Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT debate -
Thursday, 2 Nov 2006

Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2006: Committee Stage.

SECTION 1.

Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, 22, 32 and 33 are related and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 1:

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 purpose of my amendments is to ensure that electors are furnished in advance with the appropriate election literature from election candidates. Ensuring that voters receive information about the candidates is an important aspect of the electoral process. This is particularly the case for prisoners, who are isolated from the relevant issues in their constituencies. They should know what candidates stand for. It is important to copper-fasten this provision in the legislation. Will the Minister examine these amendments carefully with a view to ensuring that prisoners receive information about candidates?

On Second Stage, I referred to the submission made by the Irish Penal Reform Trust, which drew our attention to a number of issues in the Bill. I will deal with those in connection with my amendments. One matter dealt with by the trust related to the need for a complementary prison policy governing access to registration, ballots and, presumably, information about the election, candidates and so on. I welcome the fact that an officer of the Prison Service is present.

The secrecy of the ballot is of concern. In the normal course of events, people are free citizens when they vote. By definition, a prisoner has lost his or her freedom. What arrangements will be made? The registration process is straightforward, but what assurance have we that a prisoner will not be subjected to undue influence or pressure from fellow prisoners or prison officers? I do not mean this to reflect on the staff of the Prison Service, but those of us involved in politics know legions of stories about people in the free world who are subject to all kinds of influences and pressures when voting. The secrecy and free exercise of the ballot should not be compromised if one is a prisoner, a person who is not free in the normal sense of the word.

Deputy Gilmore is in a hurry. While his point is relevant to section 7, I will address it now. As I undertook with the committee, we have been in contact with the Irish Penal Reform Trust. A number of the amendments will respond to that contact.

Regarding the secrecy of the ballot, efforts will be made to replicate the situation at regular polling booths as far as possible. However, some things cannot be done. For obvious reasons, there will be no agreement to shut off all CCTV systems in a prison because there could be an abuse of the situation, but no CCTV system will scrutinise the voting process.

The Prison Service will adopt a number of practical approaches. For example, the vote may be cast in the prisoner's cell in the absence of other prisoners or a common area, such as a landing, library or recreational area, could be cleared for voting purposes. Every effort will be made to ensure that voting is confidential. No one present would want CCTV surveillance to be turned off throughout the prisons. Personnel will be allowed to post ballots into ballot boxes in the normal way in the interests of keeping the process as similar to normal voting conditions as possible.

Will the returning officer or presiding officer be from outside the service or will the process be supervised by prison staff?

A relevant officer will be chosen by the governor of each prison to administer the voting arrangements.

With respect, that is not replicating the normal voting process, in which the returning officer of a constituency appoints independent presiding officers. The gardaí present would be separate. The Minister's comment is surprising. While the process in the prisons will not be done on a constituency basis, I would have expected an arrangement to be made for a presiding officer independent of the Prison Service to supervise the voting process.

There is a significant contrast between the approach adopted by Deputy Cuffe and that espoused by Deputy Gilmore. Deputy Cuffe wants to be pragmatic and identify specific roles within the Prison Service. In this instance, it is not practical to suggest that people outside the Prison Service should assume a function within it.

The relevant officer in the prison will be at a senior level, such as the governor or deputy governor, most of whom are required to be peace commissioners to perform their duties in supporting prisoners. If Deputy Gilmore considers the situation, he will see this to be a more appropriate approach than his suggestion. My experience of assigning people responsibilities in polling stations across the country has been good in some cases and bad in others.

A senior officer, be it the governor or someone designated by the governor, will fulfil the relevant responsibility within the prison system. Given that governors and deputy governors have responsibility for all other aspects of prisoners' lives, this is the most appropriate way to proceed. The idea of importing someone willy-nilly from the street to do this job——

I did not say that.

That would be the impact. The contrast between the Deputy's approach and that of Deputy Cuffe is stark. The arrangement I have outlined is in keeping with the law relating to the Prison Service. To import someone from outside the service would be wrong. I apologise if I am picking up the Deputy's meaning incorrectly, but there are practical reasons for assigning this job to a senior prison official.

