Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT díospóireacht -
Monday, 13 Nov 2006

Electoral Register: Ministerial Presentation.

I welcome the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, to the meeting and thank him for making himself available prior to his departure for the UN conference on climate change. It is much appreciated. The Minister has to leave no later than 2 p.m. to catch his flight to Nairobi. The Minister will first make a presentation and then we will have a question and answer session. To put some structure on the proceedings——

I ask the Chairman to note that apologies have also been received from Deputy Moloney.

Yes, apologies have also been received from Deputy Moloney.

I will first call the spokespersons for the parties, Deputies O'Dowd and Gilmore, and then I will call whoever else is offering.

I should first set out the background to this matter. When the general election of 2002 was held it is known that there were in excess of 300,000 more people on the voting register at that time than there were 18 year olds plus in the population. Since then there has been a great deal of speculation about how inaccurate the register has been. Last year it was suggested that the register was inaccurate to the tune of up to 860,000 people.

Legally the production of the register of electors is a function for local authorities. On 1 November, councils completed the first phase of the biggest ever electoral registration campaign. The campaign to compile the 2007-08 register has been the most extensive ever. Councils should be commended for undertaking a mammoth task that has needed attention for years. As practising politicians, we have all known of the difficulties with the register for a long time.

More than 1.25 million household visits were made, 1,500 field workers were recruited to go door to door and tens of thousands of households were visited more than once. Councils were instructed not to delete people from the register without sending out written notices of deletion to houses where, after two visits, they could not get access to check the voter registration details. Councils were also requested to cross-check other data available to them, for example, housing rental lists.

More than 170,000 written notices were issued to people with whom field workers could not make contact. Councils report that there has been a remarkable response to this and that they have received thousands of responses to that initial notification. The final notification — the formal notification of deletion — will issue from councils this week. Therefore, a second written notification will be issued. To ensure that councils could get on with their own annual work on the register earlier than usual this year, more than 2 million registration forms were distributed earlier in the year, significantly earlier than ever before.

One of the issues in compiling the electoral register has always been the argument that councils simply did not have the resources to carry out the kind of work that needed to be done. This year approximately €12 million has been invested in the registration campaign. The normal council spend has been between €5 million and €6 million per year. This year additional central government funding to the tune of €7 million was allocated for the campaign. As I said, councils have complained in the past that they did not have the necessary resources. A total of €1 million was invested in a campaign covering television, radio, print media and billboards, and this is ongoing. In addition to that national campaign, local authorities are currently mounting their own campaign, and I heard an advertisement for Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council as I travelled in here today.

New arrangements were established to ensure that the names of people who had died would be automatically notified to councils for deletion from the register. Incredibly, until this year there was no process for councils to systematically remove the names of people who had died from the register. Councils were also instructed that they should provide access to checking the register through their individual websites. A new national website, www.checktheregister.ie, went live on 1 November 2006. We do not have the number of hits on the website but it appears to be significant. The result of the campaign is that we have a significantly better draft register than we have had in recent living memory. The draft register for 2007-08 contains the names of just over 3 million people. I have given a comparison of the full draft register with the 2006 register to members of the committee. Over 502,000 corrections and deletions have been made to the register and these will come into effect on 15 November. This includes 332,000 deletions, removing duplication, the names of people who have died, correcting addresses and so forth. It also includes approximately 170,000 names who have been written to with the preliminary notification of removal. That figure will reduce significantly because local authorities are reporting that in some cases one third and in others up to half of the respondents are replying.

A total of 376,792 names have been added to the register. These are people who should have been on the register but were not or people who changed their addresses. There are in excess of 125,000 fewer names on the register than on the register for 2006-07. Incidentally, some of these figures were refined over the weekend so members of the committee will see some slight variations between the figures I am quoting and those in the tabular statement that was circulated.

The register is now more up to date than it has ever been and the level of public awareness of the register is higher than ever. The draft register is still a work in progress. It can be checked at council offices, on-line on local authority websites or at the central website at www.checktheregister.ie. People who have received notification that they may be removed from the register have until 25 November to notify councils of their position. A number of councils have undertaken a practice of holding clinics in public buildings, libraries and council offices to advise people on how to get on the register. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown and Meath county councils are doing this. There have been particular difficulties with the paper work in Meath which is why the council considered it prudent to do this. Other councils, if they believe it necessary, should follow this best practice.

I cannot over-emphasise the fact that the draft register is an indicative rather than conclusive document. It is indicative of significant improvement in the accuracy over many years. At this point, the only valid comparison that can be made, and the one on which we are on firmest ground, is the comparison with the 3.135 million people over 18 years old estimated by the CSO. That is an estimated figure following the census; it will be a while before we have the actual figure. This compares with the figure of 3.054 million on the total register which shows that the total on the register equates to roughly 97% of all adults in the population.

The gross register or the local authority register is, of course, higher than the Dáil register because one must remove non-Irish and non-UK citizens from the Dáil register. While there has been some public comment on the accuracy of the Dáil register figures, such comment can only be based on a range of assumptions and speculations that are, to put it benignly, premature at this stage of the registration process. In fact, the most extensive registration campaign has produced significant improvements.

The new register comes into effect in mid-February and people who fall through the net or are not picked up in this process can get on the supplementary register between now and 15 days before polling. People who reach the age of 18 years can also get on the register.

It has been widely accepted for years that there have been problems with the register in this country but this problem is not unique to Ireland. I can quote from the handbook, Electoral System Design, issued by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance:

Voter registration is the most complex and controversial and often the least successful part of the electoral administration. By its nature it involves collating, in a standardised format, specific information for a vast number of voters and then arranging and distributing these data in a form that can be used at election time in such a way as to ensure that only eligible voters engage in the voting process and to guard against multiple voting, personation and the like.

Why is the register so inaccurate? It would be easy to blame councils for not having done their job but that would be less than fair. One of the reasons that is so is that, for the past 15 years, the concentration in this country has been on putting people on the register. There has been a reluctance to take people off the register and virtually no resources have been invested in editing the register. The main reason for the state of the register therefore can be summarised as slowness to remove the names of people who have died.

I wish to give the committee some indication in this regard. When the draft register was completed by Waterford City Council on this occasion, it was discovered that the names of 1,400 people who had died were on it. Some of them had been dead for some years. I am not making that point to fault Waterford City Council for doing so because, previously, it simply did not have the resources or the capacity to drill into that figure. The second point relates to general population mobility. The difficulty of tracking changes of address is considerable as 90,000 new homes were constructed last year and probably another 50,000 homes changed hands. If one assumes that there was only one voter in each of those 140,000 changes of address, it would amount to 280,000 changes on the electoral register. It is difficult, therefore, for 34 different registration authorities to track that number. There is also the incidence of second houses and people with second addresses. There is also the issue of family breakdown and separation. There are multiple registrations, including students who in the past, for example, registered at both their family home and their college centre. That boosted the numbers on the electoral register.

It is important to mention the process for deletions and to eliminate them. It is also recognised that a clear procedure needs to be established in respect of deletions. Accordingly, the procedures followed included ensuring that each household was visited and provided with forms and notification before final deletion takes place. A person not on the draft register when it was published on 1 November, can apply up to 25 November for inclusion, which is happening. As we all know, the supplementary register runs until the 15th day before polling.

