to ensure that high standards of accuracy and comprehensiveness are achieved. Such reviews should be undertaken now in order, where necessary, to bring current procedures into line with best practice.

Other features of the guidance include details of a range of procedures for checking the draft register, including scrutiny by the Garda Síochána, cross-checking by field staff, focus on deletion of deceased persons, checking omission of names on the previous register, public display, the role of public representatives, and local and national awareness campaigns; emphasis on the application of IT resources to help people check on-line whether they are registered correctly, and to enable them to download relevant forms from the registration authority's website; the appointment by each registration authority of a designated officer to be responsible for the co-ordination and supervision of the work involved in preparing the register; and information on applying for entry on and preparing the various supplements to the register and the need for controls in this regard.

A second volume, comprising the appendices to the document, accompanies the guidance. This includes sample layouts for the register, copies of all the application forms relating to the register, which have been revised as appropriate, and samples of advertising notices and posters used in previous draft register publicity campaigns.

The Minister has indicated that he would welcome any comments the committee might wish to make on the guidance and that these will be taken into account in the finalisation of the document. In addition, registration authorities were invited to comment and it is also open to returning officers to do so. In these ways, the final document should reflect more fully the actual experience on the ground in implementation of the registration process, and strengthen the support which the guidance will give registration authorities in working to improve the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the register. I thank the committee.

Deputy O’Dowd

I welcome the Department officials and wish to make some quick points. One issue raised repeatedly is the need to clean up the register. Many people on the register should not be on it because they left the address they are registered at years ago. What are Mr. Coughlan's views on using a personal identifying number such as the PPS number? Would legislation be required to change the register so a person can be on it only once and at one location? If a person was in hospital they could apply for a change. The complete inaccuracy of the register, particularly in urban areas, is a key issue.

At the time of the last election I visited a polling booth which had hardly any voters because almost all of the original tenants in newly built flats and apartments had gone. Nobody living there was on the register of electors. All of the people registered had left. Should local authorities engage with other statutory authorities, such as An Post, to establish who lives at an address when the register is checked? The old days when one man or woman knew everybody in the town are long gone. The Department of Social and Family Affairs has accurate information on where people live, An Post delivers correspondence from that Department, but the local authority has no interaction with those people as part of its work. That is a critical issue.

We wasted €50 million on voting machines. Does Mr. Coughlan have a role in identifying new locations where people can vote in their constituencies? There are less polling stations in constituencies now than there were 100 years ago. Should we place polling stations in shopping centres where people congregate? Given the way people work and long commutes, would it make sense to have polling stations at railway stations? Approximately 3,000 people commute to Dublin from Drogheda every day. They may not return until 7 p.m or 8 p.m. They do not have time to vote before they go to work. Is there a case to be made on that? Should we invest in getting people out to vote rather than buying machines, even if they did work that nobody will turn up to use?

Mr. Coughlan

A few issues were raised, including some quite significant policy issues. From the Department's point of view, use of PPS numbers would have advantages in terms of focusing on the accuracy of the register and ensuring those people on the register have a right to be on it, and are on it only once. I am conscious of the use on national insurance numbers in the register in Northern Ireland.

Other considerations arise to counter that view, including the extent to which being required to produce a PPS number at the point of registration might be regarded by some as a disincentive to register. If it creates a problem, would it be consistent with making it easy and flexible to encourage people to get on the register?

Deputy O’Dowd

I appreciate that.

Mr. Coughlan

I hesitate to purport to speak for Northern Ireland but there is a view that while making it an annual requirement or difficult to get on the register services accuracy in ensuring it is correct, other people may be lost elsewhere which is counter to the objective of comprehensiveness. A balance must be struck. Other broader policy issues exist on the use of PPS numbers. It may be viewed as a proliferation of the use of those numbers in the public service context. A variety of considerations must be weighed in the balance by this committee, the Oireachtas and the Government in reaching a conclusion on this. That is all I can state at this point. The guidelines encourage local authorities to liaise with other public service organisations in compiling the register, including An Post.

