vol. 583 wednesday, no. 1 31 march 2004 · than seven days, the latter gave 100% approval for \6.9...

$: Vol. 583 Wednesday, No. 1 31 March 2004 · than seven days, the latter gave 100% approval for \6.9 million for a pony centre at Punchestown. Then, when the applicants got over the$
Vol. 583 Wednesday,No. 1 31 March 2004

DIOSPOIREACHTAI PARLAIMINTEPARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

DAIL EIREANN

TUAIRISC OIFIGIUIL—Neamhcheartaithe

(OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised)

Wednesday, 31 March 2004.

Leaders’ Questions … … … … … … … … … … … … 1Ceisteanna—Questions

Taoiseach … … … … … … … … … … … … … 8Requests to move Adjournment of Dail under Standing Order 31 … … … … … … 13Order of Business … … … … … … … … … … … … 14Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2004:

Order for Second Stage … … … … … … … … … … … 21Second Stage … … … … … … … … … … … … 25

Ceisteanna—Questions (resumed)Minister for Social and Foreign Affairs … … … … … … … … … 59

Priority Questions … … … … … … … … … … … 59Visit of UNESCO Director General … … … … … … … … … … 69

Priority Questions (resumed) … … … … … … … … … 69Other Questions … … … … … … … … … … … 72

Adjournment Debate Matters … … … … … … … … … … … 84Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2004: Second Stage (resumed) … … … … … … … 85Visit of Hungarian Delegation… … … … … … … … … … … 99Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2004: Second Stage (resumed) … … … … … … … 99Message from Select Committee … … … … … … … … … … 142Private Members’ Business

Confidence in the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government: Motion (resumed) 142Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2004: Second Stage (resumed) … … … … … … … 181Adjournment Debate

Animal Diseases … … … … … … … … … … … … 208Schools Building Projects … … … … … … … … … … … 210Special Educational Needs … … … … … … … … … … 212Hospital Staff … … … … … … … … … … … … 214

Questions: Written Answers … … … … … … … … … … … 217

1 2

DAIL EIREANN

DIOSPOIREACHTAI PARLAIMINTEPARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

TUAIRISC OIFIGIUILOFFICIAL REPORT

Imleabhar 583 Volume 583

De Ceadaoin, 31 Marta 2004.Wednesday, 31 March 2004.

————

Chuaigh an Ceann Comhairle i gceannas ar 10.30 a.m.

————

Paidir.Prayer.

————

Leaders’ Questions.

Mr. Kenny: Yesterday the Committee of PublicAccounts published its report regardingPunchestown, to which an allocation of \15million was made for an equestrian centre andother facilities. Four questions were examined bythe committee: was the project properlyevaluated; was the State’s interest properlyprotected; to what extent have the facilitiesbenefited the racecourse and racing in general;and did the project represent good value formoney? The Tanaiste made it clear in herelection literature on behalf of the ProgressiveDemocrats that sound public finances wereessential to good management of the country, andeveryone would support that. Has the Tanaisteread the report or synopsis from the Committeeof Public Accounts? Does she agree that, in thissituation, it appears that the project came aboutbecause of discussions between the Minister forAgriculture and Food and the Minister forFinance?

The 1994 guidelines laid down by theDepartment of Finance were bypassed and,regarding the four questions asked andconsidered by the Committee of Public Accounts,it was critical in every case of the procedurefollowed in the allocation of almost \15 million

of public money. Is the Tanaiste embarrassed bythis report? Does she now accept that this kind ofstandard has also become that of the ProgressiveDemocrats? If the situation continued, would itrequire her to walk away from the Government?Does she consider that the project representsgood value for money for the taxpayer?

The Tanaiste: We must certainly learn lessonsfrom the report of the Comptroller and AuditorGeneral regarding the evaluation procedure forcapital projects and the processes that we have inplace in Departments.

Mr. Kenny: What lessons can the ProgressiveDemocrats learn from the report of theCommittee of Public Accounts? Does it meanthat the Tanaiste is now setting down a standardwhereby such activity will no longer be allowedto continue within Government? Does she acceptthat political and collective responsibility isshared between the Minister for Agriculture andFood and the Minister for Finance in this instanceand that the report of the Committee of PublicAccounts is clear and highly critical of theprocedure followed in this case? No evaluationwas carried out on this project, which cost threetimes the saving made by the cutback in widows’

3 Leaders’ 31 March 2004. Questions 4

[Mr. Kenny.]contributory pensions. The benefits to theracecourse and racing in general have been slight,and Santa’s Kingdom seems to have had a greaterimpact than indoor equestrian events.

Is the Tanaiste happy to sit at the Cabinet tablein the knowledge that such a procedure has beenfollowed by the Cabinet and that \15 million wasexpended on such a project without anyevaluation? The Committee of Public Accounts,the watchdog of public expenditure, is critical ofthe carry-on in this case. Does the Tanaisteaccept that it represents Progressive Democratsstandards regarding sound management of thepublic finances?

The Tanaiste: When this matter came beforethe House, the facility was warmly welcomed —I have the quotations here — by Deputy Dukeson 13 June, Deputy Penrose on 17 May, andDeputy Wall on 23 November. However, as Isaid, we must ensure that our evaluationprocedures in Departments for the expenditureof money on such capital projects——

Mr. Kenny: They have been in place since 1994.

The Tanaiste: ——are reviewed in the light ofthe Comptroller and Auditor General’s report.We all expect that to happen now.

Mr. Allen: The watchdog has lost her bark.