I support Deputy Gilmore. Prisons are difficult to run and a certain number of inmates would seek to be disruptive. However, they are exercising a franchise in a special way because people rarely do so in their place of work or where they live. There are 14 prisons in Ireland and we could appoint one person to liaise with the prison governor and place the individual in a place where there was no question of physical threat. In the interests of transparency of the process, one independent person should be sign off on the voting. We trust prison staff to do the job but this method ensures transparency. During what period of time could prisoners cast ballots, the normal 12 hour period?

It would be a mistake to be overly prescriptive on this matter, which is within the management of the Prison Service. The major issue that a prison officer must perform is to certify the identity of an individual. The most appropriate person to do this is a senior official from the Prison Service. No one from outside the Prison Service could identify prisoners.

The person should be there to affirm the process.

I cannot see the value of that. Deputy O'Dowd asked about the hours for voting. Electoral law provides that the returning officer issues valid papers to voters as soon as practicable after the dissolution of the Dáil. This is a postal ballot and the arrangements in the prison will be no different from those of a normal postal ballot. In that case, an appropriate person certifies a voter's identity as the ballot paper is put in the envelope. The ballot paper is then put in the post. In this case, the ballot paper will be put in a box for postal votes and addressed to the returning officer. The returning officer will be the person who receives the ballot papers.

The Minister stated that certain areas, such as the library or the recreation area, could be cleared to allow a prisoner to place his sealed ballot paper in the box.

That is correct.

We seek someone to oversee the process.

Deputy Gilmore is under time pressure so we will allow him to contribute next.

I am not suggesting that the normal functions of the Prison Service be stood down while the ballot is being conducted and that someone from the county council acts as a presiding officer and runs the prison for the day. However, there should be someone associated with the electoral process from outside the Prison Service to supervise the conduct of the ballot. No ballot takes place in our electoral system that is not supervised. In a polling station there is a presiding officer. Gardaí are also present to maintain order. If the ballot is in a school the principal or the caretaker ensures everything is running smoothly but the conduct of the ballot is supervised by the presiding officer.

It appears that the postal ballot will take place on a particular day and I do not see why the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government cannot appoint someone in each prison. The local returning officer in the constituency in which the prison is located could appoint someone to supervise the conduct of the ballot. I appreciate that not all of the prisoners will vote in that constituency.

People in this room represent the Prison Service and know more about its operation than I or officials from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Voting in prisons is not a normal situation. Prisoners have often been intimidated, have been subject to physical violence and have lost their lives. It is not always possible to protect the physical safety of prisoners, much less the privacy of their vote. Until recently, prisoners were organised along political lines with a command structure. These people do not have freedom to exercise their ballot and it is not acceptable that this ballot be conducted in a prison where the only people present are fellow prisoners or prison officers. What would the Minister's response be if someone suggested election monitors on the day of the ballot? This will be suggested if there is no independent supervision.

We are losing sight of what we seek to achieve. We are giving prisoners a postal ballot. None of the other people who exercise a postal ballot has a designated person to supervise the process. Students or those whose work requires them to avail of the postal ballot must go to a Garda station to get the form signed. We are replicating that process in the prison.

Is prison correspondence not supervised and examined?

The ballot papers will not be.

How do we know that?

This Bill provides that it will not happen. The Deputy has taken the argument from a hypothetical situation to quite ludicrous lengths. No person who exercises a postal ballot does so in the circumstances hypothecated here. Deputy Cuffe makes the practical point that certain arrangements should be prescribed for the Prison Service. The Deputies are missing the point. We are allowing the prisoners the space to exercise their postal ballot in a way that replicates the manner in which those outside prisons exercise the ballot. There are no prescriptive arrangements to ensure no one will look over the shoulder of a person filling out a postal ballot paper. Deputy Gilmore was concerned about intimidation. The right of prisoners to cast their vote in privacy will be protected. After voting has taken place, the ballot paper will be sealed and deposited in a ballot box which will work as a post box. A prison postal ballot will be taken in conditions superior to those applying to the normal postal ballot.

The proposal regarding election monitors could mean that every person who completes a postal ballot paper would require an election monitor. That would not be pragmatic or practical and I do not see it arising.

For me, the key aspect is the right of a prisoner to cast his or her vote in private without being interfered with or intimidated by fellow prisoners or prison staff. I do not state this to cast a slur on prison staff. That is not my intention. However, I will not pretend that certain members of the Prison Service do not sometimes need to be watched as much as prisoners. The key aspect is the independence of the ballot.

