Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Noel Ahern (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On foot of the Government decision in February 2000 to introduce electronic voting and counting and subsequent decisions with regard to the phased roll-out of the project, my Department has been tasked with developing and delivering the project in conjunction with returning officers. Voting machines for the two pilot polls were delivered in 2002, while the remaining order for the planned nationwide roll-out of the system was placed in early 2003 for delivery later that year.

Consequently, my Department wrote to all returning officers in January 2003 asking them to make appropriate arrangements for storage of the voting equipment in advance of delivery of the equipment and giving indications of the approximate space needed. The key requirement for the storage of the voting machines and ancillary equipment is that the premises are dry and not subject to damp conditions. Returning officers were asked, in the first instance, to consider whether existing storage facilities were suitable for electronic voting equipment, to inquire, with the assistance of the Office of Public Works, as to alternative storage premises in public buildings, such as local authority offices or courthouses, or, failing that, in other suitable accommodation locally.

Responsibility for the security and safe storage of manual voting electoral materials, such as ballot boxes, stamping instruments, stationery etc. has always been a matter for returning officers who are statutorily responsible for conducting elections and referenda. Accordingly, similar responsibility rests with them with regard to the storage of electronic voting machines and equipment. With significant investment being made in modernising the electoral system, returning officers were entrusted with the task of procuring suitable dry accommodation for the electronic voting machines and ancillary equipment.

In view of returning officer responsibilities and the statutory independence of their function, my Department had no involvement in the procurement processes. Nevertheless, summary information on storage costs and arrangements was received in the Department from the returning officers. Four returning officers were able to avail of storage facilities in their local courthouse free of charge. However, due to lack of space, the majority of returning officers, namely 24, had to source alternative accommodation with the average costs working out at just over €27,000 per annum.

The total annual cost for storage of electronic voting equipment, including the cost of insurance, service charges, rates, heating etc., is €659,000, including VAT. In some instances, storage comprises only an element of the rental costs, with some returning officers taking the opportunity to acquire modern accommodation for storage, the training of polling staff and other electoral administrative duties. This was a necessary step for health and safety reasons and as former accommodation in courthouses and local authority premises was gradually becoming unavailable.

There are ongoing costs for storage of existing ballot boxes and other manual election equipment. An intended consequence of electronic voting is that the requirements of the Office of Public Works and the Government Supplies Agency to maintain large elections stores facilities, containing stationery, polling information cards, ballot boxes and other related items would no longer exist.

In addition to storage cost information, six returning officers supplied details of ownership of the storage premises and this information was presented to the House in reply to Deputy McGrath last week.

To get more comprehensive data on storage arrangements, my Department has written to all returning officers seeking further information on storage and insurance arrangements, including specific data on ownership and compliance with public procurement requirements. I will make this information known to the House once these returns are received and collated.

I am confident my Department and the Department of Finance will continue to work with returning officers to ensure the necessary storage facilities are provided as economically and cost efficiently as possible. The fundamental point is that the system is continuing as it has always been.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a waste of money.