Adjournment Debate.

Election Management System.

Mr. O’Dowd

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.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. N. Ahern)

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.

Mr. O’Dowd

It is a waste of money.

Health Services.

Mr. Crowe

The case I wish to raise concerns a young man from Tallaght. He was assaulted in Dublin's Temple Bar. Such an assault is probably a parent's greatest nightmare. The young man went into town for a drink and was assaulted and left for dead. If a tourist had not spotted him and put him into the recovery position, the young man would have died. He was in a coma for a considerable period. While he was in the coma his parents were unaware of where he was, which added to their worry. They eventually found him.

The family were told there would be a care plan for the young man, which would start with hospitalisation. When he came out of the coma he was violent, which I am told is quite common in such cases. He is still being treated in St. James's Hospital. The care plan was to start with hospitalisation and proceed to rehabilitation, speech therapy and going home, after which it was hoped he would return to work. Both of the young man's parents work and there are younger children in the family. During the time the young man was in a coma, the parents took time off work. It amounted to a considerable period. The young man was assaulted on 9 January and it is now 15 February.

The difficulty is that the next step in the young man's recovery is rehabilitation but the parents have been told there is an eight to ten week waiting list for rehabilitation. There is pressure from the hospital authorities on the parents to take the young man home. However, they believe they are unable to look after him. Although the nightmare is over to some extent, the parents are at their wits' end. They are under pressure to take the young man home and, indeed, they want to do so. In fact, they took him home last weekend for a couple of hours. He watched the match but when asked after the match what teams were playing he could not remember. He is clearly in need of more help. There is also difficulty getting the young man up and down the stairs in the family home to use the toilet and so forth.

If the young man remains in hospital, he will regress. He has progressed in leaps and bounds but the difficulty is with the rehabilitation process. There is nowhere for him to go for the next step of his recovery. I have written to the Minister for Health and Children, the health executive, the hospital and the rehabilitation hospital. I have received responses outlining all types of difficulties. However, the parents are seeking help. I told them I would raise the question in the House. The parents believe the system is failing them because the next step in treatment is not available for their child.

I hope the Minister will have good news for this family. I have described this situation as a nightmare but it is one that could happen to any family. The reply I received from the hospital stated that rehabilitation should be the next step. It also outlines the hospital's concern that the young man will regress if he is left in the acute hospital environment. It is clearly a difficult case and is something that could affect any family.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. B. Lenihan)

I am replying on behalf of the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney. I am pleased to take this opportunity to clarify the matter relating to the provision of rehabilitation for Mr. Alan McCarton.

The Health Act 2004 provided for the Health Service Executive, which was established on 1 January 2005. Under the Act, the executive has responsibility to manage and deliver, or arrange to be delivered on its behalf, health and personal social services. This includes responsibility for rehabilitation services.

The Department has made inquiries into this matter. The National Rehabilitation Hospital has confirmed that Mr. McCarton has been referred to it for assessment and it will endeavour to facilitate him as soon as possible. The Deputy will appreciate that the scheduling of admission to the hospital is a matter for the consultant concerned and is determined solely on the basis of medical priority.

It is recognised that the health funded services in the disability services sector have advanced greatly over the last number of years. It is also acknowledged, however, that further work is required in the coming years. In December 2004, the Government was in a position to announce on budget day a special disability multi-annual funding package with a total value of close to €900 million over the years 2006 to 2009. This funding is being dedicated now for the period until 2009 to ensure the delivery of these high priority disability services. This package includes guaranteed additional current spending of almost €600 million. The Government has also agreed to allocate €300 million out of the revised capital envelope to these high priority disability services.

The bulk of the new funding package will go to the health sector where it will be invested in services for persons with an intellectual disability and those with autism, services for persons with physical or sensory disabilities and mental health services. It will focus, in particular, on the provision of extra residential, respite and day places, extra home support and personal assistance and extra places in community based mental health facilities.

Public Relations Contracts.

Mr. Cuffe

I raise this matter to plea that the remit and scope of the Standards in Public Office Commission be extended. Both the Quigley report and today's Standards in Public Office Commission report show that existing standards are set extremely low. To clear the air, there must be fundamental reform of the Standards in Public Office Commission to ensure the Government is accountable and transparent and to ensure decisions are made in a clear and understandable way.