As I have said, the period during which people may make claims on the register is time-limited and expires on 25 November. It has been suggested that I should extend this period but I am not convinced that there is a need to do so, particularly given the level of public attention now being given to the registration process and the alternatives that are already available for people to get on the register. However, should a cogent case be made for any individual authority — some authorities are still having some difficulty in catching up with their paperwork — to have an extension, I would give detailed consideration to the matter taking into account the relative legislative provisions. I should make the point, however, that no local authority has indicated that it wishes this to happen.

A number of suggestions have been mooted but, unfortunately, there is no silver bullet in this particular instance. PPS numbers are most often suggested as the way forward, but they are not. PPS numbers are primarily for the use of the Department of Social and Family Affairs and were not established for any other purpose. The PPS system is not immediately adaptable for use for electoral purposes. However, PPS numbers could be used in the future for verifying people who are coming onto the register but that is another day's work.

There are over 5 million PPS numbers in existence, compared with approximately 3 million people on the electoral register. The PPS system does not necessarily capture the current residence of voters, their citizenship for electoral purposes, nor movements of address. There are still people, such as young adults who have not entered the workforce, who do not have PPS numbers. However, increasingly the Department is going right down into the population. At the far end, there are some pensioners who do not have PPS numbers either.

A national, electronic registration system with an interface with the PPS system would need to be put in place if PPS numbers were to act as a security check. We know from experience how long major IT projects can take. Primary legislation would also be required, particularly if PPS numbers were to be used for anything other than simply cross-checking the register.

The other suggestion is that we should use census data but this would be a mistake. First, it would be a fundamental breach of the trust by the State to make this change ex post facto. To try to mine the census data for that purpose after the data had been collected would be a breach of the seal of confidentiality. Second, an attempt to undermine that trust could undermine the compilation of the census — not on this occasion but in the years ahead. People must be assured of the right to privacy and that if they give information in the census, it will be used for census purposes only. Using the census would also be tantamount to compulsory electoral registration by the back door. We may have differing views on this but if we were to have compulsory registration, that is, by using the PPS or census systems, we would need to have a debate on it first. Asking field staff compiling the census to carry out a second field operation would be fraught with difficulties.

One of the points which has come from the media commentary and with which I have most sympathy is that the electoral register is only part of the issue. The second part is to ensure there is no fraud. There is fraud on voting day. I draw to the committee's attention a number of cases where, in spite of all the editing, there is significant over-registration. There is still significant over-registration in County Donegal. It is approximately 110% of the population. Deputy O'Dowd will be particularly interested in the fact that there is even more significant over-registration in County Louth where the figure stands in excess of 114%. The position in County Louth is interesting——

The overnighters.

It is very interesting and I will tell the Minister why in a minute.

We can both share experiences as to why it is interesting. It is interesting because it is the one area in which the proportion of 18 year olds has increased dramatically. There are a couple of cases where it has increased by the order of 1% but it is up significantly in County Louth. This suggests that when the registration authorities in County Louth examine the process, they should make sure they establish an explanation for it. There may be a benign explanation in County Donegal in that a high proportion of the population live for part of the week outside the county, although that is not the entire explanation. This is pure speculation at this stage but it is an issue in regard to electoral fraud.

There is fraud on election day. Vigilance on the part of presiding officers, polls clerks and presiding agents will be the key in avoiding electoral fraud. Section 111(2)(b)(i) of the Electoral Act 1992 provides that “the returning officer or the presiding officer may of his own volition, or if so required by a personation agent present in the polling station, request any person at the time of applying for a ballot paper, but not afterwards, to produce a specified document...”. The documents are then outlined. In more recent times we have suggested to polling clerks and staff through the county registrars that they should challenge one in four people. Sadly, we all know there is a disinclination to challenge at that level but if there is any suspicion or hint a voting register has been artificially expanded in a constituency, I will issue very strong recommendations to the county registrar that he or she should, at a minimum, challenge one in four people. We all accept this will be inconvenient to legitimate voters who turn up. We want to make voting as easy a process as possible. However, if there is any suggestion or hint that the register has been artificially extended, we can deal with the matter on election day. It is important that personation agents for parties and electoral staff should be more vigorous in this area.

I wish to mention another issue which was not on the horizon for this meeting. The Supreme Court has just issued a judgment, of which members may or may not be aware. It concerns the challenge in regard to the assenter system for Independent candidates. The court issued its judgment in the past half an hour or so — I do not have a copy — and I ask that the committee meet at an early stage to consider it. We do not know the full extent of the adjudication, but it will be recalled that the assenter system was put in place to ensure that there was some rationality in the matter of nominations for Dáil elections and to ensure it did not arise that there were a couple of hundred candidates merely putting their names forward in Dáil elections for publicity or other reasons.

As I stated, I have not seen the judgment. I will get it later today. We will study it carefully between now and next week. When it is available I will give a note to the committee and the committee could consider whether it should meet on it.

Electoral fraud and the question of how we tighten up the procedures on polling day fraud is one of the issues to which we need to give a little attention. I am certainly willing to listen to anything that arises in that regard.

Whatever legislative changes there may or may not be in the future, we must ensure now that the register is as perfected as possible before the polling date which is due next year.

The Minister commented on the voting registers in Louth and in Donegal. I do not see reference to the facts on which he based his comments in the information he has given us and if such information can be circulated, I would like that it would be.

I did the calculations.

I will put it this way. I attempted to contact Louth County Council this morning about this issue and I failed to contact the responsible official through no fault of the official. I am aware of the charge the Minister has made about it but, in fairness to the local authority,——

I did not make any charge. I just made the observation.

To be clear, what the Minister stated was that there are questions——

I do not want to mislead the committee. The number is significantly higher. I do not believe that it is any fault of the election staff in Louth County Council.

I agree it is not.

They have done a superb job.

That is what I wanted to say, that Louth County Council, like other county councils, has put into the field a vast number of people. The problem is that there has been vast growth in south Louth, where the population is increasing unbelievably fast.

This entire process is rushed at this stage. I welcome the initiative the Government has taken in trying to perfect the register and I want to be constructive in this context. Much work has been done. The problem is that the deadline for fixing it is 25 November, which is too soon.

I happen to be the TD for the area. I got my constituency register on Friday last. I got it in paper form and in PDF file format, which is unhelpful in the context that I cannot manipulate the data to search and look for different matters. I spent all day yesterday working on it. Neither I, nor anybody in County Louth, will have enough time to go through the register.

I received complaints from people who tried to view their names on-line and were unable to do so. I suggest that the Minister use his powers under the 1992 Act where he can make a difficulty order to extend the period of time within which the register can be put right and where people can go in and look, and not be rushed or worried. There are people stopping me on the streets asking whether they are on the register. If the Minister did that it would give us time to adjust the situation. I say that in a constructive light because people are worried and want to check. It would give time, for instance, to examine the County Louth situation which he has described, which concerns him and me, and what is happening in County Donegal or wherever.

If the data is not fixed by 25 November, to get back on the register, people will have to go through a difficult process where a third party must assent to what the applicant is stating and the local authority must send out to the named address an official or a person to find out whether the person concerned is living at that address. It is quite a difficult process about which I am concerned. If, for example, there are 5,000 people in County Louth or wherever who have been taken off the register, who want to get back on to it and who do not know about it until after the end of November, they must go to the Garda to get the forms signed and then go to the council. Some 10,000 people in a county could try to register in ten days. A legal challenge could be pursued regarding whether the local authorities can do the job, which would be crazy.

I understand why the Minister wants the Garda to confirm the identity of an individual, as it will prevent electoral abuse. A significant effort has been made to perfect this register but problems have arisen, which never occurred previously.