Mr. Rabbitte: It appears that, after all her yearsin this House and in Government, the Tanaistedoes not understand the difference between therebeing evaluation procedures and their not beingapplied. There is nothing wrong with theevaluation procedures. The point is that theywere not applied in this case. The Minister forAgriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh, wrote tohis racing friend, the Minister for Finance,Deputy McCreevy, and with a turnaround of lessthan seven days, the latter gave 100% approvalfor \6.9 million for a pony centre at Punchestown.Then, when the applicants got over the shock ofa 100% grant, they decided that they would comeback for the same again and bring the cost to\12.8 million in what Deputy Sean Ardagh, amember of the Committee of Public Accounts,described as the cowboys finding that they couldcome back to town to raid the bank a secondtime. That is what happened. There was noobservance of existing financial or evaluationprocedures. It was a ready-up between twoMinisters, the Minister for Finance, DeputyMcCreevy, and the Minister for Agriculture andFood, Deputy Walsh.

Are there any circumstances in which theTanaiste might have more than a few lines to sayabout this matter? When she represented thesame constituency as I, in June 1999, the healthcentre at Millbrook Lawns burned down with theloss of nine rooms. They have still not beenrebuilt. The cost is \1 million. At the same time,

a 100% grant totalling \14.9 million can be givento a pony centre that the Committee of PublicAccounts found had no events in year one andnow, as Deputy Kenny says, seems to be reducedto housing Santa’s Kingdom and ECOFINMinisters who might easily have been takensomewhere else. Is that the way to do business? Isthe Tanaiste herself not conscious of the markedcontrast in her approach now and her high-minded attitude when she was in Opposition?

Is there any Deputy in this House that has nothad an experience like I have instanced regardingthe Millbrook Lawns health centre involving \1million to provide pre-natal and essential socialservices for the people in that area? However,that cannot be done. According to the healthboard, the best use of the site would involvespending \8 million to build a new primary carecentre, such as the Minister for the Health andChildren goes on about all the time. That cannotbe done but \15 million can be turned around ina deal between one Minister and another, whilethe evaluation procedures are avoided. It is adisgrace. It is also a disgrace that the Tanaisteshould seem to stand over it.

Mr. Gormley: On a point of order——

An Ceann Comhairle: No point of order maybe raised during Leaders’ Questions, except fromthe leader who submitted the question or theMinister who is replying.

Mr. Gormley: I will speak to the CeannComhairle afterwards.

Mr. B. O’Keeffe: Oh my God.

Mr. N. Dempsey: That is something for theCeann Comhairle to look forward to.

The Tanaiste: Deputy Gormley is in athreatening frame of mind this morning. As I saidearlier, when this matter was before the House,which happened on eight occasions, it was warmlywelcomed by two Deputies in Deputy Rabbitte’sown party and indeed by——

Mr. Allen: That is rubbish.

The Tanaiste: It is a fact.

Mr. Rabbitte: They were not involved inevaluating the site.

Mr. Allen: That is a spineless response.

The Tanaiste: The provision of the facility wasdescribed as essential and important. I can citethe quotations. For Deputy Rabbitte to now saythat this is opposed——

An Ceann Comhairle: The Tanaiste must beallowed to speak without interruption.

Mr. English: What was it meant to do?

5 Leaders’ 31 March 2004. Questions 6

The Tanaiste: Is the Deputy telling the Housethe concept was important? Nobody can standover what is outlined in the Comptroller andAuditor General’s report. We have to ensure thatthe findings of that report are implemented. Thatis a fact.

Mr. Rabbitte: What actions does the Tanaisteintend to cause the Government to take arisingfrom that fact? In any other jurisdiction at leastone Minister would go as a result of this.However, the Tanaiste has sat at the Cabinettable and not just on this. This is just symptomaticof the arrogant decisions taken by a remoteGovernment. She has sat at the Cabinet tablewhile the same Minister for Finance, DeputyMcCreevy, spent \157 million of taxpayers’money in clearing the park at Abbotstown inorder to relocate the research laboratories to hisown constituency at Backweston. After all of thatwe still do not have a football stadium. This is thescandalous, profligate waste of public money thathas gone on. Two Ministers can meet at the racesand ready up a project for 100% grant oftaxpayers’ money for a pony centre where noworthwhile activity has taken place. If the facilityis worthwhile, this is not the way to do it and yet,it is a matter for smirking, as between the twoMinisters. It is simply not acceptable that theTanaiste should treat the taxpayer, about whichshe professes to be so concerned, in this fashion.What action is she going to cause to happen as aresult of the indictment in the Public AccountsCommittee’s report?

The Tanaiste: This Government and itspredecessor have done more for the taxpayerthan Deputy Rabbitte and his party ever did inGovernment.

Mr. S. Ryan: What about the pensioners andthe widows?

The Tanaiste: He knows perfectly well that thisis not a resignation issue, so let us have a fewfacts.

Mr. Rabbitte: Of course it is.

The Tanaiste: All Members of the Housewanted the facility, some more enthusiasticallythan others. One should read what formerDeputy Alan Dukes said and what DeputiesCrawford and Wall said——

(Interruptions).

An Ceann Comhairle: The Tanaiste, withoutinterruptions.

Mr. Timmins: She is finished. She has no moreto say.

Mr. Stagg: A Cheann Comhairle, will you notlet the Tanaiste answer the last question?

The Tanaiste: Members should stop playinggames.

Mr. Rabbitte: Deputy Crawford did notknow——

Mr. Allen: The Tanaiste is hiding behindOpposition backbenchers. It is a spineless report.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Chair will have todeal with Deputy Allen, if he continues.

