Yesterday the House witnessed a partial climb-down by the Government in respect of electronic voting. I wish to give the Taoiseach the opportunity to outline how the independent panel will operate. How will the panel be appointed? What powers will it have? Will it be able to deal with the issue raised by Deputy Allen on a number of occasions in respect of a verifiable audit trail? If it recommends this to Government, will the Government implement it before the local and European elections on 11 June? What are the implications for the panel of the necessity to train 15,000 staff in the new procedures? Is the Taoiseach aware that in January 2003, a senior official in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government said that the roll-out of this programme nationwide would be both risky and, perhaps, unmanageable? Will he also comment on how the contract for the advertising and management of the electronic voting programme was awarded?
Leaders' Questions.
I said yesterday that one of the most important fundamental rights in a democracy is the right to vote in a secret ballot. Everything we have done over the past five years in preparation for this system, including the pilot system and the authentic examinations by both international and local bodies, has been to ensure that this right is vindicated. The electorate must have confidence in the voting system so the steps we took yesterday were an attempt to take account of what Members of the House and others have said, even though they are not constitutionally or legally necessary. We believe we should ensure that people see the success of the system.
With regard to the provision of a voter verified paper audit trail, there have been calls for a paper system to parallel the electronic voting system. This arises out of some experiences in the United States.
That is total rubbish.
However, the Irish system's reliability for accurately recording votes cast has been tested and verified by an internationally accredited testing institute in Berlin. Other countries have also accepted the reliability and accuracy of the vote, including Holland, Germany and France, without the need for a voter audit trail. Deputy Kenny sought some detail on this issue. The US voting machines in question are generally PC based. The Nedap voting machine——
Nobody mentioned the USA. That is misrepresentation.
——is a proprietary product manufactured specifically for voting. Only the counting system will be PC based. The Nedap machine has been used for many years in other countries without any uncertainty as to its reliability. The machine, including the software for storing votes, has been tested and certified and accurately stores votes cast by the voters.
The ballot paper is visible on the voting machine system. Printers are unreliable in a high volume situation and that is the reason they are not used. The ballot papers printed at the time of voting and used in a manual count might not give the same precise results as the electronic voting system. We either opt for electronic voting or stay with the old system. There is no point having a dual system. That is like keeping the punt and the euro.
The machines were ordered before the decision was made.
One does not keep two systems. It is a nonsensical argument. Deputy Kenny asked about the tender system. That was an open and transparent process using the same rules that apply to all tendering processes. The rules have been followed in full.
The Deputy asked about the independent group. The Government accepts without qualification the necessity for and desirability of complete confidence in our electoral process. Electronic voting is a modern mechanism for the expression of the voter's preference and it is not in the interests of either the Government or the Opposition to have a voting system that is not perceived to be fair and transparent. The Government is satisfied that the electronic voting system that is required will provide the necessary secrecy and accuracy and, in this regard, is prepared to establish a group that will have complete independence.
Who will appoint the members?
They will be appointed by the Government.
That is reassuring.
They will be people of high standing to deal with this issue. That will be provided for in the legislation.
If all is as the Taoiseach says, why is there a necessity for change? It is the fear of the Government in the face of the motion put down by the combined Opposition. Last Friday, the Taoiseach said on the Gerry Ryan radio programme that the Government has changed the culture of the system and has installed tough controls and passed tough legislation. He said people are now accountable and are scrutinised to an extraordinary extent and that this might be a little over bureaucratic but it had to be done.
He says the tendering system is open and transparent so let us apply last Friday's test to that remark. The previous budget given to a company for the roll out of the pilot programme was €80,000. The tender in this case was for €4.5 million. The person who allocated this was the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, a Fianna Fáil appointee who happens to be the Fianna Fáil Party's director of elections. Is it true that his personally appointed political adviser, Monica Leech, sat on the interview board which awarded this tender to a company which had only been in existence for nine months and whose principal personality is the former Fianna Fáil general secretary? How can we have trust in the system?
Deputies
Shame.
Where now stands the fully open and transparent tender system with regard to this contract of public money to the extent of €4.5 million?
I ask the Deputy to conclude as his minute is long concluded. As the Deputy knows, last week Members raised the question of fair play in the timing for Leaders' Questions.
This Government cannot be trusted. I want the Taoiseach to explain to the House how a politically appointed adviser sat on the final interview board for the awarding of a tender of €4.5 million of public money. The Government cannot be trusted.
Deputy Kenny also made an allegation against a person outside this House who is not in a position to defend herself.
I did not. I asked the Taoiseach to confirm whether or not that person sat on the interview board. I did not make an allegation.
I am trying to be serious about electronic voting and to talk about independent verification in Germany and Holland. However, what this is really about is people trying to stir around a small issue.
We are not voting in Germany.
The Deputy asked a serious question. He asked why it was €80,000 the first time and then €4.5 million. The first €80,000 was for three constituencies. It is slightly more costly to do the 42 constituencies. That is the reason. The contracts were put out in the proper way under a transparent system which has already been explained by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen. I am sure he would be glad to explain it in the House today.