Deputy O'Dowd touched on another major policy issue. He suggests the case for a single agency to take over compilation of the register from the 34 registration authorities. It would seem to serve the purpose of focus on the register but against that are other considerations relating to the role of local government at local level. Some might see a tendency to create agencies to solve every problem. It raises issues of accountability. The Government must decide on conflicting issues.

Deputy O’Dowd

Local authorities cannot provide Members of the Oireachtas with the register of electors in the same format as is required for the manipulation of data. That is not good enough. I do not want to cut across Mr. Coughlan but that is another argument in favour of having one organisation compiling the register.

Chairman

For the benefit of members, a Private Members' Bill in the name of Deputy Gilmore is before the Oireachtas, the Electoral Registration Commissioner Bill 2005. It has not been moved yet.

Mr. Coughlan

The position of polling stations is a matter for the local authority in accordance with its assessment and discretion at local level. There is scope for them to continually review polling schemes and the location of polling stations to ensure they are up to date. We encourage local authorities in that. The longer polling hours of recent times facilitate to some extent the varying lifestyles and commuter patterns we now have.

Deputy Cuffe

I was very taken aback by the reticence of Mr. Coughlan to engage with the issue raised by Deputy O'Dowd. A crucial change is required to link registration to PPS numbers and ensure that information is cross-checked nationally between the 34 authorities Mr. Coughlan mentioned. Mr. Coughlan concentrated on the smaller issues but there is an elephant in the corner and that is the issue of ensuring that people are not on the register half a dozen times with half a dozen different authorities or in a single authority. With modern computer technology, there is nothing to stop Mr. Coughlan from doing that. It should happen sooner rather than later.

As Mr. Coughlan pointed out, there is a lot more movement, urbanisation and difficulty in knowing who people are and where they are. The only way out of this is to have a clear way to ensure that people are not making fraudulent entries on the register. This is not to say that a paper register is no longer required. We learned from the electronic voting issue the need to have a paper trail that can be followed and the problems that can result in its absence. It is not rocket science, and I believe it would be simple to link it to a PPS number, for example, in a system similar to Northern Ireland. The information does not have to be shared as that would create a minefield in terms of personal information and data protection. It should, however, constitute the backbone of a proper system in the 21st century. I would encourage the witness to go down that road as quickly as possible. If we need to move to Deputy Gilmore's Bill that would be well and good. The Minister is well capable, along with his resources, to make this happen.

In terms of the information available to the public and elected representatives, the maps available are often very outdated. In the Fingal area of Dublin, the maps showing the district electoral districts and ward designations use information going back to the early part of the last century. Any candidate or member of the public should be able to see clearly on a map exactly what are the DEDs, and there should be a correlation between the naming of the areas, what is on the maps available to the public and the townland names. There is a large discrepancy in the names used in the electronic register, the hard copy and the mapping available to the public. Perhaps the correlation of this information could be facilitated, along with keeping it up to date.

Mr. Coughlan

I am sorry if the Deputy thought I was reticent on the PPS issue. I believe I stated that from the perspective of electoral management and administration, there appears to be an advantage in using PPS numbers. I pointed out some other considerations that needed to be taken into account by this joint committee, by the Oireachtas and the Government as the ultimate deciding authorities in these matters.

With regard to maps, in the context of a relevant Bill we provided a number of copies of maps of relevant constituencies to all current Deputies and Senators.

Deputy Cuffe

I am referring to DED level.

Mr. Coughlan

We did not do so at DED level. We can examine the issue but I am not completely au fait with the matter currently.

Deputy Cuffe

It is important information which should be in the public domain. It should be brought not only to the level of local authorities to be clearly identified on a large scale map, but also to individual DEDs. That information relates to voting patterns and information. The only real source for people currently is the boundary review commission's maps. There is a need to make clear large scale mapping information.

Senator Brady

I thank Mr. Coughlan and his officials for attending. My questions are fairly specific. When a person changes residence, what procedures are suggested to ensure the person is not already registered elsewhere? A person can go through the process of de-registering in one area and registering in another, but politicians will know this is not always the case. What measures are suggested for verification in this respect?