I agree with Deputy Cuffe on laying out a charter which everybody could see to ensure they would know and understand the modalities, environment and system put in place to secure secrecy. I also agree with him that the inspector of prisons should report at regular intervals on how the system was working. He suggested this should be done every year. I am not sure that frequency would be necessary as an election will not take place every year. However, I agree with him.

I apologise because I must leave the meeting. I will speak briefly about the registration authority and documentation relating to prisoners. If prisoners have difficulty securing documentation on where they were resident, the registration authority should rely on information held by prison authorities. It is ludicrous——

Unfortunately, the Deputy will not be present when we discuss the matter later.

I will not. I just wish to address it briefly now.

Will the Deputy make the point? I expect a small change to be made to section 4 in a later amendment.

The Minister suggests a period of seven days. Others spoke about a period of 14 or 21 days. I suggest a period of 28 days because prisoners can sometimes have their visits reduced to one per month. However, I do not want to get bogged down on this issue.

I was flattered by the Minister's warm words this morning. However, I presume he will follow precedent and not accept my amendment.

Let us not make presumptions. I always listen to sensible suggestions made by the Deputy. It means I do not have to listen much.

I accept the last point made. I know Deputies Morgan and Gilmore are concerned that the seven day arrangement is inflexible and may cause difficulties. I will introduce flexibility. As both Deputies must leave, the guidelines issued on the matter will be published and made available for comment and scrutiny, particularly by prisoners' rights organisations.

While I do not want to prolong the discussion, I wish to give notice that I intend to table an amendment on Report Stage to the effect that the returning officer in the constituency where a prison is located would appoint a presiding officer who would then make arrangements with the prison authorities to supervise the conduct of the ballot in the prison.

What the Deputy suggests is that an entirely different and, in his view, superior arrangement should apply to prisoner postal ballots than to all other postal ballots. We will deal with this when we come to the matter.

I understand that point and appreciate that we are discussing the issue. To turn the matter on its head, would it make sense and increase credibility to act in this way? Prisons are exceptional and unusual places. People are incarcerated because they commit offences. I do not argue that an outside person should direct the scene. It is proper that the prison authorities should administer the process, although I agree an overseer should be present. However, the person concerned should not interfere in the management of the ballot. The prison governor will outline the process involved, although I do not know what it will be. Prison governors will contact the Department and report on it. A person knowledgeable in the field but not an employee of the Prison Service would then cast an eye over the process and make a report. This would increase its credibility. The people concerned would not put themselves in any physical danger and would not run the show. They would merely comment on or audit the process. As there are 14 prisons in the State, 14 people would be required. It would be a constructive and useful process. An independent body of knowledge could be considered for the following election.

One must remember that the returning officer will be in the same position vis-à-vis a vote cast in prison. What will be different is that the vote will take place in a constituency. There is one practical reason for not having a second person present. As stated, a prison is a different environment in which to cast a vote. It would be fraught with difficulties if there was duality. The person in charge of the process is the governor or a person designated by him or her. If that is the case, there is no practical reason a second person should be present.

It would just be to oversee the process, to which it would add credibility. The person concerned would not have administrative ownership of or interfere with it. I presume the administrative arrangements will be agreed with the Department and the returning officer.

The only point I would make——

It is constructive. I do not see anything wrong with the proposal.

I see the point made by the Deputy and do not want to shoot it down with a knee-jerk reaction. There are good and cogent reasons for not agreeing to it. There would also be practical difficulties, particularly if it was done in the manner originally suggested by Deputy Gilmore, from which Deputy O'Dowd has moved away. However, we must bear in mind what we are discussing. Effectively, we are giving prisoners a postal vote.

I do not know what the practice is in other countries. Perhaps we should find out.

I wish to make a minor point. Ireland is one of the most progressive nations in the world. This would be the exception rather than the rule.

Does it happen anywhere else?

It happens in one or two places.

Let us see what happens there.

In many cases prisoners do not have a right to cast a vote. As the Deputy knows, in some places if one serves a prison sentence, one loses one's right to citizenship.

Where prisoners do have the right to vote, what is the experience?