He never explained it. We got the information under freedom of information.
I would be glad to put the system of tendering into the public domain and to get somebody to explain it. Deputy Kenny said we changed our position because of the Opposition motion. Points were made by a number of Deputies over a number of weeks about this issue. As I have stated time and again, I have been advised both legally and constitutionally, as has the Minister and the previous Minister, that there is no need to change this. The right to vote is a fundamental right of a democracy and we must take account of that. When I hear valid points made here or elsewhere — I have read a number of articles and editorials which made valid points — I try to ensure we are sure. That is a fair position to take and we have taken that into account.
What about an answer to the questions of who was on the interview panel or who got the job?
The High Court stated recently that in the principle of legislation, matters should be set out not just in secondary but in primary legislation. It made that statement in regard to the McCreevy case which concerns Carrickmines. It seems like the Government's position that we should follow good practice. The Government has tried throughout the five years of this, from the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, to do things correctly.
This is another attempt to hoodwink the people.
The Taoiseach made reference to the decision on Carrickmines. Will he comment on the different conclusion over the weekend which also affects the holding up of the M50 motorway and the added punishment for the hard-pressed motorist? I refer to the decision by a group of individuals to go to court to delay the M50 while they asserted ownership to lands adjacent to the motorway. They claimed €118 million in compensation. After various revelations at Dublin Castle they reduced this to €48 million. In the event, they were awarded €13 million of our money. This is a company called Jackson Way, through which three prominent individuals, an arcade owner, Mr. Jim Kennedy, a solicitor, Mr. John Caldwell and a former Fianna Fáil Deputy and chairman of the Fianna Fáil ethics committee, Liam Lawlor, asserted ownership to this land and were awarded €13 million.
The tribunal has established that this company has no legal title to the lands in question, yet these people who asserted a claim for €118 million were awarded €13 million of our money. One would not find this situation in the Yukon in the 19th century. There, one would not find someone mounting a claim jump such as this. Will the Taoiseach confirm that no money will be paid out? Will he say what action the State proposes to take to seize the lands in question? Will any prosecution be mounted against those who falsely asserted ownership, obstructed the building of the road, cost the taxpayer millions of pounds and had the cheek to press it to the point where they were awarded €13 million of taxpayer's money?
My answer to this must necessarily be short. The matters have been fought out in the courts. As Deputy Rabbitte said there is a question of ownership and the proving of the case they put. The courts have made the decision on it. The Government will have to examine the judgment of the court. That examination is under way. As in all cases, I cannot see how the Government will be able to take any position other than that found in a court of law. We will have to examine that to see what rights of redress or what other protections we have. We do not own the land and that is the difficulty for us. If the courts have made a determination on this, we may well have to pay. We will examine the judgment and then make a decision on it.
I am a bit surprised that the Taoiseach is not better briefed on this. This was not a decision of the court but of the arbitrator. It was not a decision of the court to award €13 million of our money to these people. The Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Hanafin, for example, announced after the first Flood report that the Government would introduce a corruption assets bureau. That seems to have fallen off the legislative schedule. That corruption assets bureau, as announced by Deputy Hanafin, would have enabled us now to seize these lands.
The Taoiseach appears to be saying that there is still a question mark over whether we will go ahead and pay out the money. People watching this will react with disbelief that when people who assert ownership of land they did not have and con the arbitrator into getting €13 million of our money, it would be paid out. We can adjourn for the Cabinet to discuss this, a Cheann Comhairle, but with all due respect I would have thought it was such a grave matter that it ought to have been discussed before I raised it this morning.
My information, and I have just consulted with colleagues, is that the ownership case was before the courts. That is either right or not. Deputy Rabbitte says the ownership case was not before the courts. My colleagues believe it was. The arbitrator made his judgment based on what happened in the courts. The matter is also before the tribunals but that is not the issue. The Government will not pay out money lightly. We will base it on our legal opinion and on the judgment of what happened in the court where it was an effort to find ownership or on what the arbitrator said. The matter is also before the tribunal and perhaps we may deal with the issue. The point of disagreement between us seems to be whether or not the decision on the land was decided in the courts. I will have to check that. As I understand it, that decision was made in the courts and the arbitrator made a judgment. The issue for us now is to decide whether to pay out. If the issue of ownership is not proved, the Government will not pay out.
I wish to follow up an issue raised with the Minister for Finance by my colleague Deputy Eamon Ryan and pursued by Deputy Boyle. Yesterday the Minister made some remarkable revelations. He changed the Irish tax code, as he said, to level the playing pitch in favour of a bid for Eircom by Valentia. Does the Taoiseach consider it proper practice for a Minister for Finance to intervene in a bidding war between two large private companies for one of the State's most important assets? That particular Act is estimated to have ultimately cost the taxpayer about €50 million.