There are guidelines regarding apartments, but are there suggestions as to how many call-backs should be made in the case of this type of dwelling? How many times will a person seeking information be required to call back? With regard to distribution of RFA forms in apartment blocks, there have been instances in the centre of Dublin where handfuls of RFA forms have been placed in letterboxes in apartment blocks. Some of these letterboxes would not be very secure in the first instance. These forms have been found lying on floors and in bins, etc., so are there are relevant instructions on this matter?

A regular review is suggested in the document for the local authorities with regard to the accuracies of registers. Is there a suggested frequency for this type of review or is it left to the authorities? I have a concern about identification, particularly with regard to forms. The forms as distributed are in the appendices. There does not appear to be any method for verification, especially in the RFA form. Even the suggestions on the forms do not mention a specific penalty for supplying false information.

If a person applies to go on the supplementary register and goes to a Garda station, he or she is asked for forms of identification which are possibly but not necessarily photographic. That is a loose arrangement, as anybody can get a photo identification. If a person presents him or herself at a Garda station, the gardaí have no choice but to accept their identification. In the Dublin City Council area we have had experience of impersonation on a significant scale. Have there been any efforts to tighten up this matter, with particular regard for identification?

The PPS number method appears to be the only viable option. Photographic identification, even when requested at polling booths on polling day, does not preclude the possibility of a person producing identification with intent to deceive. A person can rent an apartment or flat anywhere in the city and get bills for the premises in his or her own name. These may be ESB or gas bills. Returning officers sometimes ask for these types of bills as a form of identification. The process is currently too loose and the only secure and sure way to identify people is through PPS number, which is assigned to people from birth. Are any legal barriers known to the Department with regard to using a PPS number for identification?

Mr. Coughlan

The Senator has raised many points, and some may be suitable for inclusion in the views of the committee. The Senator's last point has reminded me that I did not address a similar question from Deputy O'Dowd with regard to PPS numbers and legislation.

The issue of using PPS numbers is not insuperable and there is much franchise legislation. It is clear that there is some scope for it, although I do not purport to be giving legal advice to the joint committee on the matter. There appears to be some scope for action on PPS numbers in the context of current legislation but members and others could take the view that such a major advance and change in electoral practice should be covered more expressly in legislation. While current legislation provides some cover, many matters pertaining to the electoral system are expressly authorised in primary legislation. Hence, it may be considered desirable to cover such a step by primary legislation.

In response to Senator Brady's other points regarding changes of address, the guidance documentation sets out the specific procedures to be followed regarding changes of address in the context of the supplement. This covers circumstances where a person discovers — particularly in an election context — that, having moved house, he or she is not on the register for his or her area. The guidance documentation sets out the procedures to be followed by both the registration authorities and the voter in sending the RFA 3 form to the old registration authority, so as to remove the voter from the old register and place him or her on the new supplement and, subsequently, on the new register. However, as this is the only change of address scenario for which the legislation includes formal provision, it is also the only scenario pertaining to address changes for which there is formal provision in the guidance documentation.

On the question of call-backs, the guidance documentation reflects the legislative position. It has been established by law that the registration function is a devolved responsibility of registration authorities, subject to guidance from the Department and Minister. Ultimately, however, it is their call and, traditionally, guidance from the centre has not been as specific as the Senator suggested. Perhaps this question should, however, be considered. Page 37 of the guidance refers to apartments and flats. It states that house-to-house inquiries should be carried out, as appropriate, after normal working hours, particularly in areas where there are significant numbers of apartments, flats or other rented accommodation. In gated apartment complexes with restricted access, registration authorities should make appropriate arrangements to ensure that all residents are provided with a registration form, whether by post or by other means.

On the question regarding the frequency of reviews, the guidance, like its predecessors, refers to the need for periodic reviews. However, if the joint committee's members believe this should be made more specific, I am sure the Minister would consider it. As for photographic identification, the procedures in respect of the supplement were tightened up in 2002 in terms of being certified at a Garda station or by local authority officials.