Roscommon County Council did not publish its register by the deadline of 1 November. A number of local authorities notified the individuals they were removing from the register before 1 November. For example, Louth County Council contacted 20,000 electors and it received a fantastic response with 11,000 people confirming their address. However, not every council has done this and I would like the Minister to clarify whether this is the case. A number of individuals who have been removed from the register are being contacted now but until they receive the letter, they will not know that they have been removed and they will not have time to register.

I would like to be constructive so that we can have a productive meeting. I will, therefore, not comment on all the arguments made by the Minister. If he extends the period within which people can register, that will address the initial problem. Ultimately, the issue must be addressed by an electoral commission, which should have statutory responsibility for running elections, the register of electors and all voting issues, rather than the current situation which involves the political system, the Department or local authorities. The organisation of elections must be taken out of the political system, given that the Minister of the day can be attacked over A, B and C. An electoral commission would be above board, politically independent and bring credibility to the process. Currently, the process is perceived to be political and not working.

Local authorities no longer have the capacity to know where people are living. An electoral commission could, for example, contract the register to An Post. In the short term, the Minister must extend the deadline for the draft register and he must provide the departmental statistics I requested. While I accept there is a problem with the register in County Louth, the Department must find out why and get it right. If fraud is involved, then that is a serious issue. However, it is more likely the difficulties are caused by population mobility and the number of housing estates and apartment complexes going up overnight, a number of which officials cannot access. I share the Minister's concern but more time is needed to deal with the issue properly.

I would like to be helpful and rather than members repeatedly raising the same issues and asking the same questions, I will address a number of them now. I have stated if an individual local authority needs time, I can trigger a mechanism to facilitate that.

The problem is who will decide that.

The local authorities themselves will do so.

No, the Minister must decide.

Most people are not as focused on a date next May or June as Oireachtas Members.

A number of years ago, it was decided to bring the registration deadline forward from Christmas because it was chaotic setting the deadline for during the Christmas period. Once the deadline of 25 November has passed, local authorities will have until 13 December to catch up with the administrative work involved. At that stage, the registrar has discretion to make changes. It would be imprudent to change the deadline for a variety of reasons. We have an endearing tendency in this country to put everything on the long finger until the last minute and that would destroy the purpose. Local authorities have not indicated that they are incapable of maintaining the register. I have spoken to staff in a number of local authorities——

With respect, the politicians are only now getting to look at the registers. While I acknowledge officials are doing a tremendous job, I have contacted many councils and while some are happy with the result, many are not. Who makes the decision to remove names from the register? Is the Minister saying it is the council or the registrar? If he says it is the registrar, he or she is not a statutory officer of the county council and cannot be queried. He or she can say the register is fine and that is the end of the story. We want the period extended.

We are making contact with the county management teams to find out what the position is. They are acutely aware of the extreme pressure under which their staff are working.

I accept that.

Staff worked up to midnight and beyond coming up to 1 November, simply because it was a gargantuan task.

It was too short a timeframe; that is what is wrong.

The reality we must face as politicians is that the new register must take effect from 15 February, a date which is rapidly approaching. If we were to allow a universal extension of the time for the perfection of the register, we would find ourselves in difficulty. The Deputy is right, there is a significant public exercise involved, the like of which has never been seen. One council informed me today that it received hundreds of e-mails over the past weekend. The ongoing debate is positive.

The practice is that after a council official makes the first two calls, a written note is left at a house. That has happened universally. We have no knowledge that it did not happen in any council area. If it did not, I would be extremely angry because——

I have been informed that is the case in at least one council area.

If the Deputy lets me know the details, I will have the matter checked as to whether the arrangements were breached. I appreciate he is trying to be helpful. Committee members will remember the committee discussed the issue earlier this year and that we sent clarification guidelines for drafting. Therefore, there is no excuse for any council getting it wrong.

The Deputy is right. Roscommon County Council was late and did not get the process up and running on 1 November as it should have done. It is now up and running.

As far as I know, the people whose names have been removed from the register have not been written to.

I will check the facts.

As I understand it, the draft register was not issued. However, the people whose names had been removed from the register had not been written to by the time the draft register was issued. Therefore, they did not know their names had been removed.

I am not in a position to dispute that and know the Deputy is not trying to be disputatious.

With respect, we should have the facts.

All local authorities were told to publish the register by 1 November. We made it clear to Roscommon County Council that we were not much pleased with the fact that this was not done. Meath County Council, for example, encountered tremendous difficulties because of the vast change in the population, but it did what I believe was sensible and published the register, despite the fact there was still some back office work to do. That work has now been done and notices have been sent out.

In the local authorities I personally contacted, not only had the preliminary notices been sent — some 170,000 notifications — but the final written correspondence is now issuing. There may have been some confusion in the public mind about this. The second written notification is being issued this week. For example, I was talking to those involved in the exercise in County Wicklow today. They have sent out a significant number of notes stating: "We could not track you. Unless we hear from you by 25 November, you will be knocked off the register." The letter could have been worded better, but it varied from council to council. The councils in County Wicklow are sending out their second notices. The process is well in train, although there has been a significant change in the population.

They are late.

No; they are just sending out the reminder. They are reminding people that they wrote to them on or before 1 November, that they have not yet heard from them and would like them to get in touch before 25 November. They want to have a paper trail for anybody whose name is removed from the register.

Is the Minister saying the names of the people concerned were on the register, or that have they been removed?

Yes, these are cases where the names of people were on the draft register, but when the officials went to the households and could not gain access, they wrote to them. That is not to say their names were legitimately on the register, but they may well have been. In some cases, such as new housing estates, there may have been two names registered.

As I understand it, some councils completed the process to meet the deadline of 1 November; in other words, by 1 November anybody whose name was being removed by the councils from the register had been visited twice and received two letters. However, in other counties it appears the opposite is the case and people are only being written to now. I am not sure whether or not they have been taken off the draft register. They are only now being advised in writing that they have not responded and they may be taken off the register as a result. The date is fast approaching when they will be unable to get onto the electoral register except by means of the supplementary register process.

I know what the Deputy is saying. However, there is a period of two weeks from now to 25 November. There has been a vast publicity campaign and 1.2 million calls, with 700,000 individual calls and 170,000 letters sent. The second stage which is the final notification is now happening.

This is only happening in some cases, as the Minister's officials will confirm.

My understanding is that it is done in all cases. I will investigate the case in County Roscommon where the Deputy believes it is not being done and if there is something amiss we will certainly talk to the people. If there is an issue in that case — I do not know if there is — we will need to talk to the county management about an extension. I do not believe they have indicated that difficulty to us but we will have it checked.

Other members are anxious to ask questions.

We can discuss the issue of what happens next at a later time.

The first issue I wish to focus on is the deadline date of 25 November. Both I and the committee have requested on previous occasions that the Minister extend this date and I wish to repeat that request today.

I note the Minister's statement that he will consider extending the date in the case of individual local authorities if they so request. There are a number of reasons it is unlikely that local authorities will make such a request. It is in the nature of a local authority when it is compiling a list, to stick with a deadline date and to complete the list and get the job done, rather than necessarily having an accurate list. Once the local authority has a register on 1 February, that is the job done so far as it is concerned. If there are inaccuracies in the register after that date, the local authority's response will be that it sent out the form, called to the house and advertised the deadline date. Local authorities do not see themselves as being responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the register; if they did, we would not be in this hole in the first place and the registers would have been accurate. It is highly unlikely that local authorities in the main will request an extension of that date. The odd one may do so but I do not think it will happen generally. I am my party’s spokesperson and have been involved for a long time in politics. I know other members of this committee, who understand how the registration and electoral systems work, agree with me. It is our judgment that there are many people who have been taken off the register and who either do not know about it or do not realise there is a longer period of time required to reinstate them on the register.