Mr. Timmins: She is finished.

Mr. Stagg: Why did she not answer thequestion?

An Ceann Comhairle: The Chair did its utmostto allow the Tanaiste to answer the question, butcould not control the interruptions.

Mr. J. Higgins: The Tanaiste is just back fromKillarney. We do not know whether she took ajaunting car around the lakes, but she certainlytook the whip to some of her favourite targets,especially public services and public serviceworkers. She attacked again, by implication,workers in An Post who are under the cosh of aruthless management with the Government on itsside, as well as employees in Aer Rianta, AerLingus and Dublin Bus. Why is it that the peoplethe Tanaiste invariably targets are always on oraround the average industrial wage, or on thewrong side of it? Why do we never hear herattack at her conferences some of the biggestcartels in Irish society.

The Irish Examiner this morning againhighlights the relentless rise in the price of anaverage home. In seven years the Tanaiste hasnot raised a finger to wag at the ruthlessprofiteering in housing. She has watched thespeculators throttle the housing hopes of youngworking people. She has watched those who havegot onto the ladder with great difficulty squeezedon the treadmill of exorbitant mortgages betweenthe developers, speculators and the financialinstitutions, not to mention those at the mercy ofthe rack-renting section of the landlord class.

At the Public Accounts Committee yesterdaythe exorbitant fees paid to barristers were againhighlighted, \42 million for the current tribunalsup to some time ago. However, the Tanaistesought to attack working people in the publicservice at her conference, and her Governmentsought to attack the widow’s mite. A massiveamount of \5 million was taken from widows andwidowers but there was not a word about the realcartels in Irish society. The Taoiseach and theTanaiste have been swanning around the EU forthe last three months as if they were the king andqueen of Europe, preaching competitiveness.However, this is obviously competitiveness for afew. The attack is against working people, theirwages and pension rights, but the landedspeculators and the privileged barristers flourishunder their reign. It is not just the Progressive

7 Ceisteanna— 31 March 2004. Questions 8

[Mr. J. Higgins.]Democrats. Fianna Fail would like to hide behindthe Tanaiste’s right-wing philosophy. It shares itand puts it into effect, just as well.

The Tanaiste: I can confirm to Deputy Higginsthat I was not on a jaunting car. I would not inflictthat punishment on any poor horse. I am also notinto the royals, whether the Freddie Mercurykind or any other. Since the ProgressiveDemocrats and Fianna Fail came back toGovernment in 1997, 1,000 new jobs a week havebeen created on average. That is a fact. Mycomments at the weekend were to encouragecompetition in order to grow employment,services, tourism and the regions in this country.Anywhere where competition has beenintroduced, as the Deputy might acknowledge,there has been more employment, better valuefor money and improved services for consumers.I know Deputy Higgins had his party conferenceat the weekend as well. I did not get anopportunity to observe it too closely, but I havea copy of his script which I intend to read latertoday. I look forward to reading it, because it isgood for me to read what somebody on theextreme side has to say from time to time.

Mr. J. Higgins: The Tanaiste should not worry.I have no hope of converting her at this stage.Competition is, of course, the code word behindwhich lurks privatisation and the driving down ofthe wages, working conditions and security oftenure for ordinary working people. The Tanaistedid not answer as regards the privileged cartels,two of which I specified, namely, those in thehousing and legal areas. Fingal County Councilpaid a senior counsel \7,500 for three hours onhis feet in the High Court on 17 September 2003to get an interlocutory injunction against decenttaxpayers, a fairly run of the mill procedure. Twodays later the same gentleman was on his feet forless than three hours, sending myself and mycolleague, Claire Daly, to jail. He was paid \7,500again. A few days later he was on his feet for lessthan an hour to enjoin Alan Lee as a defendantto proceedings, for \3,000. That is \18,000 for asenior counsel for less than seven hours work. IfVAT is put on top of that it comes to \22,000.After seven years, does the Tanaiste stand overthis type of profiteering by that profession? Howcan working people buy justice in this State? TheTanaiste’s talk of competitiveness is hypocrisywhen it comes to working people being squeezedin this way by cartels which the Tanaiste neverattacks.

The Tanaiste: There are more people workingin Ireland today than ever before.

Mr. J. Higgins: I ask the Tanaiste to addressthe issue.

The Tanaiste: Using Deputy Higgins’s model,we would probably have the 20% unemployment

rate of many eastern European countries. I donot stand over legal fees. I agree with much ofwhat the Deputy says regarding them.

Mr. Allen: What is the Tanaiste doing aboutthem?

The Tanaiste: That is why, in our insuranceprogramme, the establishment of the PersonalInjuries Assessment Board will take barristersout of most personal injury cases. They arecurrently involved in 70% of such cases in Irelandcompared to 4% in the UK. We are doing a lotto reduce legal costs.

Mr. J. Higgins: There is no insurance involvedhere.

The Tanaiste: The Deputy is talking of the fees.Barristers and other lawyers are earning a greatdeal of money in personal injury cases. The newPersonal Injuries Assessment Board is beingestablished with a view to removing lawyers asfar as possible from personal injuries cases.

Ceisteanna — Questions.

————

Sustainable Development.

1. Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach his viewson whether the Central Statistics Office shoulddevelop a parallel periodic measure of domesticprogress, alongside GDP and GNP, to provide amore reliable, if less easily quantifiable measureof real progress, leaving out spending to offsetsocial and environmental costs arising from GDPgrowth, subtracting damage to the environment,taking account of charges in the degree of incomeinequality and including unpaid household andvoluntary labour not included in GNP andGDP. [9598/04]

Minister of State at the Department of theTaoiseach (Ms Hanafin): I am aware there havebeen a number of initiatives in various countriesaimed at drawing up composite indices ofsustainable development. These have generallybeen undertaken as special research projectsconducted by universities and other researchorganisations, rather than as a regular feature ofthe work of national statistics offices. This workhas generally been concerned with adjusting thetraditional measure of GDP to take account ofother features such as those listed by the Deputy.

While use of such an index wouldunderstandably be of considerable interest, thereis little consensus about the merits of such anapproach. There is no agreement on the progressindicators that should be included or excluded oron the weighting or level of importance thatshould be assigned to the different indicators.Because of these difficulties, these measures havebeen largely developed by research organisationsrather than by official statistics offices.


Mr. J. Bruton: Would the Minister of Stateconsider it worthwhile to seek to create aconsensus on these points and act in a leadershiprole on this matter, rather than wash her handsof it? Does she agree that much of what ismeasured as progress in the GDP represents adisimprovement in the quality of people’s lives,whether it be more time spent in traffic jams, forexample, or greater costs for security, whichappear as progress in the GDP but which aredetrimental to quality of life? If we in this Houseare to measure how our work improves ordisimproves the quality of people’s lives, does sheagree that we need an authoritative measure ofthe quality of life and should not rely, as wecontinue to do, on crude measures such as theGDP and GNP, which in many cases do notmeasure improvement in living conditions?

Ms Hanafin: GDP and GNP were neverdesigned to measure quality of life or happiness,and are merely measures of production andnational income. It would be very difficult toplace a price on something like voluntary orunpaid work, or environmental impact. I knowwe do not take account of distribution of incomeas a sign of welfare, but GDP and GNP do notpretend to do so. Various research has beencarried out by universities and others as to whatmeasures could be included, but central statisticsoffices in most countries recognise that it wouldbe very difficult to come up with a composite setof indices.

We are not washing our hands of the matter.The Deputy is aware that last December, theCSO launched a new annual publication,Measuring Ireland’s Progress, which incorporates108 different indicators of the country’s progress.It analyses the economic, social andenvironmental situation, comparing it to theother EU states, largely because there was nogeneral consensus about the merits of includingthe elements Deputy Bruton referred to. Thattype of range of indicators is very useful.

Mr. J. Bruton: Will the Minister of State agreethat the fixation on GDP and the GNP leads toactive distortions of policy choices, on the basisthat because something is not counted, it does notcount for policy makers? For example, the choiceby a parent to stay at home to look after childrenis counted as a reduction in GNP, while if theparent goes out to work and pays someone tolook after the children, that is seen as an increasein GNP, even though the first choice maycontribute more to the welfare of those beinglooked after. When we draw up social policies,however, we count elements which impact onGDP or GNP and ignore elements which theyignore. This fixation in policy making withfigures, and the excessive reliance on them, aspart of the take-over of the Government byconsultants is leading to a distortion of policychoices in a perverse way. As Minister of Stateresponsible for statistics, Deputy Hanafin is

obliged to do something about this and not leaveit to universities.

Ms Hanafin: GDP and GNP do not set out tomeasure a country’s well-being. They are usedthroughout the world as an internationally-accepted accounting rule so they are valuable forcomparative purposes. The development of socialpolicy in any Department is not based solely onthose indicators, on the production of goods andservices. We also use the statistics available to usfrom the indicators I mentioned, those carried outby the CSO, and from various other surveys suchas the household survey, and research carried outby the National Statistics Board. There is also araft of EU regulations which must be adopted bythe CSO and which it uses in compilinginformation.

We also have our census information. Nextmonth we will have a pilot census with will dealwith some of the issues referred to by DeputyJohn Bruton. One of the questions to be asked inthat census relates to how many people areengaged in home duties, in caring either for theyoung or elderly in their own homes, and howmany people are involved in voluntary activity,whether it be cultural, charitable or political. Allthat information is available to us and is used inpolicy making so it is not simply a matter ofassigning value only to GDP and GNP. The latterprovide crude figures, which is what they set outto do.

Ms Burton: Does the Minister of State agreethat there are well established mechanisms forevaluating the sort of data referred to by DeputyJohn Bruton and that the Government has beenvery slow to use them except on a pilot basis? Inthe context of the economic prosperity enjoyedby this country for the past ten years, there hasbeen a very weak definition of the income baseand the quality of life, in the broadest sense,enjoyed for instance by families with children andby poorer people. In the type of consultancyworks to which Deputy John Bruton referred,more value is often assigned by consultants topeople who live in richer areas. For instance, apublic transport project in south County Dublinis deemed to have far more value because morepeople are at work there than in an area such asBallymun where perhaps fewer people are in paidemployment. The same holds in rural areas.

11 o’clock

These realities impact on the decisions madedaily by the Government. At the heart of this isthe failure to realise what families with children

require from our economy and whatis needed by people who in economicterms are less well off. These might

be people with disabilities, with a social welfareincome. I am disappointed the Minister of Statehas not brought more imagination to this issuebecause other countries have done so verysuccessfully.


Ms Hanafin: Other countries’ central statisticsoffices do not collate this information. It isinstead done by research groups and universitiesand the information gained is valuable. However,how can the Central Statistics Office measure lifeexpectancy and predict that one can live one yearlonger when other factors, such as degradation ofthe environment, must be taken into account? Itis how to measure and what the indices are——

Ms Burton: If one is poor, one dies younger.