We will find out what the situation is but we will introduce an extremely liberal regime.

I wish to deal with other issues. I introduced this debate to facilitate Deputy Gilmore. However, an entire series of issues has been introduced to which I have not responded. Deputy Cuffe's points, in particular, deserve specific mention. The basic point is that we are trying to strike a balance between creating a right for prisoners to exercise their vote and doing so in a way that is effectively an extension of the postal ballot. Incidentally, I have already had complaints from citizens who are outside the country regarding the fact that I am giving the right to vote to prisoners but not to them. When one extends a right, one always displeases somebody. We are trying to create an appropriate regime that strikes the right balance within the prison service. I accept that is the spirit in which some of the points have been made by Deputies.

On the issue of information and assistance, section 5 of the Bill is very important and we did not get an opportunity to discuss it. Local authorities must give public notice of the availability of prisoners' postal voting. Under the section, application forms will be made available by the local authority in every prison. These forms will contain appropriate explanatory information. There is an onus on the authorities to make sure that prisoners are aware of their right and can exercise it accordingly. There should be no problem with appropriate posters, for example, being designed and displayed in prisons to inform prisoners of their rights. It will also be necessary for the Prison Service to develop literature or leaflets to make sure that prisoners understand that they have the right to vote. Such literature will have to be appropriate to the clientele or group at which it is aimed. We will have posters and leaflets informing people as to their right to vote. We will not necessarily have canvassing of a political nature, but I will return to that issue later.

Prisoners will also receive information on their arrival in prison. While I am not sure how much attention prisoners pay to information given at that time, if it is accompanied by appropriate posters and leaflets, one is going as far as possible. Library facilities will be a very important focal point in ensuring that prisoners have a full understanding. Prisoners have access to media and the coverage of political matters in the general course of events. They have access to visits and telephone calls from relatives. We will look to prisoners' families as well as to organisations representing prisoners to publicise this development. We are introducing a right to exercise the ballot and must ensure that everybody knows that right is available. We will use every device to do so.

With regard to monitoring, the Department will collate data on the number of prisoners availing of the postal voting facilities. It will not be an enormous undertaking but it will be very interesting to monitor it because if people do not use the facility we will know something is wrong.

Deputy O'Dowd's proposals to create a new section 6 and Deputy Cuffe's proposals to create a new section 20 relate to information and assistance.

Why is the Minister moving on to discuss different sections? We are only dealing with amendments——

The amendments are grouped together and Deputy Cuffe made the specific point that he wanted me to deal with his amendment.

Is the Minister confining himself to the amendments?

Yes, to those amendments in the group. Deputy O'Dowd proposes a new section 6 and Deputy Cuffe proposes a new section 20. The relevant official in the prison will have an important role in assisting the process and creating informal arrangements at local level to ensure prisoners are aware of their rights. Prisoners, by their nature, will have issues of literacy and so forth. For that reason, it will be necessary for the relevant person in the prison to be proactive in trying to encourage and educate so as to ensure the prisoners are aware of their rights.

With regard to political parties and candidates, I am sure Deputy O'Dowd is not actually suggesting cell to cell canvassing. I do not think——

Deputy Morgan can comment on that.

There might be at least one Deputy in the House who can. It is practical to point out that prisoners have access to daily newspapers, weekly publications and so forth. The Prison Service will ensure, in so far as is possible, that prisoners have access to electoral material. Any material that is submitted, presumably of a generic rather than a specific nature, from parties——

We have a list of postal voters and write to each elector.

That is a separate issue. The Deputy is correct. He will write to prisoner X at his or her address in the constituency, as a postal voter. That will be forwarded and the prisoner will have the right to receive that post. I am referring here to the more generic literature. I was thinking of election literature which I presumed is what the Deputy had in mind. I presume he was not proposing cell to cell canvassing. It is hard enough to get to all the doors in one's constituency. There will be an onus on the Prison Service to distribute generic literature and the postal material will come through in the normal way.

There is also a role here for national political parties. Once we have created this right, we should encourage prisoners to see it as part of their duty as citizens to exercise that right. The Prison Service will provide any prisoner with assistance in obtaining material from particular candidates if that is required. It is not necessary to bring the service into this in a more formal way than I have outlined, which is what Deputy Cuffe is suggesting with his proposal for a new section 19. The idea is that the service will be proactive in educating prisoners about their right and encouraging them to exercise it.