As far as the policy mix and the consideration of policy issues by the joint committee are concerned, some politicians and individuals will assert that it is extremely important to retain some measure of flexibility in respect of the supplement. The situation whereby the completion of the register on 15 February meant that no further changes could be made to the register until the following year — even when an election was called — was a long-standing source of complaint. Hence, there was a demand for a supplement. In an election context, people want to be included on the register and do not want the process to be made too difficult. Hence, a balance must be struck. If the process was made more difficult, further legislation would be required.

Deputy McCormack

Mr. Coughlan referred to the role of public representatives in helping to compile the register. That is appropriate because public representatives have a vested interest in ensuring that the register is accurate and that the names of those who are entitled to vote are on it. However, following publication of the draft register in late September, there is only one window of opportunity of a couple of weeks during which corrections to the register can be made. While public representatives send the draft register to all the local party branches — there are 166 polling booths in my constituency — they do not have the time to ensure that the register is corrected within the available window of opportunity. Hence, if one wants to engage public representatives to help establish the register correctly, there must be a much greater length of time between the draft register's publication and the deadline for submission of corrections, alterations or additions to the relevant local authority. At present, that time is extremely short and I understand it to be a number of weeks only.

I have a further question regarding the establishment of polling booths, particularly when rural constituencies are revised. While revisions are always based on electoral divisions, as Deputy Cuffe noted, the electoral divisions are ancient. In Galway, for example, the electoral division of Belclare is not within an ass's roar of Belclare. The village of Belclare is not within the electoral division of the same name. Similarly, Annaghdown is not located within the electoral division of the same name.

Such anomalies arise when constituency boundaries are redrawn. People pass polling booths in which they are not eligible to vote to reach those booths for which they are registered and where, according to the electoral division, they are obliged to vote. This may be three, four or five miles away. In Corrandulla, a large section of the population is obliged to pass by the local polling booth and vote in another school in Corrandrum, which is in a different electoral division and a different constituency. Such people do not have the opportunity to vote for the same candidates as their neighbours. Hence, there is much work to be done with regard to updating, defining, or eliminating electoral divisions altogether. Polling booths should serve their surrounding areas, irrespective of electoral divisions. Given the modern register, electoral divisions are no longer needed. When will someone grasp the nettle and eliminate electoral divisions? As Deputy O'Dowd noted, polling booths should be established where people actually live.

Chairman

On a related subject——

Deputy McCormack

I have one final point. Mr. Coughlan stated that the Minister would welcome submissions and observations on this matter. I wrote to the Minister with regard to the narrow window of opportunity available between publication of the draft register and the closing date for receipt of corrections to it. In reply, I received a long letter which explained everything I already knew. Had I been unaware of the timeframes and dates involved, I would not have written in the first instance. However, the reply did not indicate whether any attempt would be made to correct the shortness of the available time.

Chairman

The publication date of the draft register is 1 November. Is that a bad time of the year? I refer, in particular, to party activists, who do not tend to canvass at that time of year. Has any consideration been giving to changing the calendar month involved, in addition to the timeframe involved? Decisions as to the places of polling in electoral areas are a matter for city and county sheriffs. Is that correct? Perhaps Mr. Coughlan can provide a better explanation to the joint committee.

Mr. Coughlan

I will address the Chair's final point, which will also cover one of those raised by Deputy McCormack. The devising of polling schemes, as well as the designation of the place and station of polling in a particular area, is subject to consultation with the returning officer, who, in the case of Dublin, is the sheriff. However, subject to consultation, it is entirely a matter for the relevant city or county council. While polling schemes used to require ministerial approval, that is no longer the case. Such schemes can, therefore, be dealt with by local authorities, subject to consultation with the returning officer.

Deputy McCormack

The returning officer knows nothing about isolated areas within a constituency. He or she would not know how to reach them or where people living in them would vote. The members of the local authority would and should have an input in this area.

Mr. Coughlan

The making of a polling scheme is a reserved function of the elected members of the local authority.

