Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 7 to 10, inclusive, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35 to 40, inclusive, 54, 55 and 56 are consequential on amendment No. 4 and all may be discussed together.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, subsection (1), between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following definition:
"‘Central Returning Officer' means a person who is appointed by the Minister under section 17 to be the Central Returning Officer for the purposes of this Act;".
The Bill proposes that responsibility for retention and disposal of the European election documents should be assigned to the Clerk of the Dáil but I do not believe that should take place. The effect of the amendments that the Chairman has listed and that I have tabled would be to transfer that function from the Clerk of the Dáil and retain the status quo. It could be transferred to an independent office such as the Ethics Commission, the Ombudsman or, better still, the Office of Public Works which has spare storage capacity. My reasons for proposing this are practical. From my time as Government Chief Whip I know that accommodation in Leinster House is insufficient to facilitate Deputies with office space as well as storing parliamentary publications, stationery and equipment. The list is endless. It would be impractical to implement the Bill because of the lack of storage space in Leinster House for this purpose.
Another more serious reason for opposing this is that custody of these documents carries a hidden administrative burden of producing them if they are required for the High Court or other purposes such as a recount. Coming from the constituency of Leinster which had a long recount and a High Court case at one stage, I can see the difficulties involved.
A third reason for not placing this burden on the Clerk of the Dáil and the Oireachtas staff generally is that while access to confidential documents like ballot papers and marked registers is restricted, no restriction is imposed as to who may request access to other information which is not confidential such as nomination papers and count papers. They may give rise to requests from a variety of sources and, while it is unlikely to happen, it is possible that different people, students for example, may seek access to these documents. Such a function should not be imposed on the Clerk of the Dáil because it is unrelated to Dáil business.
The Minister should consider this amendment further either now or on Report Stage before shooting it down.
These 26 amendments seek to retain the present position of chief returning officer which the Bill proposes to drop by assigning the functions to the Clerk of the Dáil. These functions consist of making a return of persons elected to the parliament, that is one letter every five years, and storing and disposing of election documents. I am opposed to these amendments because I do not see any justification for having two different officers notifying the parliament of who has been elected to represent this country in the parliament. The Clerk of the Dáil already communicates with the parliament in relation to filling casual vacancies; a role which he is ideally located to discharge in view of the potential residual role of the Dáil in this area. It would, therefore, be preferable for him to take on the task of making a return to parliament of the persons elected at the election proper.
The logistical problem of storing documents is an issue for whichever officer is given the duty. However, the task only arises for six months every five years. The Clerk also has this task for Dáil election documents but again the period of retention was reduced in 1992 from 12 to six months. While the Clerk has been assigned an extra duty in relation to European election documents, the amount of work is not significantly greater than it was prior to 1992 when it was confined solely to Dáil election documents.
The Clerk of the Dáil was consulted informally about these proposals when they were formulated initially. His view was that he should not be assigned the duties of the chief returning officer and that view was brought to the attention of the Government which decided nevertheless to proceed with the proposals. The alternative suggested by the Clerk that the functions should be assigned to one of the returning officers, is not practicable, particularly as those returning officers who are sheriffs are not provided with official accommodation.
Deputy Dempsey proposed that responsibility should be assigned to the Office of Public Works on the grounds that there is no storage capacity in the Dáil environs. This is not a problem because if the Clerk of the Dáil finds he does not have the space required, such space can be allocate to him in another building. For example, the Department of the Environment could provide secure space which could stay in the possession of the Clerk of the Dáil.
The Bill basically streamlines the administration of an election by assigning all related functions to the officer who should logically discharge them, the Clerk of the Dáil. The Government considers that communications with the European Parliament should be via the appropriate officer of the Irish Parliament. The two new tasks are not onerous ones and, therefore, I regret I have to oppose these amendments which seek to retain the unnecessary office of the chief returning officer. I ask the Deputy not to press the amendments.
There is much validity as far as the logistics are concerned. The point has been made by Deputy Dempsey. I take the Minister of State's point that if the space was not available within the environs of the Dáil another area could be provided. I wonder, however, how far that could be under the custody of the Clerk of the Dáil. Perhaps there is a point there. All this arises because we have failed to move with the times and still have an archaic system of registering our votes. This is more proof that it is time to move to electronic voting as they have all over the world, even in the emerging democracies that have elections for the first time.
I was in Chicago at the time of the recent presidential election and saw the voting system whereby one simply punches a card, even for postal votes. Voters there do not only choose a president, they also choose 20 or 30 people including attorneys and judges. That is their system and they can handle it so I cannot see why our PR system could not equally be handled like that. Surely it is possible in this day and age with advanced computers, to cast and count PR votes electronically.