Were the Taoiseach and other members of the Cabinet informed by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, of this decision prior to his agreeing to the amendment of tax law in this case? Is the Taoiseach aware of what involvement the then Minister for Public Enterprise, Senator O'Rourke, had? She was the Minister responsible for telecommunications at the time. Did the Government have any strategic thoughts on the development of telecommunications? For example, was it policy to get venture capitalists to operate telecommunications?
Does the Taoiseach consider this sweetheart deal was fair to the 550,000 ordinary shareholders who were taken in by television advertisements about what a good deal this would be, who were forced to sell their own shareholdings at a loss due to the deal the Government helped arrange? The takeover panel, for example, certainly had concerns.
What does the Taoiseach say to the likes of a caller we had this morning, Mr. Edward Moran, of Belmullet in Mayo, who took a court case at the time to maintain his shareholding rights against the back room deal that the Government, the unions and the Valentia consortium had cooked up?
Does the Taoiseach not think there is an important issue to answer on how taxpayers were defrauded of money and how, in this case, one private company was helped by the Government against another?
The Deputy asked if amendments to the Finance Bill come before Government. Yes, they do and the Minister for Finance clears them with Government. The Minister for Finance has made numerous changes to the ESOT legislation to facilitate the ESOTs in changing circumstances to ensure they retain the benefits available to them. This is because of their nature; ESOTs are tailor-made to particular circumstances.
In the particular case raised by Deputy Sargent, I understand that the ESOT workers lobbied for this change. Section 13 of the Finance Act 2002 provided that the transfer and appropriation of securities, other than ordinary shares, to the beneficiaries of the ESOT APSS in the circumstances of certain takeovers, may take place in a manner which preserves the tax benefits to the participants.
How did the half million other shareholders lobby the Taoiseach?
Deputy Ryan is not the leader of his party.
It should be noted that the legislation contained in section 13 does no more than preserve the existing tax benefits to the beneficiaries of an ESOT in the event of such a takeover and provides no further tax advantage beyond that. It did not change the position.
Two takeovers were in a position to take immediate advantage of these legislative changes. The first was the takeover of the landline business of Eircom by the Valentia consortium and the second was the takeover of ACC Bank by Rabobank. The background to this in June 2001 was that the ESOT's tax advisers contacted the Department of Finance on behalf of the workers as they wished to discuss the tax implication for Eircom's ESOT of the proposed takeover of Eircom. Having considered the issues involved, the Minister indicated the following June that he was prepared to propose an amendment and this was duly done the following year in the Finance Act 2002. This was made known in the Minister for Finance's response to the Dáil question by the then finance spokesperson of the Labour Party, Senator McDowell, on 14 November 2001. The provision in section 13 simply provided the membership of Eircom's ESOT with a level playing field to choose to support whichever bid they wished.
All the relevant papers described in the media in the last few days were released by the Department under the Freedom of Information Act. The decision to release the papers was made by the Department on 6 December 2001.
It is incredible to hear the Taoiseach say there was no change. It is clear there was a significant change. What public interest was served by that change in the tax code? The answer has to be, none. The union was effectively acting for Valentia in this case. The Taoiseach refers to "the workers", as if these were ordinary people, the reality is that the 550,000 shareholders were at a considerable loss and that remains the case.
On 9 October, the Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, announced another ESOP arrangement, the Air Lingus ESOP, by stating it was Government policy that the full 14.9% union stake is only given out in circumstances such as when the State is exiting from the company. It is a valid question to ask if the real purpose of these ESOPs is to get privatisation through at any cost. It is effectively a pay-off, a sweetener. Is this not a classic example of what the Irish Independent calls pay-back time culture that characterises this sleazy Administration? Is that not the real policy here — that this is a sweetener deal to try and buy off workers for privatisation?
Deputy Sargent should withdraw a comment like that. It does not merit him making an allegation like that, but I will not get myself too excited about it. The question of cost here is totally hypothetical. Any sensible person would ask if it is conceivable that an ESOT would have agreed to any takeover from whatever source if it involved the ESOT losing the tax relief available to it. That is the question, which is why the advisers did it. The answer is that they would not. Deputy Sargent would not do so either, nor would anybody else. Certainly an adviser to a trade union would not do it.
Deputy Sargent has made a comment that does not usually come from him; obviously someone has wound him up to ask this. The Minister for Finance in this Administration did not introduce this ESOT, it was done by a previous Administration and by a previous Minister for Finance who is not a member of either Government party.
Leopards do not change their spots.
It was not introduced by either a Fianna Fáil or Progressive Democrats Minister. There is nothing wrong with it whatsoever. It was actually brought in by a Labour Party Minister for Finance, but it is absolutely in order.
Deputy Sargent referred to "this sleazy Administration". There is nothing whatever wrong with it. The Deputy will probably say now that it is fine, but there is nothing wrong with it. There was absolutely nothing wrong with it. Deputy Sargent should withdraw that comment.