Deputy O’Dowd

The county registrar must agree to it. He or she must consent to the introduction of a new polling station. I speak from personal experience as I spent six months lobbying for a new polling station in my constituency. Fine Gael received 50% of the votes cast in that station. It should be easier to get new polling stations introduced.

Mr. Coughlan

It is difficult to come up with a correct time in which to produce the register. I did not work in the area at the time but I recall a period not too long ago when the registration process straddled Christmas. The law was changed, I think in the 1992 Act to remove the claims process from the Christmas period and it is now dealt with in November. If the process is dealt with before November, clashes with the summer period would arise and registration authority staff would not be back from holidays in September and October leading in to the publication of the draft register on 1 November. It could be difficult to find the right time during the year.

Deputy McCormack's point related to the narrowness of the 25-day period between the publication of the draft registrar on 1 November and the close of the period for making claims on 25 November. The process must be concluded to allow the judicial process of appeals to commence. One would have been working off the previous register, which is the starting point for the future register. I imagine that the previous register provides a good basis for claims and for public representatives to engage with the new register. Even after 25 November, it is open to people to make claims in relation to the supplement to the register and once a person is on the supplement it is as much as part of the register as any other part. It is possible to be included on the supplementary register after the register formally closes.

Deputy McCormack

If the draft register is published on 1 November and the closing date for the inclusion of corrections is 25 November, it is impossible to get the register out to local areas within 25 days. Only people in local areas know who is eligible for inclusion on the register but not on it and can send this information back. I cannot see why this period cannot last for at least two months. The draft register should be published on 1 October and the closing date for the receipt of corrections should be the end of November. It would give the public a greater opportunity to ensure that the real register is correct and comprehensive. It is all very well to talk about the supplementary register being a part of the register, although I acknowledge its usefulness. However, as Senator Brady noted, only people who are prepared to go to the trouble of attending their local garda station with the relevant documents will be included on the supplementary register. It is considerably harder to get on the supplementary register than the register of electors.

Senator Brennan

I have a query about the edited and unedited register, and its use for other statutory purposes. Does the fear of jury service deter many elderly and incapacitated people from remaining on the register? When a person applies for inclusion on the register, should there be a section dealing with jury service where a person can set out the reasons he or she is unsuitable for jury service? More people might be included on the register if this section was on the claims form. Are people staying off the register because of a fear of jury service?

Mr. Coughlan

I am not sure this is the case. The full register, under law, can only be used for statutory or other electoral purposes. Clearly, jury service is a statutory purpose. Under justice legislation, if a person's name comes off the electoral register for jury service, he or she must undertake it. The full register is open to being used in the context of selecting people for jury service. The prospect of being called for jury service may be a disincentive to remaining on the full register for some people but I am not sure if it is one of the main issues confronting the register.

Senator Brennan

If one goes into any courthouse in Ireland, one can see the names, details and voting numbers of people called for jury service on the summons. The prospect of being called for jury service is a deterrent for some people, particularly elderly and vulnerable people, although even when they are called for jury services they may not be selected because they are ineligible. This issue should be examined.

Deputy O’Dowd

How much does the register cost? Does the Department pay local authorities to compile it or is it their responsibility?

Mr. Coughlan

Up to approximately the mid-1990s, the Department made a grant available to registration authorities which met upwards of 50% of the cost of compiling the register. In the mid-1990s this grant was merged with the general rate support grant and a specific grant for the register was ended.

Being careful to pick a non-election year, on the amount of money spent on it, the latest figures from local authority estimates for 2003 reveal that approximately €4.7 million was spent on the relevant programme group. In 2003 almost all of that would be spent on the register.

Deputy O’Dowd

This is a considerable amount of money and we are not getting value for money. I estimate that approximately one in ten entries on the draft register is incorrect the month after its release. I am not blaming anyone for this because people move more frequently. I know this because I live in a busy town. Mr. Coughlan referred to spot checks but there is a very strong case for independent regulation of the register. If we dismiss the idea of an independent body and the task is to remain with the local authorities, somebody independent needs to oversee matters and ensure we are getting value for money. It is up to the local authority and I acknowledge that some local authorities have a much easier job than others because their populations do not change as frequently. Our current practices are unsatisfactory and unsustainable. I appreciate the helpfulness of this discussion. The independent regulation of the register should be considered. The Department should possibly carry out its own spot checks of two or three areas in different counties to ascertain what the issues are. It could carry out checks in urban and rural areas because we need to examine the issue differently and get better value for money.