I will explain why this is necessary in practical terms. The Minister has informed the committee today that more than half a million names have been removed from the old register. He has told us that 170,000 of those names are people who have been written to and where we can presume that they are still alive, they are still living where they live and they are still entitled to vote. The presumption in respect of the 170,000 is that these are people who are normally entitled to vote and who have been removed. That is a lot of people. The Minister is also telling us that the final notification to those people, in the case of many local authorities, is only being sent out this week.

As a result of the current state of the postal service, there is often a week goes by in parts of my constituency where nobody gets a letter. I refer to Glenageary, Dalkey and parts of Cabinteely. Does the Minister know what is happening in postal districts? If a postman does not turn up for work because he is sick, for example, he is not replaced and the post is not delivered. There used to be a system in the postal districts whereby the district postal manager had a pool of people who could be sent out on the run to deliver the post. If the letters in question are sent by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council today, to be delivered through the post offices at Glenageary, Foxrock or Blackrock, they might not be delivered until well into next week, if at all. That is what is happening in the postal service. Many of the people who are being written to will not get the letters in time to do anything about them in advance of the 25 November deadline. That is the first reality.

The second reality is that no letters are being sent to 332,400 people whose names have been removed from the register. The Minister of State has suggested that some of the people in question are deceased. I presume the local authorities have checked that the person in each case is dead. The Minister of State also said that some of these cases relate to duplication. He told the committee that people who have left the relevant constituency have been deleted. I do not accept that none of the 332,400 people in question is still living at the address cited in the previous register and is therefore perfectly entitled to vote. Mistakes will be made, with the best will in the world, when one is dealing with such a large number of people.

An indeterminate number of people from the 332,400 people in question will not receive any letter to tell them they are being removed from the register. In many cases, they will not know about the changes which have been made until they present to vote on polling day and are told that their votes have been taken off them. There is a problem in that regard. Such people will not be alerted to the possibility that they have been deleted from the register unless they hear about this process in the press or in advertisements, and then realise it could affect them. Alternatively, people from political parties might check the register when they call to doors while canvassing in the run-up to the election. Such an official could realise that the person in question is not registered. A longer period of time is required for all of those reasons.

Next Wednesday the Dáil will consider Report Stage of the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2006, which proposes to give voting rights to prisoners. If an amendment to primary legislation is required to extend the 25 November deadline, the Minister should use the opportunity presented by that Bill to make such a change. If the Minister tries to extend the deadline in that way, I expect that my colleagues on the Opposition benches will join me in facilitating him in that regard. We will have a problem if the deadline is not extended.

Some 170,000 people are being written to in this regard and there may be more people in the other category. Such people will be removed from the register and denied the right to vote if we do not take action. I expect that many of the people who have been alerted by the publicity, advertising and general talk about this matter will check the register. There is no problem with people who take the trouble to visit www.checktheregister.ie because they will arrange to get themselves back on the register. However, problems may arise in respect of people who do not have access to on-line facilities, are not terribly plugged in to what is happening in the political domain or, in many cases, are marginalised.

The problem in Florida in 2000, which became such a cause célèbre in electoral terms, was more than a matter of hanging chads. The problem was that Mr. Jeb Bush removed large numbers of poor and disadvantaged people from the electoral register that was compiled in the run-in to the 2000 presidential election in the US. The people in question did not check the register or arrange to get themselves back on it. Many people in this country, particularly in disadvantaged communities, will not hear the message or, if they do, will not get back on the register of their own initiative. The disenfranchisement of poor and marginalised people that took place in Florida and its political consequences will be repeated here. More time is required to allow the changes to penetrate.

Where mistakes are made, as they inevitably will be, or people miss the deadline, whether it is 25 November or another date, the Minister must make it easier for those affected to get on the supplementary register. For good reasons, the position has been that those seeking to have their names placed on the supplementary register must attend a Garda station to have their application stamped. This requirement should be dispensed with for those whose names have been removed from the electoral register without their address having changed. If a person can produce proof of address and show that he or she has been on the register for an extended period, he or she should not be required to attend a Garda station in the same manner as those applying to be placed on the supplementary register because they did not register in the first instance. That is the second change I ask the Minister to make.

A number of other measures are also required, including an intensification of the advertising effort. While an on-line facility is fine for those who use the Internet, a freephone facility should be made available to enable people to check the register.

As regards his sideswipe at the Labour Party in respect of the census, the Minister has misrepresented the Labour Party's position in respect of the census since this controversy began. I want to correct the record. The problem with the electoral register did not arise overnight. This committee and sections of the media, specifically and to its credit, The Sunday Tribune, have drawn the Minister’s attention to deficiencies in the electoral register over several years. More than a year ago, when the matter was brought to my attention by Deputies Stagg and Wall, I raised with the Minister the fact that Kildare County Council had written a letter to the Department in which it pointed out it was having problems compiling the electoral register because the area was developing so quickly. The council sought additional resources for this purpose but the Minister refused its request, although he subsequently provided more resources when the issue became a political hot potato.

The Minister had ample forewarning of the problem. A proposal by the Labour Party, made well in advance of the census carried out last April, did not call for the confidentiality of the census to be breached but requested that the census enumerators who call to every household complete a second form on the electoral register. The form would have been returned to the relevant local authority rather than the Central Statistics Office. This approach would have given householders an opportunity to add names of people in the household who did not feature on the register and remove names of people no longer living in the house. The reason for this practical suggestion was that we knew local authority officials, like everyone else, experience problems gaining access to many households. With so many people at work, it is often difficult to catch them at home.

Every household is visited during the census and the process is known to be accurate. All the Minister had to do was provide a second sheet of paper to enable the enumerators to correct the electoral register but he rejected our proposal. The hubris attaching to this Government dictates that all suggestions emanating from the Opposition benches must be automatically dismissed. This approach repeatedly gets the Government into trouble. Having left the issue of the electoral register too late, the Government was forced to re-hire census enumerators to go back on the streets and perform the task they could have completed by 24 April last year.

On this occasion I hope the Minister will pay more attention to Opposition Members than he has thus far. He must extend the deadline of 25 November. There is no point waiting for a request to do so from county councils, who are not going to make that request, in the main, because all they would do is create more work for themselves. The Minister needs to loosen the arrangement whereby people who have already been registered can go on the supplementary register without having to go to a Garda station.

On the issue of hubris——

Is it not extraordinary that the Minister starts with that point?

I am working from the back forwards.

That is hubris.

Touché. That proves the case.

It does not. The point was made at the time, and has been made several times since, that to confuse two separate issues — the census and the register — would have been ill-advised, ill-considered and fraught with difficulties. Members are aware this is the case. It is a matter of record. For very good reasons, the CSO is ill-disposed to any proposition that the census process should be used for anything other than the census. Those are facts.

With regard to the easing of the requirements for somebody who was on the register who has to use the supplementary register facility, the Deputy would need to think that one through a little further. Many people may have been knocked off the register because they were fraudulently or incorrectly duplicated on it. If we are to follow the process suggested by Deputy Gilmore it would make it very easy for people who were struck off for good and cogent reasons to get back on the register. I am not at all disposed to the notion that one should make it difficult for people to get on the register. My view is that the whole voting process and the registration process should be made as easy as possible.