An Ceann Comhairle: Allow the Minister ofState to continue without interruption. She isreplying to Deputy Burton.

Ms Hanafin: I am not questioning the value ofhaving the information. I am questioning theability to assess that value in the CentralStatistics Office.

Mr. J. Bruton: Who better to do it?

Ms Hanafin: Some private research has beendone by universities and other bodies. A recentFinancial Times article spoke of trying to measurepeople’s happiness. How can a statistics officemeasure it? If one is using statistics and figures,the obvious way of measuring it is with theamounts of goods and services produced in thecountry. However, it must be realised that such ameasure is limited in its value and is notpretending to be anything else. It is simply anacknowledgement of the accounting rule and thevalue of the goods and services of the country.

However, that is not to say that otherinformation on quality of life is available. TheUN annual report on the human developmentindex measures countries’ achievements on acomparative basis, in which Ireland ranks 18 outof 173. There are a number of factors at play asto why it is difficult for the Central StatisticsOffice to assess this information. There is noagreement on the measures that could be used,therefore making it difficult to do it on acomparative basis. However, the CentralStatistics Office has devised 108 indicatorspromised under Sustaining Progress.

Mr. Sargent: Does the Minister of State agreethat Deputy John Bruton’s proposal is afundamental prerequisite to many policydecisions that are taken? Whether it is theCentral Statistics Office, another Department orsome expertise brought in, it is essential that theissue be addressed. FEASTA, the Foundation forthe Economics of Sustainability, has producedconsiderable research, drawing on informationfrom Scandinavian and American countrieswhere measures of quality of life are presentedwith gross domestic produce, GDP, and grossnational product, GNP. Will this work beexamined further to see if such measures can beimplemented in Ireland?

Recently, the New Economics Foundation, inadvance of the UK budget, highlighted that the

measure of domestic progress can no longer showeconomic growth as giving rise to improvementin quality of life over a whole range of issues,since it peaked in 1976. Will the Minister of Stateaccept that, since then, while economic growthhas increased, quality of life, in terms ofsustainability and individual happiness, hasdecreased?

I welcome recent census figures on matterssuch as women in the home that was collated byvarious changes to the census form. Given thatknowledge of Irish was measured in the previouscensus, will the Minister now accept that it is notimpossible to measure some of the matters thatshe regards as difficult? Measuring knowledge ofIrish is by no means a black and white process aspeople assume levels of Irish in different degrees.Likewise, measures of fulfilment, happiness andquality of life should be on the census forms.They can be answered whatever way one wants,but at least they are recognised as beingimportant.

Ms Hanafin: The importance and the value ofthis information is not disputed. The problem ishow it is assessed. It is an entirely subjectivematter to decide if one is happier than another ormeasure one’s quality of life as opposed toanother’s.

Mr. Sargent: Other countries do it.

Ms Hanafin: The statisticians in the CentralStatistics Office are a highly professional bodyof people.

Mr. J. Bruton: The Minister of State paysattention to opinion polls.

Ms Hanafin: The question is how they canmeasure this information from a statisticalviewpoint. The information that Deputy Sargentreferred to is available. Ta suil agam gur leigh anTeachta an tuarascail a thainig amach ar stadasna Gaeilge. This was encouraging informationfrom the Central Statistics Office. The 108indicators contained in that agency’s annualreport give not just the economic value but socialand environmental measures too. However, it isnot a matter to be dealt with in the context ofGDP and GNP.

All Members appreciate the development andrange of work of the Central Statistics Office inrecent years which is now providing moreinformation to enable evidence-based policies tobe developed. Regarding economic welfare andsocial progress, the type of indices are notinvolved. The Central Statistics Office launchedfigures showing that GNP for 2003 grew by 3.3%while GDP grew by 1.4%. The last quarter of2003 is particularly encouraging when GNP roseby 5.5%. Good economic progress has been madeand can be easily assessed.

Mr. J. Bruton: The Minister of State has justproved our case.

13 Order of 31 March 2004. Business 14

Mr. Sargent: That is just what we were arguing.The Minister of State thinks that is all there isto this.

Requests to move Adjournment of Dail underStanding Order 31.

An Ceann Comhairle: Before coming to theOrder of Business I propose to deal with anumber of notices under Standing Order 31. I willcall the Deputies in the order in which theysubmitted notices to my office.

Mr. O’Dowd: I seek the adjournment of theDail under Standing Order 31——

Mr. Rabbitte: A Cheann Comhairle, has theGovernment surrendered?

An Ceann Comhairle: It is a matter for theChair to decide whether to accept the StandingOrder or not.

Mr. O’Dowd: Or accept the Government’ssurrender? We will accept it now.

Mr. Kenny: The de Valeras are back inpossession.

Mr. Durkan: There a few things that will comeback then.

Mr. J. Bruton: Dev ran the country on his own.

Mr. Sargent: Bring back Dev.

Mr. O’Dowd: I seek the adjournment of theDail under Standing Order 31 to debate thefollowing urgent matter: the findings of theEuropean Commission to impose bindingmeasures on the UK operator, British NuclearFuels plc, which has failed to comply with theprovisions of the EURATOM Treaty and therules concerning accounting for nuclear materialat Sellafield which is held in an area of such highlevel radiation and poor visibility that thesituation has now become untenable and callsinto question the credibility of safeguardsdesigned to ensure that nuclear material is notdiverted from peaceful uses.