On the question of a polling station in a railway station, theoretically, it would be difficult to know, because for example, if 500 people lived in a particular area, could 200 of them opt to use a new polling station to vote at the train station? Could that be done, if they were not in one constituency? How difficult would it be if people registered to vote at a train station or transport hub? Would that be worth considering?

Mr. Coughlan

As a commuter, I imagine I would have to commute on polling day. I do not mean to be facetious. I am not sure I would welcome it fully, nor would electors generally. People expect railway stations to be used on polling day. There could well be issues as most of the railway stations I am familiar with would not be particularly suited because of their construction for use as polling stations, although accessibility——

Deputy O’Dowd

I apologise for cutting across Mr. Coughlan but what about postal voting? Was it not the case that one could only vote by post in some constituencies in the United Kingdom? Would it make sense to examine what happened in the United Kingdom which experimented to secure a higher turnout? In the constituencies where postal voting was provided for the turnout was much higher. While there were some problems, approximately 9% or 10% more voted. Would the Department institute a desktop review of what was happening in other European countries as it might be useful to do so?

Senator McCarthy

I apologise for my late arrival but I was attending to another matter.

I conducted a survey in Cork South-West before the summer to ascertain why in excess of 30% of people did not vote. I am one of these who is not convinced we should end a debate by saying a turnout in the mid-60% range is high and welcome. As politicians, we must focus on the reasons people are not voting.

We took a sample of 1,500 voters whom we used the marked register to pursue. There were a number of reasons people did not vote. A number of very interesting comments were made in respect of the electoral register. In the case of one household, a person registered therein had been living in New York for ten years. This was not a major town but a village and the franchise officer should have known such information. In another case a person who had been dead for a period covering two or three elections was still registered to vote.

Multiple registrations was also an issue. For example, a person could have been registered to vote in two or perhaps three locations and would have exercised his or her franchise in one area but not in the others. Another issue was that of gardaí checking to ensure there were postal vote application forms in Garda stations. Two stations did not have the relevant form. We contacted the franchise section of the local authority and were told Garda stations definitely had copies. If this applies to an organ of the State such as the Garda Síochána, we cannot expect much higher turnouts.

On the important point made by Senator Brennan on jury service, we found that some people who were of the mind that jurors were selected on the basis of the register did not want to present for such service and viewed voting as a mechanism that would oblige them to do so. Therefore, they had decided not to vote in order that, when jurors were selected, they would not be picked. This is a dangerous scenario. It is serious if someone who does not want to be a juror does not vote or exercise his or her franchise.

On mail merges, 98% or 99% are fine but it is distressing for somebody to ring an office to say, for example, her husband is dead and that the office in question has written to him. That should not happen. This is a very sensitive matter. There is an obligation on an elector to ensure the details included in the register are accurate, or so we were told by the franchise officer when we published the results of our survey. I will no longer accept that a franchise officer living in an area, who is its eyes and ears, calling into the local shopkeeper and post office and continuing to use local outlets to update records is a scientific way of doing something. This issue must be examined to ensure efficiency.

I, again, apologise for my late arrival. I missed the presentation but gave the document a cursory glance. I would happily make the results of our survey available to our guests. There is a good summary which I could make available to anyone who was interested. I found it very interesting. In another case someone who worked as a secretary to a Member of the Dáil in another county did not vote. The person concerned was registered in two counties, travelled back to his or her constituency of allegiance and did not exercise his or her franchise in two counties, which was right.

There were a number of surprising results. I would be interested in Mr. Coughlan's reply on the jury service issue. If it militates against democracy, it must be examined.

