Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)

I wish to raise a number of issues which relate to the European Parliament Elections (Amendment) Bill 2003, which gives effect to the report of the commission that reviews the constituencies used for European elections. The Bill makes a number of other changes in the conduct of elections to the European Parliament.

I intend to address four aspects of this legislation, the first of which is the proposal to end the dual mandate whereby Members of the Oireachtas can serve simultaneously as Members of the European Parliament. The Bill's proposals in this regard are absolutely inconsistent with the legislation which was passed by the Houses to end the dual mandate at local government level. No Member of the Oireachtas will be allowed to stand for election to a local authority from 11 June next. Members of the Oireachtas will be able to stand for election to the European Parliament, however, as I believe they should. When the Local Government Bill 2003 was being debated, I argued that Members of the Oireachtas should be allowed to stand for election to local authorities before deciding on the issue of where they serve. It is utterly inconsistent, however, that a Member of the Oireachtas who is elected to the European Parliament will be allowed to continue to serve in this House until the following general election.

The provisions of this Bill will mean that the law for a Deputy or Senator who wishes to seek election to a local authority is different from that for a Deputy or Senator who wishes to seek election to the European Parliament. It seems highly absurd that, after 11 June, a Member of the Oireachtas will be able to attend week-long meetings of the European Parliament in Strasbourg or Brussels for up to three years until the next general election, but will not be able to attend a meeting in a city or town hall for a couple of hours.

The issue of consistency was addressed by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government when the local government legislation was being discussed on Committee Stage on 17 April 2003. I wish to remind Deputies of comments made to the select committee by the Minister, Deputy Cullen, about consistency in response to an amendment I tabled. The Minister said, "What is in the Bill is based specifically on the consistency of what is already in the legislation on those disqualifications to ensure there will not be two different types of disqualification". He went on to stress that he did "not want to create different levels between different people". His view in April of last year was that he was "not in favour of a watered down version of the abolition of the dual mandate". He was not willing at that time to consider anything other than an immediate and total ban on Members of the Oireachtas serving on local authorities, with total effect from the date of the next local authority elections.

The Minister's desire for consistency and lack of desire to water down the abolition of the dual mandate is not reflected in this legislation, however. He has literally created a different category of disqualification by making separate provisions for those elected to the European Parliament. He has watered down the provisions of the abolition of the dual mandate. I wish to give notice, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that I intend to table an amendment on Committee Stage to give effect to the abolition of the dual mandate for the European Parliament on 11 June, the same date on which it will take effect for members of local authorities.

I would like to discuss a second issue. I am surprised that a Bill which deals with European Parliament elections does not address the Kelly judgment. Deputies will recall that the High Court reached a judgment the day before polling in the 2002 general election which was later upheld by the Supreme Court. The net effect of the judgment was that the resources available to incumbents are calculable and accountable for the purposes of election spending limits and accountability. If that applies in Dáil elections, which the Kelly judgment addressed, I presume it also extends to European elections. I presume that incumbents who are Members of the European Parliament will be required to account for their use of European Parliament resources during the election campaign. I presume the resources will be taken into account when assessing whether a candidate exceeded the spending limit for the election.

The Government suggested after the Kelly judgment that the issue would be addressed in some way by means of legislation, but we have not yet seen such a Bill. It is surprising that the implications of the Kelly judgment have not been addressed in this Bill, which deals with European Parliament elections. I would like the Minister of State to explain in his response why this is the case.

The third issue I would like to raise in respect of this Bill relates to the entitlement of certain people to vote in European elections. Non-Irish nationals who are citizens of EU member states are entitled, in theory at least, to be on the electoral register in this State for the European Parliament elections and to vote in Ireland in those elections. Following the publication some time ago of the most recent census returns, the Labour Party drew attention to the significant number of people living in Ireland who were born outside the State. I think that about 12% of those living in this country were born outside the State, mostly in Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom. When one takes into account those who were born in other parts of the European Union, approximately 280,000 people living in this State — I assume most of them are over the age of 18 — are entitled to vote in European Parliament elections.

However, it has been drawn to my attention that it is quite difficult for somebody who is a citizen of another EU state to enrol on the electoral register here. Under section 6 of the 1997 Act, an EU national who wants to be on the register in Ireland must furnish a statutory declaration. That means that he or she must go to a solicitor, for example, to confirm that he or she is not in a position to vote abroad. This is extremely inconvenient and goes far beyond what is required by the European Union directive, which is only that a formal statement be made to that effect.

I give notice to the House and to the Minister, in particular, that on Committee Stage I will be tabling an amendment to that provision to ensure that citizens from other EU states are entitled to join the Irish electoral register upon making a formal statement, as required by the directive, rather than a statutory declaration as provided for in the current stringent legislation. The House should send out a clear message that nationals of other EU states who are living here and contributing to the country in many ways are welcome to vote here in EU elections. That change in the law should be made to encourage more EU nationals to vote in the European elections.

The fourth issue I wish to raise, which has already been dealt with by Deputy Allen, is electronic voting. This issue has been discussed at the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government. The Labour Party has made known publicly its views on and reservations about the system of electronic voting which is being introduced. We have made it clear that we are unhappy that the Government intends to proceed to introduce the planned system of electronic voting in every constituency for the next European and local elections. Serious reservations have been raised about the system to be introduced, mainly from people within the IT industry. The people who gave evidence before the committee were IT experts. They know what they are talking about. An increasing volume of literature is appearing, especially on the Internet — much of it originating in the United States — which expresses a great deal of caution about some of the electronic voting systems being introduced.

The Comptroller and Auditor General was asked by the Committee of Public Accounts to consider whether he would exercise his functions in such a way as to stall the procurement process for the electronic voting system, on the basis that the expenditure of substantial funds from the Exchequer on equipment that might not fulfil its intended purpose would be imprudent and would not represent value for money. Understandably, he took the view that this approach was outside his remit. He did, however, go on to communicate to the Committee of Public Accounts a serious caution about the electronic voting system.

See this speech in context