However, one must balance that with the concerns Deputy Gilmore himself expressed time and again in the early part of this year and the later part of last year, particularly when the excellent initial work by The Sunday Tribune was published. Deputy Gilmore pointed out the dangers of the election being stolen or of a fraudulent election. To get that balance right, one has to think very carefully.

I was speaking on a local radio station today and a lady phoned in to say she was not on the register. I telephoned the council on my way here to check the position and have the field work for the new estate in question carried out. Most members are familiar with problems in new estates. The council will review the process in that particular estate and will make it as easy as possible for bona fide cases to get on the register. To go the route Deputy Gilmore suggested may well counter the benefit of putting in successive hurdles in the supplementary voter process.

I do not accept the comparison with Florida. As I understand it, voter registration there is well below 50%. I may be wrong but I recall that figure off the top of my head. The difference here is that the total number of people now registered in Ireland is the equivalent of 90% plus of people aged over 18. An article in The Sunday Tribune suggested that massive over-registration still exists. I do not wish to quibble with that newspaper because I think it has done a very good job in highlighting the issue.

The freefone suggestion is one I would be quite willing to examine. At one stage I even looked at the idea of allowing people to text because young people are so familiar with that system. We gave specific instructions that in the advertisement, especially on radio, the campaign should place much focus on youth stations. I am not sure what were the issues. Local authorities could easily establish a freefone facility. The best practice with which I am familiar has been carried out by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, among others, involves the holding of clinics that are advertised on local radio stations and other local media to the effect that if one has any worries about the register, a person at a specific place will be able to talk to one and check one is on it. This is the best way forward.

It would be ill-advised, for very good reasons, to simply extend the deadline beyond 25 November. The correspondence from this committee, dated 21 December, is not what the Deputy asked about. It was suggested that issues arose because we had started the process in December. The problem with making wholesale additions to the register beyond 25 November is that the whole practice would be pushed back beyond the Christmas period. The deadline for publishing the resister is 15 February. It could not be the case that there would be no register of electors because, as one knows, the 2006 register expires on 14 February. It is in this regard that a practical issue arises.

It is certainly not a question of hubris. We have made great efforts to ensure councils do not have any resource constraints. Kildare County Council made a general case without making any specific request for more money. Any local authority could have asked for more money. Unless a registration process were put in place to deal with each county on the same basis, there would be no equity. The process was started well before last December and it is therefore certainly not true, fair or reasonable to say it was rushed.

Section 164 allows for further consideration where there is a specific difficulty regarding the extension in a specific constituency. There is no reason a county manager would not listen to his councillors or local Members of the Oireachtas if they were able to demonstrate there was a specific problem. The process in place has generated more public awareness about the register of electors than ever existed heretofore, certainly in my memory. I have argued very actively in favour of addressing the issue of the register.

I agree with Deputy O'Dowd that the idea of sending out the information in PDF format is not helpful. I remonstrated with my council last year in this regard and it argued a data protection issue had to be considered. It was absolutely correct in this regard. I suggested, in the lead-up to this stage of the process, that the entire register be made available electronically. If one uses the electronic system to query "Dick Roche", for example, one will not find that name on the register. One would have to enter "Richard Roche". Most people would not necessarily have this information. In a rural area, for example, a townland could have both a local name and an official name. It is for these reasons that I wanted full visual inspection capacity. I was advised in this regard that we would run up against data protection issues. We did not test the system because we did not want to create confusion.

In the fullness of time, when the register is perfected, we should consider how to keep it thus. A rolling register should now be introduced and the resources should be invested in editing rather than the annual registration campaign. I believe an electoral commission should take all these issues on board after the next election.

Over the past 12 months, I found myself dealing with a register that I knew to be grossly inaccurate. I am not blaming any local authority for it because they simply had a problem with it over the years. We, the politicians, had been arguing the authorities should make it easy to add to the register and then we heard it contained excessive numbers. There is no doubt about this. After the process in train is complete, there will still be some over-representation on the register but we will have deleted and added more names than ever before. If any local authority, including both the management and elected representatives, believes it does not have time to do the job properly, I will certainly consider this problem. The relevant section of the legislation provides for a facility to do so, on a one-to-one basis, rather than introduce new legislation.

We have another hour so I want to let as many people as possible speak.

Is the Minister not deeply concerned at the variation from county to county? County Meath has seen 23,000 dropped from the register in a year while in County Louth 3,000 people have been added. There are enormous variations between counties, with many between 1% and 3% but some heading for 20%. I accept there is immigration and internal migration and these factors make a difference but the figures for several areas leave me scratching my head. The last two columns of the Minister's spreadsheet show that different counties have different ways of doing things but the variations are phenomenal between County Meath and County Louth. Members of the public are entitled to confidence in the register and they cannot trust the figures when they vary so widely from county to county. As Deputy Gilmore pointed out, the Minister bears some of the responsibility for this because he declined to give money to Kildare County Council which sought the funding from him last year.

More important, the Minister also bears responsibility for the letter sent out in June, circular F0806. Does the Minister accept that he was not precise enough in the guidance he offered given that different counties interpret the guidance in different ways? There must be much greater certainty in the guidance if we are to achieve parity.

Previously, a variety of approaches was adopted by different councils. That was the first time in the history of the State that direct and specific guidance was given. Whatever else I can be blamed for, I have done something for the first time in the history of the State to bring together a variety of approaches, some of which the Deputy pointed out correctly. The statistical analysis reveals sharp differences between counties that arise because they have a different interpretation of the process. The new guidelines, which were circulated in draft form in September 2005, were far more precise than ever before. I accept the Deputy is correct in saying that the approach adopted was different from council to council. The guidelines were circulated in September of last year and were sent to this committee. If there is something imprecise in them, they were a major improvement on what went before and we all had an opportunity to comment on them.

I will be gentle given that the Minister is going off today to address the weighty issue of climate change and I will not blame him for the sins of omission of his Cabinet colleagues and predecessors in the Department. Given that his party has had responsibility for this for the past 20 years, however, I raise my eyebrows somewhat. However, I appreciate it is a step in the right direction although the Minister should go further. We should perhaps consider again the possibility of having an independent electoral commission. Given the large variations from county to county, the serious problems encountered and the need for the individual counties to approach the Minister with a begging bowl for funding, we surely need to place the electoral registration process on an independent statutory basis. This commission could study best practice abroad, be independent of the Government and inspire more confidence in the public than the present system does.

I urge the Minister to reconsider using PPS numbers. I hope he will extend the deadline to the end of this year, which is only a month and a half away. We are fewer than two weeks from the existing deadline. Extending the deadline by four weeks would not make too much difference but would give the public more confidence in the register.

I am strongly in favour of an independent electoral commission but I am sure the Deputy would agree we have a responsibility not to hand over a mess to a commission. There is culpability across the political spectrum for the state of the register. A register with a 30% error rate is a scandal. If, as has been hypothesised, the figure was as high as 800,000 it is completely unacceptable. That is why I have put in place certain measures. I do not wish to return to a silly debate about who was responsible for this problem. Legally, the councils are responsible for this area.

I agree with Deputy Cuffe that the most important job of any council is to have a proper electoral roll. Local authorities can find money for other matters. Unless an authority made a good case I would not give it something.

A great deal of money has been spent recently in the North of Ireland on the voting register. The result has been eulogised by part of our press as being the idyll but the best that system can achieve is in the high 80th percentile registration. This is remarkable by international standards but not as high as the headcount figure that we have. Our figures will remain high because there will be instances of excess registration.