Deputy O'Dowd's proposal in section 6 concerns access for candidates to prisoners. Can I take it he means postal access?

I think so, yes.

When I read this first, I thought Deputy O'Dowd had lost it completely and was proposing cell to cell canvassing.

A number of issues arise——

Sorry, I wanted to be clear on that in case somebody tries to misconstrue these arrangements as referring to a right for a political party, politician or putative politician to conduct in-house canvassing. That is not what is envisaged by Deputy O'Dowd.

A number of issues arise, the most important of which is literacy. A significant number of prisoners have had a poor education and many of them cannot read. I believe the proportion may be as high as 80% and in that context, photographs on ballot papers would be of assistance. Perhaps the educational section of the prison system should be asked to produce helpful information a week or two before the ballot, some of which should not be in written form.

The question of data protection also arises. The fact that I might be a prisoner is my business and the business of the court. I am concerned that a list of prisoners in Mountjoy Prison, for example, would become available. Who would have access to that information? Under the terms of the Data Protection Act, it is important that such information would not be made freely available.

It will not be. The Deputy is correct in that there would be enormous dangers in making such information readily available. For example, if one was to make available information on all of the prisoners in area X, where difficulties have arisen and gang warfare is ongoing, that would be a breach of the Act. That will not be done.

How does one overcome the problem? As a candidate in an election, am I entitled to the list of the prisoners in Mountjoy Prison who come from my constituency?

No. As a candidate, the Deputy would not be entitled to that information and he is correct to point out that it would be dangerous if that were the case. The Deputy would simply be aware that a person on the electoral register has a postal vote. The person would be registered thus and the Deputy could address literature to his or her postal address. The postal address is given in the register. It would clearly be a breach of security to make available the lists of who is in Mountjoy Prison.

Can I just go through that issue again, to clarify it fully? Let us say an election has been called. I am writing to Mr. John Murphy. The only information I have is his postal address. Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct.

How does he get my letter if he is in prison?

It will be forwarded from his postal address. There are some issues there——

How is it forwarded? Who knows that Mr. Murphy is in prison?

The address that will appear on the voting register will be prisoner's home address. One assumes that someone living at the home address forwards material. There are weekly visits——

Let us say I am Mr. John Murphy. I have a disability and live in No. 4 on a particular street. The post comes through my letter box. If Mr. John Maguire, who lives next door, is in prison, the post also comes through his letter box. He has a postal vote because he is in prison. He is not living at the address, so how does he get the post?

We have to be practical. Some of the points raised earlier by the Deputy address his concerns. The approximately 200 education officers currently working in the Prison Service will clearly have a significant role to play in making sure prisoners are aware of their rights, which is our primary concern. We also want to ensure that prisoners have access to as much literature and material as is practical. When a candidate writes to people on the register of voters, there is a presumption that post addressed to prisoners is forwarded from their homes but, irrespective of whether this is the case, prisoners must still have access to generic literature from political parties.

I accept that but how will a ballot paper reach me if I am in prison?

The returning officer will have the voter's address. I thought Deputy O'Dowd was asking about casual election literature when he was in fact referring to the mechanics of how a ballot paper can be sent from the constituency director of elections to prisoner X or Y.

Yes, how can it be sent without revealing that he or she is in prison?

The returning officer will have the prison's address for registered postal voters. It is the same in respect of a garda, whose home address is marked with a "P". The ballot paper is sent to the address designated by the voter. If, for example, I am serving abroad as an official of the Department of Foreign Affairs and, therefore, have a postal ballot, my ballot would be sent to the address I designated for it. The same arrangement will apply in respect of prisoners but the address will be confidential.

The only person who would have access to the address is the returning officer.

The address would only be known to the returning officer. It would not, for example, be subject to the Freedom of Information Act or be made available to political parties for the purpose of a leaflet drop because it would be confidential.

If I am in prison, the returning officer is aware of my location.

The returning officer is aware of the address to which the ballot paper is to be forwarded.

Am I automatically registered for a postal vote when I am imprisoned?

The prisoner must apply for the postal vote.