Reforms are necessary to ensure that when a Minister puts pressure to have somebody employed on an urgent basis, it will be a matter of public record. Details of such contracts must be made public the moment they are signed. People deserve to know what is happening. It is not good enough that somebody can work on a lucrative contract for a Department while, at the same time, also being involved in serious fundraising in the Minister's constituency. There is a clear conflict of interest. Investigations to date have shown there is a need to reform the legislation on ethics in public office and the standards in public office legislation. We must ensure the commission is given more clout and that where there is impropriety or the perception of impropriety there will be an investigation.

Will the Minister outline the instances in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government since the Government took office where contracts have been awarded as a matter of extreme urgency without regard to the normal tendering process? The Taoiseach should lay before the House the various instances where such contracts have been awarded by each Minister so the air can be cleared on this matter. With regard to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, was there a difficulty in external communication prior to Deputy Cullen taking office in mid-2002? Was there a crying need to employ a consultant to look after the Department's public relations?

Will the Minister for Finance or the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government consider putting in place measures to ensure companies or individuals that have substantial contracts with Departments are precluded from political fundraising for the Minister overseeing those Departments? There is a conflict of interest if those individuals are working by day for the Department and volunteering to work for the Minister by night. That has to be addressed within the legislation.

I wonder if the Minister will ensure that an up-to-date register of consultants is kept and that their terms of reference are a matter of public record? In light of the recent investigations by the Standards in Public Office Commission, will the Minister consider putting clear criteria in place for foreign travel by consultants engaged by the Department?

Does the Taoiseach have any plans to extend the scope and remit of the Standards in Public Office Commission? I would like to know whether there are criteria in place for the engagement of public relations consultants by Departments and, if so, may we have a copy of them? It certainly leaves me scratching my head to know that there was a reputable firm of public relations consultants, Drury Communications, working on a significant contract for the Department, yet the Minister in his wisdom saw fit to engage another consultant on an ad hoc basis, that was later subjected to a clear tendering process.

I am concerned that a consultant engaged on an ad hoc basis and then ratified through a tender process was in a key position when it came to awarding another lucrative contract for the dissemination of information regarding electronic voting.

All in all, there is still a murky aspect to this affair, elements of which remain to be addressed. I want the Government to address them. The affair reflects badly on the Minister, Deputy Cullen, on the Taoiseach and on the Government. The Government should shed light on an issue that is important to the proper carrying out of its work. It is crucial to ensure that the Government is held accountable and that the Government is in touch with the people rather than remaining arrogant and aloof in its deliberations and actions.

Mr. B. Lenihan

I am replying on behalf of the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen. Deputy Cuffe's Adjournment matter calls for the scope and remit of the Standards in Public Office Commission to be extended. As the House is aware, the Standards in Public Office Commission has extensive powers to investigate matters under the provisions of the relevant legislation, in particular, sections 4 and 7 of the Standards in Public Office Act 2001.

There are no plans at present to extend the scope and remit of these powers of investigation. In the course of Deputy Cuffe's contribution I did not hear any concrete proposal as to how they should be extended. The operation of the Act and any representations in regard to its scope and remit, are kept under review at the Department of Finance, subject at all times to the independence of the Standards in Public Office Commission in the exercise of its functions.

I note that the Deputy has not made any specific proposal about the scope and remit of the Act — only a general aspiration that it should be extended. The Minister for Finance will certainly consider any specific proposals that might be made but there is no indication available to him that the existing legislation does not provide adequate powers for the commission in this regard.

In summary, there is no specific indication that the scope and remit of the Standards in Public Office Commission require extension. However, this is relatively recent legislation and a relatively new statutory body. In monitoring the commission's operations, the Department will be receptive to suggestions, including suggestions from the commission itself as to how its operations and effectiveness might be improved.

Deputy Cuffe raised a number of matters concerning the Taoiseach and the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen. I must point out to Deputy Cuffe, however, that these matters have been canvassed extensively in the Quigley report. Many of the questions Deputy Cuffe has raised were dealt with and answered by Mr. Quigley in his report, which was requested by the Taoiseach and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas some time ago.

As regards the other matters to which the Deputy referred, he can elicit the information in the normal way through tabling parliamentary questions.

Deputy Cuffe raised one other matter fundamental to the operation of democracy here — that is, his suggestion that persons who are not public servants should be precluded from engaging in political activities. I certainly do not agree with that. It is yet another example of the tendency of the Green Party to try to manufacture a political stage that will only convenience them, and to say that everyone else should get off the stage.

Schools Amalgamation.