Mr. Coughlan

I note what the Senator and others have said about jury service. Members of the Houses might be closer to these issues than officials. It is a question of choice. Legislation on matters such as criminal law is constructed on the basis that we will all be judged by a jury of our peers. It achieves this by expressly placing an obligation on people to present for jury service if listed in the register of electors. I do not know whether there is another way of constructing juries other than by reference to the register. Perhaps the committee could make a suggestion. As an outsider and on principle, the jury system forms an important part of the law of the land. If the electoral register was not the means by which individuals were selected, some other means would have to be found. I imagine our colleagues in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform would insist on this.

On the results of Senator McCarthy's survey, while it is not an excuse for registration authorities or the Department, it is probably no consolation to the committee to say Ireland is not alone. Voter registration presents a problem in many jurisdictions. One can argue whether we are worse or better off than others but, while admirable reforms have been advanced towards securing an accurate register in Northern Ireland, there are issues in and around the register and how far down the number registered has been brought in the interests of accuracy. One issue relates to whether marginalised or disadvantaged groups are being discouraged. A balance must be struck between the two. In England there are significant concerns about those who are not registered. It is a difficult task but we are not alone in struggling with it.

It is worth recalling that, if there are problems with a system, they should be addressed and rectified. Democracy depends not just on people being registered but their wanting to be registered and turning out to vote. These are issues separate from the technical quality of the register and the resources devoted to it. At times it seems the problems are not just technical, that there are broader issues relating to the engagement of the citizen with the democratic process. Perhaps this is wider than the fields we are addressing today.

Senator McCarthy

The statistics and data made available after elections on turnout cannot possibly be scientifically accurate if the register of electors is not sufficiently accurate. This muddies the water in terms of the provision of clear figures and is akin to the position on housing authorities and housing lists. If someone is required to apply to participate in the social housing scheme in order to qualify to participate in the affordable housing scheme, one must question whether the housing need conveyed by the list is genuine.

When selling units, is it obligatory for developers to register the purchasers as electors? We are witnessing major growth in many towns. Estates of 600-700 houses were not in place three or four years ago. Should there be interaction between developers, estate agents and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to produce scientific data and a record of those who have purchased houses? In some cases it will be speculators who have registered at another address. For people living in the commuter belt who have no attachment or loyalty to the area in which they are living I consider registering to vote just as important as getting involved in a sports or community organisation. A co-ordinated system of registration of new home owners, involving the developer, auctioneer and franchise officer, would make sense and reduce the workload of the franchise officer.

Mr. Coughlan

There is no formal obligation on a developer. The obligation is placed on the local authority to construct a register of people living in an area. Unlike other jurisdictions, individuals are under no obligation to register. Senator McCarthy's idea of a local authority liaising with developers to gather information on new arrivals in rapidly developing areas is interesting.

Deputy Timmins

I apologise for not being present during the presentation, although I watched it on the monitor. As some of my questions may fall outside the remit of the delegation, I will understand if they are not answered. The delegation referred to voter turnout and the difficulties experienced in establishing the correct figure. Has the idea of voting over two days, for example, Saturday and Sunday, been considered? Would this be of assistance, or would there be a disadvantage attached to it?

Voter turnout has reduced because many rural polling stations have been closed in recent years. While the cost factor must be considered, I invite the Department to examine this policy. While the Minister will claim it is the responsibility of local authorities, the Department has issued guidelines to the local authorities. With the closure of polling stations people say to me they are not prepared to undertake a round trip of five miles to vote.

On the register of electors, I understand one has to be living in a certain place on a certain date. This presents a difficulty because we have advocated the giving of votes to emigrants. Deputy O'Dowd has advocated the giving of postal votes to those who are working, whille Senator McCarthy has referred to the many people who have an allegiance to where they were born and raised, even though they live elsewhere. If one comes from Edenderry, considers it to be home and plays football there but lives in Dublin from Monday to Friday, one cannot remain on the register in Edenderry. This presents a difficulty as people are being struck off the register in their area of allegiance and have no allegiance to the area in which they are registered. As a consequence, they do not vote. If my assertion is correct, I am interested in hearing the delegation's view. Perhaps the idea of people voting in their area of allegiance could be relayed to the Minister. I have encountered this problem, particularly this year, in which there has been an effort to trim the fat from the register.

