Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 28 June 2005
24 Mr. O’Dowd asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the steps he intends to take to ensure that the electoral register properly reflects the electorate in time for the next general election, given the reported inaccuracies in same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22752/05]
View answer26 Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if in light of recent research that shows that there were between 660,000 and 800,000 surplus polling cards issued for the general election in 2002 and that the electorate is much larger than the adult population, he plans to devote the necessary resources and develop adequate systems in order that a centrally co-ordinated, computerised and widely accessible electoral register can be established, in order that an independent body is established to oversee this development and the maintenance of the system, in order that the register can be thoroughly checked on a house-to-house basis in advance of the next poll and to allow for names on the electoral register to be cross-checked with a database such as the database of PPS numbers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22757/05]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 24 and 26 together.
There is a problem in this area and not enough attention has been paid to the issue of the voting register. We have had a number of priorities in recent years. Throughout the 1990s, we had the issue of the electoral code. The expenditure and donation regime was discussed and then we discussed the voting system. There has never really been a major debate on the voting register.
The compilation and publication of the register of electors is a matter for the appropriate local authority in accordance with electoral law and includes the carrying out of house-to-house inquiries, delivery of registration forms and running local awareness campaigns. It is the duty of local authorities to ensure the accuracy of the register. In carrying out this work, local authorities depend to a significant degree on the co-operation and engagement of the public.
There have been a number of reasons put forward for the state of register. Rapid population growth and development, increased personal mobility and other changes in modern society present difficulties for the preparation of the electoral register. I do not accept that these reasons explain fully the condition of the register. In overall terms, the number of people on the register in 2002 eligible to vote at Dáil elections was 3.002 million. However, census data for 2002 indicate that there were 2.71 million voters over the age of 18 who were eligible to vote at these elections, representing a difference of 300,000. The main reasons for excess registration seem to include slowness to remove deceased persons from the register, changes of address without advising the local authority, as well as second houses.
I share the concerns that have been expressed on the quality of the register and have already mandated my Department to examine any improvements that can and should be made. There will be a national awareness campaign later this year associated with preparation of the next register of electors by local authorities. We are monitoring developments in Northern Ireland and elsewhere regarding best practice on electoral registration. In terms of the voting process, we have introduced important new controls in recent times. The Electoral (Amendment) Act 2002 contains more stringent requirements for entry to the supplement to the register. In the 2002 general election, polling staff were advised by the Department to require at least 25% of voters to produce an identity document. The Electoral (Amendment) Act 2004 made unlawful possession or use of someone else's polling card a specific offence. Strong legislation must be mirrored locally by vigilance on the part of polling staff.
There is a problem in this area which, as I have already mentioned to a number of Members, will require a cross-party approach to solve. All Members have practical experience which could be used to good effect. It would be very useful to hold full discussions on the matter at the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. If it is agreeable, I am willing to bring to the committee in the autumn the guidelines I have mentioned and to establish with representatives of parties on all sides of the House what is best practice elsewhere. We can consider suggestions such as the one Deputy Cuffe outlined in his question. The register requires an appropriate level of attention which it has failed to receive in the past. I want to see the matter resolved in the very near future.
I thank the Minister for his reply. While I note with approval his reference to a cross-party approach to the matter, the fact is the Minister represents a Government which has wasted €50 million on electronic voting machines which do not work or in which we do not have confidence. The Government would have been far better off if it had decided to spend a much smaller sum of €3 million or €4 million per annum on a proper electoral register.
I welcome the highlighting by The Sunday Tribune of the appalling disgrace that over 300,000 people are on the register who do not have the right to vote. It is not good enough that people have been multiply registered. While we can talk forever in committees, cannot the Minister talk to county managers and the Revenue collectors who often do the work in question in local authorities and ask them why the register is a mess, what resources have been invested and what action is required? It is an action the Minister could take quickly.
Dedicated staff are required to visit voters. As the Minister rightly says, commuters are a significant problem as they leave home at 7 a.m. and do not return until 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. It is almost impossible to meet a commuter at his or her home, especially if he or she works in Dublin, as he or she is always travelling and is not home on weekends. Will the Minister engage proactively with county managers and those they have charged with the duty to compile the register to push the agenda forward? We will have them before the committee in the autumn. We would be better off to invest a great deal more money in a proper electoral register and encourage a great deal more people to vote. It does not matter if it takes two or three days to count their votes after an election. Let us encourage and enfranchise our citizens and ensure we get them out to vote.
I do not disagree with the Deputy on any point other than his attempt to introduce a different issue in his introductory remarks. The Deputy is correct to say local authorities have differing records. In some areas, there is good practice while in others it is very clear the practice is not good enough. I will engage with local authorities as soon as the guidelines have been produced.
I have already indicated in my earlier response that I am very anxious to engage all sides in the House not only on the preparation of the register but also on voting and verification procedures. They are issues about which we are all concerned. There is a great deal of experience within the political system which can be used to assess how the system is failing——
How it is abused even.
——and inform its improvement. I am willing to engage in the most open way possible with Members on the matter.