Unless the prisoner applies, he or she will not have a vote.

This provision of the Bill makes the postal vote available to prisoners on request.

On incarceration, a prisoner is asked whether he or she wants a postal ballot.

The onus will be on the Prison Service to ensure that prisoners are aware of their right to vote and to facilitate them in exercising that right. In exercising that right, a prisoner will register in the normal way, as other postal voters do, with the relevant returning officer.

If a prisoner is registered on the postal register at his or her home address, is he or she listed as a postal voter?

The address listed for the prisoner will be marked with a "P", as with any other voter.

In theory, that could identify the voter as a prisoner.

The Deputy is pushing his suppositions too far.

I do not think so.

A lot of addresses on the register of voters are marked with a "P" but that does not mean all the voters so designated are prisoners.

The address of a policeman could be so designated.

A variety of other people, including civil servants and gardaí, may also cast postal ballots.

In theory, and if I was malicious, I could identify people who are in prison through this process. I am merely raising that issue for consideration.

I do not think that would be possible. One may be able to guess that Mr. X is not a diplomat or a garda.

I am just considering the matter in terms of data protection.

This discussion is helpful in terms of ensuring that a degree of confidentiality exists in the process but the prime consideration is to ensure that prisoners are aware of their rights. It should be made easy for them to exercise their vote. In this regard, it is useful to designate an officer in the prison who will not only act as a postbox but will also play a proactive role with prisoners. I would envisage that the Prison Service's 200 or more full-time education officers will contribute through their roles as educators. Deputy O'Dowd is correct that literacy issues arise but such issues are addressed by the inclusion of party emblems and candidate photographs on ballot papers. Illiterate prisoners can mark their ballot papers in the same way as anybody else and they have the same rights under legislation to seek assistance.

I understand the Deputy's concerns with regard to potentially violating a prisoner's privacy through the presence of a "P" on the electoral register. However, the reason for that mark is to make sure that a voter cannot avail of the postal vote and then have an imposter cast the same ballot at a polling station. It is important, therefore, that the postal ballot is marked, albeit in a way that preserves anonymity to the greatest possible extent.

We must move on. I have no doubt that Deputy O'Dowd will give a lot of thought to composing his letters to postal voters.

With regard to the issue raised by Deputy O'Dowd on security, regardless of the hypotheses made in respect of the marking of a voter's address, it would not be possible to identify the exact prison designated by the mark.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.

I move amendment No. 4:

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 am advised that it is not necessary to include a definition of "registration authority" in the Bill as it currently stands because the definition is covered by the general construction of the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 3, line 31, after "prison" to insert "who is".

I am accepting amendment No. 5. There is a pedant somewhere in the background advising the Deputy and we have to reward a person who is so careful and punctilious about language. I am accepting the proposal in amendment No. 5 to insert "who is" but I do not accept the comma proposed in amendment No. 6. We will not fight over a comma. The book, Eats, Shoots and Leaves, has been read carefully by whoever is examining the Bill on behalf of Fine Gael.

He does a very good job and will be working for the Government shortly.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 2.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 4, subsection (1)(c), line 12, to delete “prison” and substitute “prison, save in the case of an Irish citizen”.

I see what the Deputy is trying to achieve. It would be helpful if the purpose of the paragraph were understood, which is to address the issue of prior residence in the State. I will give an example of why this is significant. As we know, many people in the United States and around the world have been given Irish citizenship by virtue of their familial relationship, but although they may have visited here, they have never lived here. Five or six people in my family who were born and reared in the United States have applied, perhaps from sentiment, for Irish passports.

The key issue is prior residence in the State. People who have an Irish passport but have never been resident in this State will not have a vote. Suppose a person who had Irish citizenship but had no prior residence in the State arrived at Dublin Airport with a stash of cocaine in his or her overnight case. It would be perverse if that person enjoyed, at our expense, an extended holiday in Mountjoy Prison, and then, on the basis that he or she was arrested for an offence in Dublin Airport, received a vote which he or she would not normally have had. That would be a perverse extension of the liberal arrangements we are making here. The prior residence in the State proviso has been inserted for a significant reason. It would be wrong if a prisoner got a vote because he or she had been arrested for a crime in one of our ports or airports while those who come in and out of the country as normal visitors do not have a vote.