During the last general election there was a power cut in one polling station. It was fortunate we were not using an electronic voting system as the polling station had to close for 30 minutes between 6.30 p.m. and 7 p.m. The person in charge extended voting times by 20 minutes. Is there a plan in place to cover such an eventuality? Are there any measures in place to deal with this if we have an election in February when it gets dark at 6 p.m.?

I understand ballot papers are kept for six months after an election and can then be destroyed. I invite the delegation to examine this issue. In my constituency there was a recount at the last election. After the recount the gap was reduced to 24 votes, at which point a law case was taken on an issue of an overspend. If the case had proceeded to the end, the votes would have been destroyed by the time the matter was resolved. Attempts were made to calculate how many votes the additional spend would have generated. In recounts, all votes are not necessarily recounted. If there had been a full recount in the case mentioned, the margin of 24 may have grown, rather than reduced.

Statistics suggest surnames such as Ahern, Brennan or Brady hold an advantage. As elections become more competitive, there is an advantage in having one's name towards the top of the ballot paper. Perhaps the placing of names on the ballot paper could be done by a lottery rather than alphabetically. It certainly should not be done on the basis of beauty.

Chairman

As we are dealing with the register of electors, it is up to Mr. Coughlan to decide if he wishes to answer the points raised by Deputy Timmins.

Mr. Coughlan

On a personal level, I have no interest in the matter of the placement of names on the ballot paper in alphabetical order.

Regarding Deputy Timmins's comments on polling over two days and Deputy O'Dowd's remarks on the need for flexibility and different locations, there is a view that as voting on the formation of the Government is the highest role a citizen plays in society, one should be required to make a reasonable physical effort to do so. Asking a citizen to make a journey on one specific day, rather than texting his or her vote, does not seem excessive, given that the vote will be counted in the formation of the Government. Legislation is constructed on the basis that polling will take place on one day. We must consider the disruption caused in buildings and the difficulties encountered in recruiting staff. Polling over two full days does not seem practical. In extreme circumstances there is provision for the extension of polling hours. A returning officer can defer the poll and resume the next day if weather or other circumstances so require. On the issue of ordinary residence, the legislation states a person should be registered at his or her place of ordinary residence on 1 September. To some extent, that is qualified by later provisions relating to the supplement to the register and change of address. Deputy Timmins's point on the area of allegiance can be considered in the final framing of the guidance. As the extent of duplication or triplication on the register is a major concern, we must also be careful to ensure that any provision or flexibility included does not serve to diminish the accuracy of the register.

On court cases and documents, Deputy Timmins is correct to state that voting documents are kept for six months generally and then destroyed. However, if a result is challenged by way of petition in the six week period following polling day, I understand those documents are retained for the duration of the court case until the matter is finally determined.

Senator Brady

Has consideration ever been given to using the census to verify the accuracy of the register? A census will be held next year and thousands of field workers will do similar work to local authority field workers. Does any contact take place between the Department and the CSO?

Mr. Coughlan

I cannot say there has been formal contact on this issue. However, we are aware of the upcoming census in the context of the register and constituency revisions. The problem immediately confronted is that they are two separate processes governed by law. I do not purport to speak with authority on the census. It is governed by law and protocols. There are certain bases on which we give data in a census. I do not know if it would be fully acceptable that information collected for one purpose should potentially be used for another. At operational level, it seems there would be benefit in cross-fertilisation on at least the procedures and practices followed in respect of the census with the field operators of local authorities. We encourage local authorities to do that. There may be a place for that in the final version of the guidance.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Coughlan and his colleagues for being available to attend today's meeting and for their replies to questions. I propose we write to the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government informing him we considered the document on preparing and maintaining the register of electors guidance for registration authorities, and that a variety of views were expressed. In particular, members asked that serious consideration be given to introducing the requirement to submit a PPS number before being eligible to go on the register of electors. We might also state in our letter that members asked that the period from 1 November when amendments can be submitted should be extended by bringing the date forward. Is that agreed? Agreed.