John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)

There is certain merit in Senator Brian Hayes's argument that there should be some sort of independent body to conduct elections. I had the privilege of meeting the election commissioner for India and I am grateful to the ambassador for India for circulating to the members of the Committee on the Environment and Local Government, if not all Members of the House, a document called "Celebrating Democracy in India: The World's Largest Democracy goes to Vote". One should note that India has an electorate of 668 million and that it uses electronic voting successfully. The ambassador was educated by the Irish Patrician Brothers. When I met him there was a discussion on electronic voting in Ireland and he could not understand why we did not have it. One of the questions frequently asked at the time I met him was how the machines would work if the power failed. He made the point that in many places to which the machines are brought in India, there is no power at all, and that the machines work quite successfully on batteries.

There is a valid point to be made on the disconnection of the operation of the elections from any political personage, not from any political influence. That is different from saying the date of an election should not be decided by a Minister. In general, this is decided by law in any case. The time at which local elections must take place, if not the precise date, is governed by law. The same applies to European elections. Obviously, it is the prerogative of Government to advise the President to dissolve the Dáil and hold an election. I do not believe anybody will suggest this might change.

It could be inferred from the amendment that the Minister's influence is very wide-ranging. However, there are very few references to the role of the Minister in the 35 sections of the Bill. One section talks about the coming into operation of the Act and states that the Minister may determine, by order, the days on which an election may be held, which is reasonable. In the areas in which the Minister has influence by way of making orders, the Bill delimits his powers fairly significantly. Section 5(6) reads: "A returning officer shall not be required or authorised by an instruction given by the Minister under subsection (5) to do any act (whether of commission or omission) which is contrary to the Act of 1993, the Act of 1994, the Act of 1997 or the Regulations of 1995." Even if the Minister was of a mind to interfere, the returning officer would be in a very powerful position to resist his interference.

Furthermore, the only other section I can find that refers to the role of the Minister is in section 30(1): "The Minister may provide, by regulations, for the provision, after the conclusion of the counting of votes in an election or a referendum, of statistical information on a specified proportion of the poll concerned, including detailed information on the votes cast and comprised in that specified proportion." We already had that in the sense that local authorities can provide voters with discs to show they have voted. These do not show how they voted but we can now know who voted. Political parties will regard this as useful; whether it is desirable is another matter.

To infer that the Minister has some really pervasive power that could manipulate the outcome of an election is mischievous. However, I take the point that, in the interest of avoiding accusations of interference, it would be preferable to disconnect the political office from the conduct of the election. In this context, there is merit in having an independent electoral commission along the lines of the Indian model or others.