Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I am glad of the opportunity to say a couple of words on this legislation, most of which the Minister sitting opposite is anticipating with a certain amount of relish, glee and welcome. However, I do not take the line that many other speakers have taken on this issue.

I will start with the Minister's explanation, which is correct, as to how the legislation came about and the decision taken by the courts. We very much appreciate the courts, which have a difficult job to do. The last time they visited the national Legislature as regards how to get elected and all the trapping associated with it, was in the Kelly case, which took place just before the last general election. This had a very serious impact, to my mind, on the outcome of the election. To make matters even worse, the court's decision did not issue until after the electorate's decision. One had Hobson's choice and could take it or leave it, but it was applicable. I appreciate the need to have the purest and simplest form of democracy. However, I am not sure that everybody should have the right to get elected. There are serious reasons some people who were elected in this country in the not too distant past should not have been elected. I do not care how many people supported them or assented to their election — I still believe it was wrong that they were elected. It is wrong to make a decision that allows people with criminal records, for example, to be elected. The election of such people does nothing for society or for local and national politics. The Minister has failed to take such serious aberrations into account, which is why we are facing many of our current problems.

I listened carefully to the speeches made by some of my Independent colleagues. I understand why people support Independents. Many people do not know that the Government thinks it necessary to ensure there will be an ample supply of Independent Members in the future. Supporting the election of Independent candidates is part and parcel of the Government's agenda. The more a Government splinters the Opposition, the better its chances of being re-elected. That is a well-known, tried and trusted philosophy which did not come to light today or yesterday. Every time they get an opportunity to do so, the Minister and his colleagues further embellish the prospects of more Independents getting elected to the House. They do not often announce that Independent Deputies are better paid than other Members of the House — that they are paid nearly twice the salary of ordinary Deputies in Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Labour Party and all the other parties. It might be no harm to admit now and again the undeniable fact that the Independents who are elected to this House get payments into their hands which are virtually double the payments received by party-supporting Deputies. The Minister, Deputy Roche, knows that is the case. While I have no problem with the existence of that system, we should ask what is the real reason for it. Is it in place because the Government thinks it is most important to ensure that the Opposition is as splintered as possible? Does the Government want as many Independents as possible to be elected so it has a better chance of getting some additional Deputies to support it? The Minister knows well what I am talking about.

I was honoured to be present in the Chamber for the thought-provoking speech made by Deputy Gay Mitchell, who is a Member of this House and a Member of the European Parliament. He mentioned many of the things we take for granted which we need to bear in mind if we are to ensure that democracy is not pushed aside during the introduction of a new way of calculating what the people are thinking. God knows we have enough examples of problems which have arisen in such circumstances. Electronic voting, for example, was supposed to be the ultimate way of getting as many people as possible to vote. There has been a reduction in the turn-out at many elections since the Government took the ceremony out of polling day some years ago. People used to congregate outside polling stations to enjoy the fun that was taking place and to participate in the day's activities. They wanted to ensure they were part and parcel of the electoral process, even if that involved insulting their neighbours, etc. The then Government took what it thought was a slick and intellectual decision, in the interests of being honest and modern, etc., to ban such activities. We are familiar with the rubbish of this nature that comes from the other side of the House from time to time. The Government thought it should ban it because it was smelly, unhygienic, unholy and unattractive. The argument that it interfered with democracy was rubbish. The result of the Government's decision to abolish the spectacle associated with polling day was a decrease in the number of people participating in elections.

In a moment of inspiration, the former Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Noel Dempsey, whom I oppose in his current role, decided to introduce electronic voting. The Government almost suggested that it was making it possible for it all to happen as soon as one thought about one's vote. It introduced electronic voting in two or three constituencies throughout the country and tried to convince people that it would be the technology of the future. Similar claims have been made in respect of broadband. It is amazing that the Government chose to adopt a type of technology that always fails at some stage. It suggested it had ways and means of dealing with such failures. It wants us to believe it can solve every problem, including the gridlock on the M50. In this instance, its solution was to undertake a substantial public relations campaign to ensure people knew how to use the electronic voting machines. The Minister told the public that he was absolutely certain that the machine worked effectively to record the opinions, views and votes of voters. That was rubbish because such a claim could not and cannot be made. Those who were elected using electronic voting do not have a scintilla of evidence to prove they were adequately elected. They do not have a record of what happened. If they wanted to prove how they were elected, they would have to go to court, which is codology.

I am interested to note that this legislation has been brought to the House in advance of the general election. It is another example of the red herrings, or decoys, which are used as a tactic coming up to elections. I do not doubt that it is a great honour to be elected as a public representative at any level. Similarly, it is a privilege to do one's duty honestly and in accordance with the wishes of the people, as far as possible. This House and the country as a whole have fallen victim to perception rather than substance in recent times, unfortunately. The order of the day is no longer delivering things, living up to one's promises and meeting the people's expectations, as expressed at election time by those seeking election. The order of the day now is engaging in public relations exercises, promoting one's gimmicks by wrapping them up in as slick a manner as possible and diverting the attention of the electorate from the real issues. It is sad that the Deputies on the other side of the House stand indicted for their misuse of public funds over the last ten years. The Government has spent more money on pursuing its own air bubbles — that is the only way to describe what the money has been spent on — than any other Government since the foundation of the State. I have always had great admiration for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I used to think he was a sincere guy who would give an honest answer to a parliamentary question. Asking such questions is my favourite pastime.

See this speech in context