Whether we should get rid of the PR system before we invent another system is a different matter and not relevant to this amendment. This is absolute proof of the need for electronic voting and counting. The Minister of State now has an opportunity to advance this idea so that there would be no storage problem. It would answer all the issues raised by Deputy Dempsey's amendments. In addition, the retrieval of votes for checking would be infinitely simpler. We are moving into the next millennium yet our current voting system would have been out of date even at the beginning of the 20th century. Someone must take action in that regard. Has anyone been commissioned to carry out a study on whether a system of electronic voting and counting can be introduced in respect of the PR system?
The Deputy's query extends the subject under discussion.
It is relevant.
Electronic voting——
It would remove the logistical problem of storing votes.
Yes, but there may be an opportunity to deal with that matter later. It is not relevant to these amendments or the section, which calls for the appointment of a central returning officer. I believe a former Deputy might be suitable in that regard.
There might be another opportunity but I might not be present.
I am not sure the Minister is basing his arguments on the grounds that it is logical and correct that one person should deal with all elections as does the Clerk of the Dáil. I am not certain it is appropriate the Clerk of the national Parliament should deal with European elections in the capacity of chief returning officer. Differences between the Minister and me may emerge at that point because we are starting from different premises. I do not believe it is appropriate and I tabled the amendments on that basis.
With regard to a number of the points made by the Minister, I am aware there is no available space in Leinster House and I defy anyone to show me that such space exists. If it did, many Members would be angry because they have been informed they cannot have access to decent offices. If records are stored in another building, Deputy Nealon's point about custody comes into play. I will not elaborate in that regard but is it not impractical to place such records in the Department of the Environment if the Clerk of the Dáil retains responsibility for them? I do not accept that argument.
The Minister referred to the issue of casual vacancies with which I have no difficulty because the Dáil decides who will fill such vacancies. I will not press the amendment to a vote but I request the Minister reconsider the logistics of this issue before Report Stage.
Is it correct that, if the amendments were incorporated in the section, the Minister could appoint the Clerk of the Dáil? Does it provide him with flexibility?
Yes.
Deputy Dempsey stated he will not press the matter to a vote and that he would be upset if there were space available in Leinster House. Space will be made available which will come under the control of the Clerk. There is no great burden on the Clerk of the Dáil to maintain security on the records or accommodation that will be provided. Requests to access such documents are rarely made. I am informed that space already exists to house documentation arising from Dáil elections.
The issue to which Deputy Nealon referred was raised on Second Stage and I stated that I would answer queries on Committee Stage.
The Minister may briefly reply to the issue raised by Deputy Nealon. However, I must point out that it is not relevant to the amendments under discussion.
The possibility of electronic vote counting was raised by Deputy Nealon and others on Second Stage. The question of electronic voting and counting at elections is kept under review in my Department in the light of technological developments. At present, there are no specific proposals to automate our voting system. A preliminary examination of this issue some years ago indicated that computerised voting is technically feasible but would involve significant practical difficulties and costs on account of our single transferable vote system. With a first past the post system, to which Deputy Nealon referred, machine voting is straightforward. Essentially, all that is required is a meter to total each candidate's vote.
Even with the list systems used in most European countries, the vote is normally a single option. With STV, a sophisticated method of recording the preference pattern on each ballot paper is necessary. The Local Government Computer Services Board, at the request of my Department and in consultation with returning officers, is developing a computer programme to assist returning officers in conducting counts. It is hoped to finalise this programme in the near future. The feasibility of extending the use of computers to all stages of elections will continue to be examined.
In relation to voting procedures and using photographs on ballot papers, I propose to introduce an official amendment on Report Stage to enable the Minister to make regulations to provide for the inclusion of photographs of candidates on ballot papers at European Parliament elections.
Only European Parliament elections?
Yes. It is intended to make the necessary regulations when we are satisfied the technical problem relating to the inclusion of photographs on ballot papers can be overcome. The inclusion of photographs on ballot papers was recommended by the committee last April to assist voters with reading difficulties. This welcome development is being mooted for European elections on a trial basis and I will return to deal with it on Report Stage.
Mr. Ernie Sweeney, who appeared before the committee, will be very pleased to hear that. On the question of electronic voting, it occurs to me the technology used by the national lottery would provide a basis for electronic voting, including transfers. There might even be a "quick pick" for candidates who might achieve a good result if it were introduced.
We will have to upgrade our appearances and become more photogenic but I would hate to commit myself to the lotto system. I would be a two time loser.
I studied and worked with computers before being elected to the House and it appears that to computerise the single transferable vote system would not provide major problems. A case in point is the way in which national lottery machines work rapidly in respect of millions of entries. I imagine that someone of Deputy Nealon's generation would be fascinated by these technological achievements.
I thank the Chairman for his comments. I do not wish to delay proceedings but it would be wrong if I did not herald the Minister of State's statement as a significant development. He should also consider the national lottery system, although it might represent negative factors in respect of random presentation of names. Since the Chairman is not only an excellent vote getter but is also good looking, would he reconsider his decision to retire now that photographs will be included on ballot papers at the next election?
It is a new factor.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
Sections 3 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.