Seanad debates

Wednesday, 10 May 2006

5:00 pm

Photo of Brian HayesBrian Hayes (Fine Gael)

I second the motion and thank Senator Bannon for tabling it. The most fundamental issue in any democracy is the right of the people to determine its Deputies at elections and, consequently, who is in Government. During the last general election, in ten constituencies the last seat was determined by less than 300 votes. In some cases it was down to just two or three votes. From this one can see the crucially important task in devising an electoral register that is up-to-date and reflects the actual position of the electorate. Despite the money and personnel in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and local authorities, some political responsibility must be taken for the shambles of the electoral register.

It only became an issue because The Sunday Tribune made it one. Ten months ago, the paper, through Shane Coleman and other journalists, began to make it an issue. Slowly the political system reacted and recognised it as such. The root of the problem on all electoral matters is due to the electoral system being ultimately determined by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. An independent electoral commission must be established. A commission must be charged specifically to report to both Houses and not to the Government on electoral matters. Governments, be they Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, are naturally defensive. Governments never admit to problems but hide them. The job of the Civil Service and the Government in power is to obfuscate. An independent regulatory body is needed to report to the Houses about the state of the electoral register. When the issue was first raised ten months ago, the Government claimed it was not a problem. It only recently admitted it is. The result will be the census enumerators going back into the field to compile the register. Why does it take so long for the political system to react?

One reason I strongly opposed e-voting was because the proposal came from the Government. It is not the job of any Minister to propose such a radical shift in electoral procedure without consultation. The then Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Noel Dempsey, with nothing to do, decided electronic voting would be a good idea. It would look fantastic and Ireland would be considered a big player in the IT world. That is nonsense. It is not the job of petty politicians to meddle in such an important aspect of our democracy. Inevitably people are suspicious of the Government when such a proposal is made. There is merit in Senator Bannon's proposal to establish an independent electoral commission to look after these matters. It is better than politicians, often here today and gone tomorrow, looking for a way to get themselves onto newspaper headlines.

Is the Government in favour of the continuation of the charade of e-voting? It has the opportunity to tell us where it stands on the issue this evening instead of hiding behind the Commission on Electronic Voting. The people on it have better things to do with their time. The usual suspects, the Clerk of the Dáil, the Clerk of the Seanad and others, were rounded up to provide protection for the Government on the issue. I do not want to hear from the commission. I want to hear from the Government as to what is its stance on e-voting. As the Progressive Democrats are against it, let them support our motion instead of trouping in behind the nonsense contained in the second last paragraph of the Government's amendment to the motion. The people do not want e-voting. Instead they want the system to remain as it is. The Government has already taken the hit for the gross expense that it put the taxpayers through for the e-voting machines. Finality and clarity on the issue is now needed.

On 29 March 2006, I wrote to the Minister of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on the granting of responsibility for the location of polling stations to local authorities so they are located close to new communities where they will encourage more citizens to vote in elections. I did not raise it as an Adjournment matter or on the Order of Business. Local authorities should determine the location of polling stations because they know best where the new communities are and how to put in place voter-friendly polling schemes. I received a one-line, complimentary letter on 9 April 2006 and have not heard anymore since.

If the Department treats a Member with this type of disrespect, what happens to members of the public who attempt to raise more important issues with it? Despite the baloney of strategic management initiatives and the like to determine whether benchmarking should be awarded, seven weeks later I, a Member, have not received a comprehensive reply from the Department. It is a disgrace. Why have I been informed this evening that a reply is winging its way to me as we speak? Is it — surprise, surprise — because the motion is being debated tonight? Why did I not get a reply to my letter before this?

My letter makes one simple point. In the new communities I represent in the west and south west of the city, local councils should decide the locations of the polling stations. There are up to 6,000 new houses; people are not connected with the area and do not know where to vote. The local authorities should determine where the polling stations are sited. If that means having two polling stations in one district, so be it.

The Government amendment, however, completely misunderstood the point of the last part of the motion. The Government amendment has nothing to do with polling stations, it is to do with polling places, a different thing entirely. I will be told that it is a matter for local authorities to put together polling schemes — that is true — but the returning officers determine the location of the polling stations. In my letter of 29 March, I said that the law should be changed. It is simple and straightforward, the power should be given to the local authorities, which know best where new communities are located. Six weeks later I have still not received a reply. The debate is scheduled for tonight and I am miraculously informed that a comprehensive reply has been sent to my office.

I have no confidence in the ability of the Department to deliver if it cannot even reply to a straightforward proposal that I made with no publicity or fuss. We are in a mess in urban areas, particularly in Dublin, when it comes to putting in place polling stations people can get to quickly. The vast majority of people get home at 7.30 p.m. and only have two hours to get out and vote.

We must get our act together on this. If the Minister of State introduces enabling legislation, I will put it through this House in less than two hours to give the power to local authorities to do what I asked in my letter of 29 March. We must display some urgency in this. Those who have failed us in the past, and they are still in place to deal with this issue because the Government did not establish an independent commission, will fail us again.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.