Does the Minister agree there is a glaring anomaly in the current system of compilation of electoral rolls which delegates the function to local authorities without providing for the centralised cross-checking of the individuals registered? Does the Minister accept his Department has overall responsibility for registration and in delegating responsibility to local authorities needs to keep a check on the figures? The Minister will be aware that the electoral office in Northern Ireland calls to each household twice a year at a cost of £6 million. Surely, the system could be replicated in the Republic for approximately €15 million, a mere fraction of the cost of electronic voting.
I am sure the Minister is aware of the massive population movements of the last decade and that people tend to move more quickly than they did before. Does the Minister accept the current system is based largely on trust and that while the Government has expended tens of millions of euro on an electronic voting system to make very careful cross checks, it has failed to ensure voter registration is cross-checked at county level? Does he accept that a simple system of checks at a national level using personal public service numbers and a central office would make a great deal of sense? This would provide a more secure system which more accurately reflected those who have a right to be registered. It would also ensure that those who are deceased are no longer registered.
I agree with Deputy Cuffe on many of his points, including his reference to the accuracy of electronic voting. We will leave that for another day, however.
We will leave it for years.
I referred to cross checking.
While local authorities are currently required to conduct door-to-door inquiries, Deputy Cuffe was correct to say standards vary from authority to authority. I will put it no stronger than that. The process has always been decentralised and I am not disposed to centralising every activity. I would prefer, with reference to Deputy O'Dowd's contribution, if local authorities did their job more efficiently and that we introduced a system to make sure that happened.
Deputy Cuffe referred to voter security and the use of personal public service numbers. While I am aware of the procedures operated in the North of Ireland, to introduce the cross-check Deputy Cuffe mentioned would, especially on voting day, require an information technology link between the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the electoral database. A number of issues, including data protection, would arise with this approach. Nonetheless, I am open to considering any proposal which offers security in voting, has the potential to make the process more open and transparent and ensures the register is properly prepared. Whether we accept the number of surplus polling cards issued is 300,000 or 800,000 as hypothesised in the article referred to by Deputy O'Dowd, it is simply not good enough to have a significant level of error in the electoral register. I will impress on local authorities the need to carry out the job more effectively as the process of compiling the electoral register for next year continues.
We are producing guidelines which I will make available in draft form to the joint committee this autumn. As we all share the same concern, I am prepared to sit down with any Member to discuss how to improve matters.
The issue of people living in flats and apartments is one which particularly needs to be addressed. There is generally no difficulty with the older estates on which people have traditionally lived. Problems arise in areas in which people move about very quickly and it is to these the Minister should direct the attention of local authorities. Recently, I came across an apartment complex from which no one voted at the last election as people had moved on and the local register was out of date.
I also ask the Minister to direct the attention of local authorities to the issue of the registration of people in rural areas alphabetically rather than by address. One does not know who is where. It is a matter which must be addressed for those of us who want to canvass every house by name but do not know everyone in a rural area.
I take Deputy O'Dowd's point. He is an excellent public representative but does not know absolutely everybody living on the highways and byways of Louth. If we had a postal code system, it would improve matters. It is also the case that local authorities are, to put it at its mildest, remiss in the matter of naming roads. Even in centres like Greystones, there are roads which have yet to be named. Deputy O'Dowd's point on multiple occupancy addresses is valid. There is a propensity on the part of enumerators who check registers to miss many of the places in question. Additionally, there are increasing numbers of gated multiple-dwelling units to which it is impossible to gain access.
I will try to address in the guidelines any reasonable suggestion a Member makes. There is a great deal of experience in the political system which can be brought to bear. We have all known for years that the electoral register has contained a significant degree of error and it is time the issue was addressed. I am anxious to proceed.
I hope the Minister accepts that reform of the electoral rolls is not rocket science. It is a comparatively simple undertaking, and using personal public service numbers does not raise significant data-sharing issues. The electoral rolls close a considerable time in advance of an election taking place. Surely a little cross-checking could be done at that point at national level and if there were duplicate PPS numbers one would simply write to the individuals advising them of this and giving them a chance to remove themselves from the register in one location? That could be done a long time in advance of the election. It would allow us to deal with the 300,000, 800,000 or whatever number of people who are registered in two or more locations. It could be done comparatively simply. Would the Minister consider doing this relatively quickly and bring in the necessary regulations to ensure we can have a lot more confidence in who is on the register and that people are not registered in several locations?
I see the attractions of the PPS approach as it offers a unique number which can be cross-checked. However, a system of cross-checking would have to be built into that to ensure efficiency when the registration system is in operation. Local authorities would have to be able to counter-check names against PPS numbers, and that is not as simple as it would appear. It is not rocket science if the linkage and the IT access are there but it raises a number of issues.
As Deputy Cuffe said, one of the problems we have is that the register is closed at a specific date which is arbitrarily established. As a poll observer in South and Central America, I have seen polls operated by the Organisation of American States, and registration took place up to a very short time before the election. One of the big problems at the moment is that there is a cut-off point. I know the supplementary register has been introduced but it is not used as well as it could be.
These are issues which we should all discuss because there is a problem in this regard and, irrespective of who was in government, we never addressed it. We have all known for years that problems exist with the register and now is the time to address it. I am willing to discuss it with Members of the House and to take on board reasonable suggestions. I do not think the situation on the PPS is quite as simple, as Deputy Cuffe suggests, although it has many attractions.