The work of the Irish councils on the electoral register comes out way ahead when compared with that in most other jurisdictions whose local authorities have infinitely higher resources. While I criticise some of the practices that grew up here, once the local authorities received the resources and instructions to do this work their effort was praiseworthy. In England it is believed that more than 3 million people are not registered. Over-registration is better than under-registration. It is also argued that there is under-registration in the North of Ireland. Beyond the 90% is as close to perfection as can be achieved. No one should ever be so foolish as to believe that there will be a 100% accurate register and I do not suggest that anyone in this committee believes that is possible. As soon as the register is compiled it goes out of date because somebody dies that night, somebody moves house the next day and so on. The electorate is a moving target. Reaching the 90th percentile level would be extraordinarily good by international standards. While I criticised some bad practices, I must say this, to be fair to all concerned.

The Minister referred to the supply of information on the register from political parties to local authorities. We have tried to maintain that over the years but it has slipped in the past ten years. In many cases, information supplied on a street or an apartment block is not acted upon. Apart from the separate exercise over the summer, a Fianna Fáil exercise on 700 houses found approximately 10% should be removed from the register. Despite supplying the information, that 10% still remain on the register. Supplied information on the register must be checked by local authorities to ensure it is correct and action is taken on it.

I agree with the Minister that an even larger issue than the correctness of the register is polling day personation. It plays a huge role in the effectiveness of the register. Can the checks against personation be bolstered to reduce it to one in three? Can we examine what forms of identification are being produced? Has the role of the Garda been examined? I know of instances where personation has been reported to both polling clerks and the Garda but no action was taken. After the 25 November deadline, can the process whereby people must go to their local Garda station to verify the draft register be simplified? It does not always suit people to go to a Garda station.

The requirement for the supplementary register was deliberately onerous. The supplementary register produced a greater deal of flexibility in that, for example, 18 year olds whose birthdays fell short of the register cut-off date could still come on the register at a later point. When it was introduced, we were not opening the gates for electoral fraud at a late stage.

If one can show some reason one cannot go to a Garda station, one can then go to the local authority office. Invariably, a Garda station is more proximate to where people live. There is a feeling that there is some reluctance in local authorities to listen to advice from political parties. I expect a local council to listen when a councillor or political party claims a mistake has been made with the register. There is no reason a local authority should not listen to those acting on the ground. This morning, I was on a show on East Coast Radio when a lady telephoned in to inform me she was not on the register. Her housing estate was new but had not been visited by the field workers. Today, the council will check the field work to ensure it was visited but it will also contact estate residents to make them aware they can still get on the register.

I agree that we must look beyond this process to fraud on voting day. That is when stuffing the register can be stopped. The value of creating a bad register would be completely removed. The process hitherto has not produced overwhelming evidence that the problems with the register stem from fraud. There are cases where the numbers are high — Deputy O'Dowd is smiling, since he knows what I have in mind — and those must be examined. That will happen.

It will take time to get it right.

The best way to ensure that there is no fraudulent abuse of the electoral register is through good practice on voting day. As I said, one in four voters is supposed to be checked, but that is not happening. Deputy Gilmore will know what I have in mind. On the interface between Bray and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, where there has been a great deal of population change and one type of housing is concentrated, I have insisted that there be challenges. My insistence at local level has not always been heeded. It has been said to me several times that one cannot expect those employed as polling workers for a day to take on such people. However, that is precisely what I expect.

If someone goes to work at a polling station, he or she is there to ensure that the polling process is conducted in a way that is not fraudulent. If staff have any difficulties in doing so, they should not be there. More effort might be made to select the right personnel for polling stations. The political parties have a difficulty, since getting personation staff is difficult nowadays. However, paid polling staff should be much more vigorous in policing that. I will be drafting instructions, guidelines and advice for polling day. If committee members wish to put aside time between now and the end of the year, I will be delighted to discuss the matter with them, since there is much experience in the House upon which we should draw.

There is always a problem in that the last thing one wants is 200 people queuing up on polling day, since that would discourage voters. Striking the right balance is not easy, but we must be able to think up devices to ensure that there is a little more precision. I will return to a point I have made several times over the last week. If there is any evidence in this process that there are constituencies where over-registration is dramatically out of line, special attention will have to be paid to them on polling day.

That is happening now. Deputy O'Dowd has made a fair point. Let us imagine that a poll worker arrives at a house in Whitethorn Villas and is told that seven people resident in the house are voting, someone robustly defends the argument that they are there, and the field worker must record them. There have been indications in one or two cases that field workers have queried the facts. We will have to examine polling-day issues as well as doing the work now.

The Minister can take it that the committee will deal with electoral fraud at a date to be determined.

I acknowledge that very large sums have gone into reviewing the register. Regarding the importance of the revision courts to the process, if I find my name off a register, I must make a claim before the 25th of the month. Where the local authorities have field workers and vast quantities of information, surely the onus is on the local authorities to furnish information if people disappear from a register. Genuine cases fall into various categories. For example, where a person is inadvertently left off a register, the onus should be on the council to reinstate him or her through the revision courts system. It acknowledges where local authorities have made a genuine mistake. It removes the onus from a person to apply through a Garda station to get his or her name included.

That very good point addressed one of Deputy Gilmore's concerns. Let us imagine that a person approaches the local authorities in the first half of December having discovered that he or she has been struck off. He or she will ask why it happened. The local authority checks its field work and assures the person that it had written to him or her to point out the relevant situation. The local authority can notify the electoral court that an error has been made and this can be corrected. That would facilitate the person and might be the process whereby a degree of flexibility could be introduced, as Deputy Gilmore and Senator Brady suggested. There could be a degree of flexibility to the extent that the council would use common sense. One can never legislate for common sense. I have been in touch with many councils in the country and have spoken to councillors on this at the Local Authority Managers Association conference at the weekend. It is possible for people to come along and say, where relevant, that they should not have been struck off. In the event the council should use the device at its disposal to correct matters.

Senator Brennan is quite right to mention the revision court. The revision court is accessible up to 13 December and matters are finalised on 23 December. I do not want to appear inflexible, but that is why the issue of the dates most be borne in mind, namely, 25 November, 13 and 23 December, and 1 and 15 February. At the back end of the process there will be difficulties because we will not have a voting register after 14 February. It is important that those dates be observed. That is why I said that if the local authorities believe there is a particular problem, we shall look at it on a case by case basis. However, Senator Brennan is correct in saying the revision court process operates beneficially in those cases, where a local authority can concede it removed people from the register erroneously. This can be notified to the revision court and the necessary changes made

I thank the Minister for attending. He is to be complimented on the excellent amount of work he has done on this. He is the first Minister to spend so much time trying to get the electoral register right. It is a mess and a good deal of work is being done on it. This has been highlighted and the public is beginning to become more aware of developments. A lady telephoned me this morning, for instance, and said her husband and three children had been removed from the register. They had checked the Internet and discovered they were not on the register, yet had not been notified about this. I contacted my local authority to get a copy of the letters that had been sent to them in this regard. The entire family of a member of my staff has been removed from the register. My colleague, Senator Brennan, has argued that where a person has been taken off the register, he or she should not have to go to a Garda station to get on to a supplementary list. Something else must be put in place, because such people have been taken off the register for some reason by the local authorities. I believe the Minister has covered this in his answer to Senator Brennan, but something will have to put in place. I come from a rural constituency. Many of the Garda stations are only open for an hour or two during the day. That will make matters extremely difficult for people who have been removed from the register, and they will probably not bother to look for a Garda station. It may be different for people in cities who go into Garda stations, because they are probably not known. Some other arrangements will have to be made.