Mr. Connaughton

This matter concerns an eight-year battle we have had in Tuam to have St. Patrick's College and St. Jarlath's College amalgamated. I raised this matter on 28 October 2004 and I have the impression that I am speaking to the wind but I will continue to bring up the matter until I get an answer. I do not intend to go back through the history of the proposed amalgamation of the colleges. Suffice to say that it all started eight years ago and the plan was considered to be in the best interests of the school-going fraternity in both colleges. It was the best step to take from an educational viewpoint but why has it taken eight years to get to this stage? I hope the Minister of State will have some facts for me this evening.

On the last occasion, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform dealt with my query on behalf of the Minister for Education and Science. Having raised the matter last October, I met the new Minister for Education and Science, together with other representatives from east Galway. We were led to believe then that we would soon be told what would happen.

In common with every other project, I was informed at the time that the 2005 allocation — this wonderful, multi-annual programme the Government has to cover all the evils in school buildings — would be announced early in the new year. It was announced but this amalgamation was not mentioned. Some Deputies in east Galway seem to believe it is only a matter of days or weeks until this amalgamation receives the go-ahead. I sincerely hope they are right but as an opposition spokesman with a particular interest in this amalgamation, I am far from satisfied with the speed at which this matter is being handled.

Can the Minister of State explain the current status of the amalgamation? Is it true that departmental personnel are currently examining the schools' structures? Is that happening as we speak? Will the approval to proceed to the planning and subsequent stages be announced next week, next month or next year? There appears to be a body of opinion, shared by some of my colleagues in east Galway, that the amalgamation will be announced in a few days. I cannot understand why it was not announced in the 2005 allocations, which were unveiled last month. At a meeting before Christmas, my colleagues and I informed the new Minister of the current situation. God knows, after eight years all the information on the detailed work that should have been done must be available.

There is a problem with the roof of St. Patrick's College. It is a technical matter but a sum of money was made available for roofing repairs. However, I understand it has now become apparent to both the Department and the school authorities that the money should be spent in a different manner to that first approved by the Minister. It would make a huge difference to the school if it could be expended in a slightly different way. That is enough for me to put on the record because I assume the departmental officials know exactly what I am talking about. That is important.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should conclude.

Mr. Connaughton

The Minister of State should provide me and the teaching staff and students of both colleges with some indication as to when permission will be given to allow the amalgamation to proceed to the next stage.

Mr. N. Ahern

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. I am replying on behalf of the Minister for Education and Science and I am not sure if the Deputy will get the answers he needs.

Mr. Connaughton

The Minister of State can be sure I will not.

Mr. N. Ahern

As the Deputy will be aware, agreement was reached some time ago on the rationalisation of post-primary education provision in Tuam. Agreement has been reached with the relevant trustees to form a single boys and a single girls school, each to cater for a long-term projected enrolment of 700 pupils. The vocational school is not part of either amalgamation process.

The school planning section of the Department of Education and Science has agreed with the management authorities of both schools involved in the amalgamation that the optimum plan to address the accommodation needs of the single school, which will result from the amalgamation, is to extend facilities at St. Jarlath's College and to refurbish the existing facilities. The objective is to ensure facilities at the new school will serve the needs of the school community well into the future.

The project at Tuam has been assessed and assigned a band 1.4 rating in accordance with the revised prioritisation criteria published earlier this year following consultation with the education partners. This band rating will positively influence the timescale for delivery of this project. Officials in the Department are in regular contact with the school authorities to progress the detailed preliminary work necessary to facilitate this large-scale building project.

The Deputy will be aware that the Minister for Education and Science recently announced the first phase of the 2005 school building programme, which provided details of 122 major school building projects countrywide. This announcement is the first in a series that the Minister plans to make in the coming period on the schools building and modernisation programme, which will include details of schools identified as suitable for construction under public private partnerships; an expansion of the number of schools that will be invited to deliver their building projects on the basis of devolved funding; details of schools with projects approved under the 2005 summer works scheme; schools whose projects will further progress through the design process; and schools that will be authorised to commence architectural planning.

The Deputy would like St. Jarlath's to fall into the latter two categories. I assure him that the needs of St. Patrick's and St. Jarlath's are being considered in this context and I will convey his comments to the Minister. It is difficult to read between the lines on these projects but a number of people may look on this proposal too optimistically. While further phases must be undertaken, the last phase to be announced will be the most significant. Progress will be possible during the year. I note the Deputy's frustrations and I will speak to the Minister.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.05 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 16 February 2005.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 15 Feb 2005