Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)

I asked for this debate on foot of last week's revelations regarding the variation in cost of storage of electronic voting machines. It costs in excess of €658,000 per annum to store the machines throughout the country. That was all very well, until Deputy McGrath discovered there is a difference in a variety of costing depending on the county in which the ballot box is situated. In some places the costs are exorbitant, in other places they are not so much so. Top of the list are counties Sligo and Leitrim where there is zero cost for storage and insurance of the machines. This is very welcome. In County Louth, the storage cost is less than €2 per ballot box, while in County Waterford it costs over €271 per machine per annum. That is unacceptable and there is great public concern regarding this issue.

We heard that a returning officer, I think in County Dublin, has billed the State for tens of thousands of euro for the storage of these machines — this returning officer happens to be in partnership with his daughter. That is not acceptable. It is similar to a county manager contracting labour into his workforce. One cannot be a manager and at the same time supply services. That is the kernel of the issue.

Deputy McGrath has done much work with regard to the issue. He wrote to the returning officers throughout the country and received an answer from one of them today. The Deputy cannot be here this evening and he asked me to relay this. The reply states that the Deputy's letter has been passed on to the organisation which represents returning officers in the State. In other words, there is no transparency and openness from the individual returning officer to whom he sent the letter.

We need accountability and transparency with regard to this issue. Serious questions arise. If the legislation regarding standards and ethics in public office does not cover this situation, perhaps it ought to be looked into by this House to ensure greater transparency and openness surrounding such matters.

This issue must be investigated fully. All the facts of how and why there is yet another problem with the how the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government handles the issue of electronic voting machines must be known. I am amazed at the Department's brass neck in informing Deputy McGrath that it did not seek detailed information on ownership of premises used by returning officers for storage purposes and does not have this information on a comprehensive basis. Surely if the returning officers worked in partnership with local councils, they would be able to find a place that would meet the requirements of the machines and would store them much cheaper and effectively.

The Minister should outline for the House exactly what the Department and the Government intend to do with regard to the matter. Is the Minister comfortable with the practice of allowing council officials store these machines in property that they own? Why is there no central storage facility for the machines that could save taxpayers' money? Will the Government commit to progress in this regard? Does the Minister believe the current raft of ethics legislation, which seemingly does not cover this area, might be in need of upgrading?

This is another body blow for the electronic voting project. Apart from the lack of a verifiable voter audit trail, there is a lack of public faith in the system and a lack of clear direction from the Department. Again, we have a complete lack of transparency with regard to the issue. People are most amazed and concerned about the absolute waste of public money and lack of transparency and openness surrounding these issues. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

See this speech in context