Mr. Healy: I seek the adjournment of the Dailunder Standing Order 31 to debate the followingurgent matter: to ask the Taoiseach to intervenein the situation at Newtown Upper nationalschool, Carrick-on-Suir, County Tipperary wherethe teaching staff are being forced to takeindustrial action to highlight the need to replacethe outdoor toilets which have been condemnedby the Health and Safety Authority and thefailure of the Minister for Education and Scienceto approve a grant of funding to replace thesetoilets, which are antiquated and dangerous andhave more in common with the dark ages thanthe third millennium.

Dr. Cowley: I seek the adjournment of the Dailunder Standing Order 31 to debate the followingurgent matter: the failure of the Minister for theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government tomake funding available for the erection of kineticenergy absorbing barriers to safeguard allproperties, farms and lands from future landslidesat Inver and Pollathomas, County Mayo, aspromised, after the landslides on 19 September2003, despite assurances that these funds wouldbe made available and to debate whether thesefunds can be made available by the Minister as amatter of the greatest possible urgency.

Mr. Eamon Ryan: I seek the adjournment ofthe Dail under Standing Order 31 to debate thefollowing urgent matter: the clear division withinthe Government over the future of bus servicesin this country, the lack of any debate on themassive roads programme which is threateningour natural environment and our most importantheritage sites, and the failure by the Governmentto deliver the promised Dublin metro by 2007,the three additional Luas sections promised by2006, the fast and frequent commuter rail servicesfrom Dublin to Arklow, Carlow, Tullamore,Mullingar and Navan, the new commuter railservices for Cork, Limerick, Galway andWaterford, all of which were promised in theProgressive Democrats’ 2002 election manifesto.

Ms Harney: Who got the overall majority in theprevious general election?

Mr. Eamon Ryan: I cannot see any of theseservices being ready for 2006.

An Ceann Comhairle: Having considered thematters raised, they are not in order underStanding Order 31.

Order of Business.

The Tanaiste: It is proposed to take No. 3,Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2004 — Order forSecond Stage and Second Stage. It is proposed,notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders,that the Dail shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. andbusiness shall be interrupted not later than 10.30p.m. Private Members’ business shall be No. 33,motion re confidence in the Minister for theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government.

An Ceann Comhairle: There is one proposal tobe put to the House. Is the proposal for the latesitting agreed?

Mr. Kenny: I do not object to the late sitting.Can we take it that a guillotine will not beimposed on the Electoral (Amendment) Bill2004? In view of the public disquiet in respect ofcertain elements of the Bill, will the Tanaisteoutline what will happen to the report that willbe produced by the independent panel beingestablished by the Bill? What does theGovernment intend to do if the independent


[Mr. Kenny.]panel’s report is critical of the process, forexample? Can I assume that a guillotine will notbe imposed? What is the position in respect ofthe report of the independent panel?

The Tanaiste: It is certainly not proposed toimpose a guillotine on the Bill this week.

Mr. Kenny: What about next week?

The Tanaiste: It is intended to give as muchtime as possible to the Bill next week. I assumethe Government will take on board whatever theindependent panel will say, that is why we haveput the panel in place in the first instance.

Mr. Durkan: That is the question.

Mr. Rabbitte: The Tanaiste answered the firstpart of Deputy Kenny’s question when she saidthat there will be no guillotine this week. Withrespect to the Tanaiste, we already knew that.Will the Government impose a guillotine on theBill?

The Tanaiste: It is intended to pass the Bill,yes, with a view to using the electronic votingsystem in the elections on 11 June. The Bill willbe given a considerable amount of time this weekand next week. The Government will make adecision on the matter next week.

Mr. Sargent: Before I discuss the late sitting,can I take it from the Tanaiste’s reply that therewill be a guillotine?

The Tanaiste: There may be a guillotine,but——

Mr. Sargent: I thought I heard a “Yes” in themiddle of the Tanaiste’s response.

The Tanaiste: ——there may not be a needfor one.

Mr. Sargent: The Tanaiste has said that theremay not be a guillotine. We will take it that therewill not be a guillotine, if that is all right. Wecannot oppose the late sitting until 10.30 p.m.tonight as we are looking for additional time, butI understand that it was not discussed at theWhips’ meeting.

Mr. Stagg: That is right.

Mr. Sargent: I think such matters should beclarified and rectified. It is obvious that if thereis to be a late sitting, it should be based onconsultation with the other parties, given that itmeans we are expected to be here later than wemight have planned. I ask the Government toensure that late sittings are not organised withoutconsultation with the other parties.

An Ceann Comhairle: Is the proposal for thelate sitting today agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Kenny: Given that the Taoiseach willaddress the European Parliament today, may Iask the Tanaiste about the diplomatic relationsand immunities (amendment) Bill? I understandthat the only diplomatic initiative taken to dateby the Government during its Presidency is theestablishment of diplomatic relations with thedictatorship in Burma. The European Parliamentpassed a resolution condemning Ireland fortaking this action.

An Ceann Comhairle: Does the Deputy have aquestion that is appropriate to the Order ofBusiness?

Mr. Allen: Let him finish.

Mr. Kenny: I have asked about the diplomaticrelations and immunities (amendment) Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle: It is not appropriate todiscuss now what might be discussed on SecondStage of the Bill.

Mr. Kenny: The Taoiseach will address theEuropean Parliament today in his capacity as thePresident of the European Council. TheEuropean Parliament passed a motion statingthat it ”regrets that the Government of theRepublic of Ireland——

An Ceann Comhairle: That does not arise onthe Order of Business.