However, the idea to set up a clinic in a particular area to facilitate a supplementary register, where a garda will be present, is an excellent one. This would provide people with the opportunity to call in and have their forms stamped. Once again, I compliment the Minister and his officials on the work they are doing.

The Deputy is right. I believe the face to face contact is the best way, because that is how we operate in Ireland. I will give instructions straight away to all councils to hold clinics. To be fair to them, all the councils I have been in touch with, without exception, have been willing to be very flexible and pragmatic within the constraints. Deputy Cuffe made the point that the practice has developed over the years and there is no two of them alike. That is why the variation occurs. Some local authorities included people's names on the register and made very little effort to remove other names from it.

Until the mechanism is put in place to link the electoral register to the births and deaths register, Dublin City Council cannot remove the names of dead people from the register unless notified by families. If the death occurred of a single person living in an apartment block in Dublin whose name was on the register, the probability is that the person's name would stay on the register. The process we set up is interesting and has been very positive, but the figures may still have to be revised because the names of dead people may have been on the register for years before the computerised system was set up. They will have to be removed because there is a possibility of fraud in those cases. I agree with Deputy Grealish and I encourage all councils to hold clinics. It could easily be done through the libraries and council offices and his point about the role of Garda stations is also valid. However, I do not wish to make the supplementary process so easy that it would facilitate fraud.

I welcome the Minister and I thank him for appearing before the committee. I acknowledge the great amount of work done and the financial input from his Department. It is a compliment to the Minister that he has taken the initiative to try to get the register right.

The alarm bells rang last week when we started getting phone calls from constituents and started to check the website. The website was a great idea and it enabled people to check the register, but without exactitude in the input of details, people might think that they were not on the register. However, mistakes have also been made that should be rectified as soon as possible. The figure for my own county is down by 639, which is quite minimal in comparison with north Tipperary, which is down by around 7,000. There are some serious variations which cause some concern.

I wish to follow up on Senator Brennan's point about the revision courts. Must all claims for names to be put back on the register by those whose names were removed in error go to the revision court?

Between now and 25 November, people have the right to notify the councils. There is a draft register that does not have some names on it because 170,000 people have been notified. The councils have received thousands of calls and almost one third of those whose names have been deleted are having their names put back on the register. However, it would be a mistake to think that the names of all of the 170,000 people were incorrectly taken off the register. Many of those names were taken off because the people have moved elsewhere. There is a requirement that a written instruction is issued because it is important that the local authorities have a paper trail to prove they made every effort to put people's names on the register.

I accept that, but in the case of a disputed registration, they will go to the revision court.

If a dispute occurs,that is the case. However, I do not think it will occur, other than in a very small minority of cases. Local authorities that have gone through this process should not be bloody-minded if somebody comes along and asks that their name be put on the register. Unless there is a cogent reason the authority should refuse to listen to that person, then the person's name should be put on the register. The onus is on the local authority in those circumstances to justify what it is doing. The local authorities are adopting a very practical approach. However, in extreme cases one can fall back on the electoral court.

I endorse what was said by previous speakers about those whose names are on the supplementary register having to go to a Garda station. Young people, in particular, do not want to know about this, as they do not want to go there. I accept that the Minister must keep a balance between fraud and correct procedure, but it is important that it is made as easy as possible for people to have their names included in the supplementary register, particularly those coming of age at 18 years. As Deputy Grealish noted, it is not always possible to meet a local garda. This matter might cause serious inconvenience to the public. Some other mechanism should be found for young people to have their names included in the supplementary register.

On this occasion more than ever, no matter how well people carry out their business in the next couple of months, there will be a great demand for the supplementary register. Taking this into consideration, we must be in a position to make it as easy as possible for people to have their names included in the supplementary register, on this occasion at least, while recognising that we must be very careful not to encourage fraud.

The supplementary register process, particularly the process that facilitates people who reach 18 years in the critical period, was introduced in the 2002 legislation. The process was introduced after the two Houses had discussed and agreed to it. They also agreed that there was a specific need to introduce control. Getting the balance right is very important. The supplementary register process has worked well. I accept the Deputy's point that there is likely to be increased volume on this occasion, generated by the publicity. However, we should think long and hard before abandoning what is a specific check to prevent fraud.

Perhaps there should be an either-or option. I am not suggesting we should abandon the process because I respect the reason it was introduced. However, it is difficult logistically for people living in rural areas to meet a garda at a given time. There will probably be a short timeframe within which to have one's name included in the supplementary register.

I accept the Deputy's point, which Deputy Grealish supported. An issue arises, given that the arrangements allow that if one cannot go to a Garda station which might be open just one day a week one can go to a local authority office, although this might not be feasible in Connemara, for example. It is difficult to think through——-

Are there many offices?

There are now more local authority local offices which might be easier for the public to access. The facility is available. However, if the process which we, as legislators, introduced in 2002, namely, that a certification process is required, was removed, one would remove the protection provided by both Houses when the legislation was enacted in 2002 and reverse the principle adopted at that time. We would need to give the matter proper consideration before doing this, although there is time to do so — we could always achieve it by way of a one line Bill. However, we need to think very carefully in this regard. I cannot see the practical benefit in doing do, whereas I can see real dangers.

An obvious option would be to use the local parish priest who is familiar with his parishioners' dates of birth. I do not want to saddle every parish priest with this work but it is an obvious alternative. We should explore alternatives.

We can deal with the matter in the context of our discussion on electoral fraud.

There are two major issues. Where councils have been late in producing a register, the statutory period is not available to the public to correct the register by 25 November. Which councils did not meet the 1 November deadline?

Roscommon County Council definitely did not do so. Galway County Council was late in issuing it, but not as late as Roscommon County Council. I will check the details and get back to the Deputy.

I seek clarity on a second more important issue. In County Louth those whose names it was intended to delete from the register were contacted in writing before 1 November in accordance with the process laid down. Which councils did not write to those whose names it was intended to delete from the register?

Deputy O'Dowd claims some local authorities did not follow the procedures.

That is my understanding in regard to Roscommon County Council.

That is not my understanding.

Is the Minister saying all local authorities followed the procedures in terms of writing to voters?

The instructions were issued to all local authorities. If the Deputy is aware that a local authority failed to fulfil these obligations, he should let me know and I will deal with it.

The instructions that were issued in regard to field worker activity were specific. Field workers were to record the date of their visit as well as the relevant code for the second form that was left. If, after two weeks, no information was received, notification of intention to delete was to issue within ten days, this new letter to be issued prior to the deletion process. Finally, if no reply was received, the voter's name was to be deleted and a letter confirming deletion was to issue.

That is what is happening. It is an onerous and specific process. The date of the field worker's visit must be noted and where I have had queries, I have asked that the field worker's diary be checked.

Will the Minister's officials check whether this procedure was followed in all cases and let the committee know as soon as possible the true position?

We have checked that procedures were followed.

Is the Minister saying that letters issued from every local authority before 1 November to those voters whose names were proposed to be deleted?

I do not wish to waste the Minister's time but I seek an answer to this question.

I understand the Deputy is trying to be helpful. If he has even a suspicion in this regard, I ask him to tell me privately and I will check with the relevant county manager before the end of the day.

That is fair enough.