I take the Minister's point. Perhaps the phrase "Irish-born" should have been used. If one is born in the country one would have an automatic entitlement.

There is a difficulty there. One need not be Irish-born to be an Irish citizen.

Perhaps the phrase "Irish-born citizen" should have been used.

There is another problem there. One could have been born here and then gone to the United States and not been here for 40 years. Ordinary residence is the appropriate terminology.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 8, 15 to 18, inclusive, and 21 are related. Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 are alternatives to amendment No. 18. We will therefore discuss these amendments together.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 4, subsection (1), between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

"(d) where the applicant is not in a position to provide such documentation the Irish Prison Service will furnish the registration authority with any such relevant documentation in its possession.”.

The purpose of this amendment is to try to ensure that prisoners receive the vote they seek. It is important that the Prison Service does everything it can to further defend the rights of these prisoners. I am worried that the take-up of this right might be limited. It is incumbent on the Prison Service to do what it can to encourage the process.

I have already said I am anxious that prisoners will know of this. We cannot force them to take up this right. Ireland is in the vanguard on this issue. There will be some interesting debate on this elsewhere as it will arise in the rest of Europe also as a result of the finding by the European Court of Human Rights.

Section 4(1) is necessary so that the registration authority can get the information required to perform its functions under the law. It is a mechanism to ensure there is the right. It must be recognised that the registration authorities need a certain minimum of information to do their job properly. The section must be understood as a whole. If one divides the section into different elements it leads to confusion. It is important that the registration authorities receive the information they need to perform their functions under law. For that reason I ask the Deputies not to press the amendments.

I have listened to the genuine concerns of Deputies and I can understand their putting forward the amendment. I have therefore asked the Parliamentary Counsel to see if there is scope to devise an alternative formulation to subsection (2) which would allow greater flexibility in setting deadlines. Deputies Gilmore and Morgan were concerned about this. While there must be deadlines, we do not want them to preclude people's having the right. Formal deadlines may not need to be set, although being liberal by not setting a cut-off date could cause legal difficulties later. There could be a reserved power to set a deadline when the local authority considers it necessary in the circumstances of a particular case. Otherwise it would be a matter for the prisoner to reply in time.

We need a cut-off point and there is no practical way around it. We will see if we can deal with an alternative wording and provide a degree of flexibility, which I think is what the Deputies want. The Deputies accept that there has to be some cut-off point but want a degree of flexibility to allow the exercise of the right. If that is possible, and the Parliamentary Counsel can come up with some wording, I am disposed to insert that alternative wording.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 4, subsection (2), line 20, to delete "place" and substitute "constituency".

I am not accepting this amendment because the Deputy wants to insert the word "constituency" for "place". The word "place" and the plural, "places", is used in other parts of electoral law and determines one's constituency. One's constituency can change from time to time. A person who is in Mountjoy Prison for a life sentence would be in that place for a long time. There is no benefit in using "constituency" instead of the more general "place", so I ask the Deputy to accept the current wording.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 4, subsection (1), lines 27 to 31, to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following:

"(b) the application shall be—

(i) signed by the applicant, or

(ii) if the applicant is unable to write, affixed with his or her mark, and in either case, the form shall be completed in accordance with the instructions provided thereon;".

I will be negative on the rest of the amendments because they are drafting amendments and we are back in the clash of the Titans in parliamentary drafting. In this amendment there are two issues to consider. First, it breaks the text into subparagraphs and second, it changes the text on those members of the electorate who are unable to write. The general advice is that it is not a good idea to break up the text as proposed. It is a relatively short text and an uncomplicated provision. I am not inclined to accept the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 4, subsection (1)(c), line 33, to delete ”the certificate referred to in subsection (2)” and substitute “a certificate of detention in prison”.

I am going to be negative on both of these amendments. They seem to be intended to give a formal title to the certificate that the relevant official will sign in support of a prisoner's application for entry into the postal voting system. That would introduce an unnecessary degree of inflexibility.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 4, subsection (2), line 38, to delete "The certificate referred to in subsection (1)(c)” and substitute “A certificate of detention in prison”.

I have covered that and I ask the Deputy not to press the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 4, subsection (2), line 40, to delete "concerned" and substitute "concerned,".