Mr. Kenny: It does.

An Ceann Comhairle: On the legislation,Tanaiste——

Mr. Kenny: The Parliament regrets that wehave ”decided to establish diplomaticrelations——

An Ceann Comhairle: It does not arise on theOrder of Business.

Mr. Kenny: Will the Tanaiste explain why theGovernment has decided——

An Ceann Comhairle: I call the Tanaiste tooutline the position in respect of the legislation.

Mr. Kenny: ——to open diplomatic relationswith an unreconstructed dictatorship in Burma?

An Ceann Comhairle: I suggest that theDeputy submit a question to the appropriateMinister, or raise the matter during Leaders’Questions.

Mr. Kenny: When I asked the Taoiseach aboutthe matter yesterday, he said that relations were


established so that we could speak to theBurmese authorities.

An Ceann Comhairle: I call the Tanaiste tospeak about the legislation.

Mr. Durkan: That is unfair.

Mr. Kenny: You are being very restrictiveabout an issue of human rights, a CheannComhairle.

Mr. Durkan: It is a very important question.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy knows theStanding Orders just as well as the Chair.

The Tanaiste: It is not possible at this stage toindicate——

An Ceann Comhairle: I have a copy ofStanding Order 26 in front of me.

The Tanaiste: ——when the legislation will bebrought before the House.

An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy Rabbitte.

Mr. Kenny: I did not hear the Tanaiste, aCheann Comhairle, because you were talking.

Mr. Durkan: We did not hear the Tanaiste.


Mr. Kenny: I did not hear the Tanaiste’sreply, Sir.

An Ceann Comhairle: If you were notinterrupting when the Tanaiste was replying——

Mr. Kenny: You were speaking.

Ms O. Mitchell: You were speaking, a CheannComhairle.


Mr. Allen: You were speaking.

Mr. Kenny: A Cheann Comhairle, on a pointof order, it was impossible to hear the Tanaistebecause you were speaking.

Mr. Allen: You seem to do most of the talkingin here, a Cheann Comhairle.

An Ceann Comhairle: On the legislation,Tanaiste.

The Tanaiste: As I said, it is not possible toindicate at this stage when the legislation will bebrought forward.

Mr. Durkan: What about the other part of thequestion?


Mr. Durkan: The Tanaiste will not answer that.

An Ceann Comhairle: Sorry, allow DeputyRabbitte to speak without interruption.

Mr. Rabbitte: Bearing in mind the principlesespoused by the Tanaiste for her party at theweekend, does she intend to respond to the IrishRefugee Council’s request to the Governmentnot to hold a referendum on citizenship at thesame time as the forthcoming European and localelections? Does she purport to collude withFianna Fail in the headlong rush to exploit thisissue, to produce more Deputy Noel O’Flynns inthis House, on local authorities and in theEuropean Parliament?

The Tanaiste: As I said to the Deputy lastweek, the Government has not yet decided whento hold the referendum in question.

Mr. Rabbitte: Is the Tanaiste aware that theGovernment has instructed the Chief Whip tomake provision for taking the Bill in this Housein the week after Easter?

Ms Hanafin: It has not.

Mr. Rabbitte: Is the Tanaiste aware of that?

The Tanaiste: I do not believe that to be thecase.

Mr. Rabbitte: Is the Tanaiste saying that wewill not take the Bill in the week after Easter?

The Tanaiste: I have said that we have notdecided when to hold the referendum.

Mr. Rabbitte: Is the Tanaiste saying that theBill will not be taken in the week we resume?

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy, the Tanaistehas answered your question.

The Tanaiste: The answer is that we have notmade a decision on that matter. That is a fact.

Mr. Quinn: The Taoiseach announced ityesterday.

The Tanaiste: He did not.

Mr. Quinn: The cameras caught his noddinghead.

An Ceann Comhairle: I ask the Deputy toallow Deputy Eamon Ryan to ask his questionwithout interruption.

Mr. Eamon Ryan: Can the Tanaiste tell mewhich of the transport Bills on the legislativeprogramme will provide for a public transportregulator to regulate the State’s bus services? Ibelieve that such a regulator is needed before we


[Mr. Eamon Ryan.]can start to decide how and where privatised busservices will be franchised. Does the Tanaisteknow which Bill will introduce such a regulator?When will it be brought to the House? TheGovernment is commenting on the issuefrequently, but we do not know what type ofregulator will be in place.

The Tanaiste: The relevant Bill is the transportreform Bill.

Mr. Eamon Ryan: When is the Bill due?

The Tanaiste: It is intended that the Bill will bebrought forward this year.

Mr. Crawford: I would like to ask about threeBills that I hope will be in place soon. When willthe dormant accounts (amendment) Bill bebrought before the House? I understand that adormant financial assets Bill will be introduced tomake dormant insurance funds available to partysources. In light of the difficulties faced by achildren’s hospital that has to be funded bycharities, when will the charities regulation Billbe dealt with?

The Tanaiste: The dormant accounts(amendment) Bill is expected shortly afterEaster. The charities regulation Bill is somewhatfurther away — we will probably have the headsof the Bill later in the year — and it is notpossible to say when it will be before the House.What was the other Bill the Deputy mentioned?

Mr. Crawford: I referred to the dormantfinancial assets Bill.

The Tanaiste: It is expected that the Bill willbe brought forward in 2005.

Mr. Quinn: Have the heads of the Bill toamend the Constitution to alter the base on whichcitizenship is given to or earned by people in thiscountry been circulated?