It is an important issue. I understand what Deputy O'Dowd has said to his colleague because I am good at lip-reading. If the local authority he mentioned failed——

Does the Minister understand what I said just then?

I cannot lip-read when the Deputy has his hands in front of his mouth. If the local authority to which he referred has failed to carry out its obligations, my officials will speak to the manager concerned today. The instructions were specific, perhaps even pedantic.

They were certainly specific.

The figures the Minister has supplied indicate the net reduction in the register is 152,000. Some 60% of this reduction is accounted for in the greater Dublin area, including counties Kildare, Wicklow and Meath.

That is correct.

If one factors in other cities, more than 70% of the net reduction is accounted for by urban areas. I suspect this has to do with people being out at work or collecting children from the childminder — the patterns of urban living. This indicates a significant distortion in the register.

The deadline that has been set is the issue of most immediate concern. In responding to members' various questions, the Minister has spoken about issues that will require us all to think long and hard. However, we do not have much time for careful consideration if we are to ensure the register is accurate. The reasons the Minister has given for not extending the deadline from 25 November do not stack up. The only additional work that will be imposed on local authorities by pushing out the deadline relates to the additional work that is generated by that portion of voters who apply for inclusion on the register between 25 November and the new date. It is not the case that all progress will be postponed; one presumes the local authorities will make the necessary adjustments as they receive the information. Whatever knock-on effect there may be in terms of extending the deadline can be accommodated. In any event, whatever corrections are made to the register at this stage will reduce the amount of work to be done at the supplementary stage.

This committee made a request last week that the deadline be extended. I again ask the Minister to set a new deadline.

On what date was this request made?

The meeting took place on Wednesday, 8 November. The letter has not quite made it to the Minister yet. I have a signed copy to hand. This was due to personal circumstances and to the fact that the House did not sit on Friday. However, I believe the Minister was aware of the joint committee's decision. He replied to it at the weekend.

I read it in the newspaper.

The Minister should not look so shocked.

I read the newspapers on Friday. We have had a good discussion and I do not wish to be overly critical. Several times, I have asked that this discussion be held. Everyone has been anxious to have this discussion.

However, to return to the core point, namely, the deadline of 25 November, there is no cogent argument for changing the process in its entirety. As I have already stated, a procedure is in place whereby a local authority with a difficulty can, under section 161, look for specific——

The local authorities do not have the difficulty——

I disagree with the Deputy.

——the person whose name is not registered has the difficulty.

The second point is that people may still notify the local authorities up to 25 November.

Some of them have not even received the letter yet.

That is not true.

The Minister told members the final notification will only be issued this week.

We must be rational about this. We must have a register by 14 February. Notwithstanding the fact that a vast amount of work has gone into it, one runs against a series of deadlines when one begins working back from 14 February. This is the point I have been making. For instance, Christmas falls between now and then. Moreover, under the electoral court process, one will have until 23 December during which to change——

The Minister is stating that working people will be obliged to take a day off work to go to court to get their names on the register. Is that what the Minister is telling members?

That is not what I am saying. The Deputy knows as well as I that no matter how many people or resources are put in place, there will always be some difficulties when trying to draw up a list of 3.1 million people. One will also encounter difficulties when one has flexibility and high mobility. It is not rational to abandon the entire process for the reasons outlined by the Deputy.

That is not what I suggested.

That is precisely what one would do, were one to decide now that everything will be put back beyond 25 November.

If delivery of the letter written by the committee to the Minister is in any way indicative of the speed of the postal service, it does not bode well for those trying to get their names back on the register within the next two weeks.

I will make absolutely no comment on the administration of this committee. That is the members' job, not mine.

It was the postal service.

No, it was not the postal service.

The Chairman has explained this satisfactorily.

I am not making the point; Deputy Cuffe is making the point.

I do not believe making such a change is either necessary — which is the more important point — or prudent. If it was necessary, I would contemplate it. However, it is not necessary because the requisite flexibility exists in the system. Moreover, were the change to be made, I guarantee the Deputy that on polling day, people would turn up to state that while their names should have been on the register, they were not. All members know this to be the case. While one can fool around as much as one wishes, tragically, this will always be the case. In this instance, local authorities are sensitive to the need to ensure that people's names are not struck off the register without the latter knowing.

I want the Minister to clarify something he said previously. If a local authority requests an extension to the deadline of 25 November, the Minister would consider it. This could be initiated by councillors or Deputies. Did the Minister say that?

Yes, I did. I have always made the point that a council does not simply consist of the county manager. It consists of the elected representatives. I spoke to a county councillor from a part of the country other than that in which I live who had some views on the electoral register issue. When I asked him whether he felt he had any responsibility for the register in his area, he replied that he did at election time. However, as councillors are part of the councils, they bear the same responsibility as county managers for the council process. If councillors make a point to the county managers in their council to the effect that a mess has been made in the register in X——

Can I ask——

If the Deputy allows me to finish the sentence, he can come back. The councillors can ask the manager to——

Can I ask how they will do so? Most county councils meet on either the first or second Monday of the month.

Let us enter the realms of reality. Most councillors are there and——

This is the last two weeks.

If they believe there is a mess——

They are within the last two weeks. They may not even meet.

If councillors in Deputy Gilmore's council or any other council believe a mess exists, they can telephone their managers.

Are county managers legally obliged to take action whenever councillors telephone them?

If a group of councillors made a coherent argument that a sizeable error had been made——

It is a new take on the Local Government Act. The Minister is passing the responsibility on to county councils.

Deputy Gilmore is wrong.

The Minister is passing the responsibility on. This is something with which he can deal but, as he does with most issues, he is passing it on to county councils and arguing that they can deal with it if they are contacted by councillors.

The legal responsibility for the electoral register lies with the council. I am facilitating councils by providing them with resources and clear-cut guidelines and I have provided them with additional staff. If there is a belief in any council in any part of the country that they need specific additional time, there is a mechanism to trigger this, namely, section 164. There is no need to over-dramatise the position. Councillors have had special meetings up and down the country on less pressing issues than this.

The Minister has legislation before the House and can deal with the issue this week.

There is no——

He can deal with it very simply. He is aware of the problem.

Deputy Gilmore is plucking this out of the air. There is no evidence whatsoever that any council cannot deal with it. Deputy Gilmore is suggesting that out of——

There is evidence that people have been taken off the register and are losing the vote.

People have between now and 25 November to get on the register. Deputy Gilmore is suggesting that we should make primary legislation just like that. I believe that one of the reasons we get into difficulties from time to time is that we make primary legislation without fully considering whether it is good legislation.

The Minister has had plenty of notice in respect of this matter.

We have had a very constructive debate today.

We have not reached a constructive conclusion.

If Deputy Gilmore wishes to make silly political points, I cannot stop him.

There were a number of positive suggestions from the Minister which the committee greatly appreciates. I thank the Minister for attending this meeting of the joint committee and for his positive contribution to the discussion. I am sure all members of the committee will join me in wishing him a safe journey to Nairobi and a very successful participation in the UN conference on climate change.

I do not mean to lose my patience. Deputy O'Dowd believes that an improper arrangement may have been applied. If he contacts my staff, we will deal with the matter. If there was an error, we will deal with it.

I am not making allegations.

I am aware of that. They did not apply proper arrangements, for whatever reason. I confirm that it is the council I think I saw. If Deputy Gilmore believes there is a major error in any council, councillors——

We should not ask councillors to do what the Minister should be doing.

That is fine, but councillors have responsibility in that regard.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.55 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 6 December 2006.
Barr
Roinn