We are back to the comma and I feel it best to leave the wording in the subsection. Amendment No. 13 adds a comma and amendment No. 14 inserts the word "that" after "in". It is not necessary to insert the word "that".

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 5, subsection (1), between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

"(c) where the applicant is not in a position to provide such documentation the Irish Prison Service will furnish the registration authority with any such relevant documentation in its possession.”.

We have already discussed this and I am not accepting it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 5, lines 7 to 13, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:

"(2) Wherever a registration authority requires an applicant to furnish information or documents pursuant to subsection (1) the applicant shall comply with the requirement within the time (being not less than 14 days from the day on which the requirement is made) specified in the requirement and, if the applicant does not do so, the application referred to in subsection (1) shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. Where the applicant is not in a position to provide such documentation the Irish Prison Service will furnish the registration authority with any such relevant documentation in its possession and shall provide this documentation within the specified timeframe of 14 days from the day on which the requirement is made.”.

We have already discussed the Deputy's amendment and I think he accepts what I said.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 5, subsection (2), line 10, to delete "7" and substitute "21".

I will speak to the Parliamentary Counsel about the Deputy's group of amendments and will return to members at a later Stage. I take the points made and will do my best to accommodate them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.
Section 4 agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
Amendment No. 22 not moved.
Section 6 agreed to.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.

Amendment No. 23, in the name of Deputy Gilmore, has been ruled out of order.

I will illustrate the point Deputy O'Dowd raised at the outset by showing members the briefing on the section we had to take. I also have the briefing on what was later ruled out of order.

Can we see the briefing?

I am a very open person. The Deputy has put in an FOI request for it anyway. It illustrates the general point that we need to bring some rationality to the process. It is not fair to anyone, particularly Opposition spokespersons.

Amendment No. 23 not moved.
Section 9 agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 have been ruled out of order.

Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.
Section 10 agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 26 to 28, inclusive, have been ruled out of order.

Amendments Nos. 26 to 28, inclusive, not moved.
Section 11 agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 have been ruled out of order.

Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 not moved.
Section 12 agreed to.

Amendment No. 31 has been ruled out of order.

Amendment No. 31 not moved.
Section 13 agreed to.
Sections 14 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 16, after line 11, to insert the following new section:

"19.—That the Minister, through the Irish Prison Service, shall ensure that electors are furnished with appropriate election literature from prospective election candidates, and that this written information be distributed amongst electors in places of detention in a timely fashion prior to an election.".

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 16, after line 11, to insert the following new section:

"20.—(1) That a Charter Governing Access to Registration and Ballots be drafted and implemented by the Irish Prison Service no later than 2 months following the commencement of this Act. This Charter will include regulations governing the obligation of the Irish Prison Service to provide adequate and timely information to electors on their right to vote, advice on accessing the registration process, assistance with completing registration forms and access to information on candidates.

(2) That the Office of the Inspector of Prisons shall be obliged to report on an annual basis on the implementation of this Charter.".

Amendment put and declared lost.
TITLE.

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 3, line 11, to delete "ENACTMENTS" and substitute "ENACTMENTS,".

Will the Minister accept my comma this time?

I am not accepting the comma.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.

I thank the members of the committee. I understand the arguments put forward today. In Deputy Gilmore's absence, I made the point that we had worked very hard on the amendments that were ruled out. The process is not fair because the Deputies work on amendments and we work on amendments. There is no logic to the way we do our business. We should allow a period for Deputies to make submissions on amendments which are ruled out. I obviously accept the rulings.

Deputy Gilmore was not in attendance when I made the point that we are very much in the vanguard in enacting this legislation. Most European countries have not approached the issue yet. I am delighted we are to the fore because the fact that a person is incarcerated for a crime he or she has committed does not mean he or she has ceased to be a citizen or to enjoy the rights of the franchise. We should facilitate that person's exercise of the franchise and encourage responsibility as part of the education process, as we discussed. There are rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

I am very grateful to the members for their contributions. I said I would speak to the Parliamentary Counsel on one particular area to see how we can take on board the spirit of some of the issues raised. The Bill is a good piece of legislation and has been improved by our debate.

I thank the Minister and his officials for attending today's session.

Top
Share