The Tanaiste: Yes, I think they have beencirculated.

Mr. Quinn: The Tanaiste thinks they havebeen circulated.

The Tanaiste: They have been circulated.

Mr. Gilmore: It is obvious that the Tanaiste hasread them.

Mr. Costello: Will the Tanaiste clarify whetherthe Government took the decision to pull theplug on the plans that existed to stage a majorpublic concert on O’Connell Street in Dublin?

An Ceann Comhairle: That does not arise onthe Order of Business.

Mr. Costello: No——

An Ceann Comhairle: I suggest that you submita question to the appropriate Minister.

Mr. Costello: I asked that question as a meansof introducing my pertinent question onlegislation. Was the concert cancelled because ofa lack of planning regulations?

An Ceann Comhairle: You cannot pursue thatline at this stage. If you want to raise it with theappropriate Minister, I suggest that you submita question.

Mr. Costello: Regarding the legislation——

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy should referto specific legislation.

Mr. Costello: I wish to ask about health andsafety legislation.

An Ceann Comhairle: Health and safetylegislation, Tanaiste.

Mr. Costello: If it is not possible in the presentcircumstances to stage the concert in O’ConnellStreet——

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy, you cannotraise that matter on the Order of Business.

Mr. Costello: ——could it be held in CrokePark in the same manner as the SpecialOlympics ceremonies?

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is familiarwith the ways of raising the matter.

Mr. Costello: It seems that we will not haveany public function on May Day to welcome theaccession countries.

The Tanaiste: The safety, health and welfare atwork Bill will be introduced in this session.

Mr. Timmins: What is the status of the dormantaccounts (amendment) Bill? I notice there ismuch dissatisfaction about this in some quarters.Will the Tanaiste use her influence to haveinserted in this Bill a new section dealing withuncashed bank drafts? Many millions of poundsand euros belonging to deceased customers arelying in bank vaults. The financial institutions areaware of this and have not sought to track downthe owners.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy has madehis point. It is not appropriate to discuss this onthe Order of Business.

Mr. Timmins: This is a point I have beenraising for some time. I am aware of several cases.There is no requirement for the banks to contact

21 Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2004: 31 March 2004. Order for Second Stage 22

the next of kin of the deceased person. Will theMinister consider this?

Mr. Gogarty: Given the scrutiny to which therecords of the Minister for the Environment,Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen,and to a lesser extent the Minister for Transport,Deputy Brennan, are currently subject, does theGovernment intend to reintroduce the proposedlegislation for the greater Dublin area land useand transport authority Bill? If so, when will itcome in?

The Tanaiste: I understand the policy on thismatter is being reviewed.

Ms O’Sullivan: I request that Report Stage ofthe Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill2003 be tabled for next week. It is more than sixweeks since Committee Stage was taken. There isno reason for this delay. We have had a fanfare ofpromises from the Government about disabilitylegislation, yet nothing has been done. There isno sense of urgency.

The Tanaiste: Report Stage may not be tabledfor next week but it will take place immediatelyafter Easter.

Ms O’Sullivan: Why did the Governmentinclude it in its plans for this session which weremade available to the public?

The Tanaiste: Perhaps the Deputy coulddiscuss that with the Whips this evening.

Mr. Quinn: I indicated that I wished to raise amatter on the Order of Business.

An Ceann Comhairle: Apart from partyleaders, I call each Member only once during theOrder of Business.

Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2004: Order forSecond Stage.

Bill entitled an Act to amend and extend theElectoral Acts 1992 to 2002, the EuropeanParliament Elections Acts 1992 to 2004, thePresidential Elections Acts 1992 to 2001, theLocal Government Acts 1925 to 2003, theLocal Elections Acts 1974 to 2002 and theReferendum Acts 1992 to 2001 and to providefor related matters.

Minister for the Environment, Heritage andLocal Government (Mr. Cullen): I move: “ThatSecond Stage be taken now.”

Mr. Gilmore: The Labour Party considers thisBill unconstitutional. It is also premature in thatthe commission to examine the issue of electronicvoting is required to report by 1 May. The Billprejudices the commission, its work and its reportbecause it proposes to enact in law matters onwhich the commission is expected to report. Inany event, this House ought to be discussing moreimportant things. It is odd that in a week in whichone cannot post a letter or have one delivered,the Government is introducing legislation toprovide for voting by electronic means. TheLabour Party opposes the motion.

Mr. Allen: Has the Minister declared hisconflict of interest in this matter?

An Ceann Comhairle: Is the Deputy opposingthe motion?

Mr. Allen: Yes. The Minister is Fianna Fail’sdirector of elections, yet he intends to introducea system of voting without consultation with theother parties in the House or with the public. Willhe declare his conflict of interest before SecondStage is taken?

Mr. Boyle: The Green Party also opposes thetaking of Second Stage of the Bill on the groundsthat the consultative process that should havetaken place before the introduction of a Bill ofthis nature — a Bill that deals with the very basisof our democratic system, the way in which ourcitizens vote — was not engaged in by theGovernment and that the Bill is going throughthe House prior to the publication of the reportof the commission which was set up to decidewhether the proposed system is feasible. Publicfaith in the electoral system, which must beinspired by the workings of this House, is beingdiminished by the way in which the Governmentintends to push through this legislation.

Question put.

The Dail divided by electronic means.

Mr. Stagg: Given the importance of the issue athand, I believe it is appropriate that there shouldbe a vote other than by electronic means. As ateller, under Standing Order 69, I propose thatthe vote be taken by other than electronic means.

An Ceann Comhairle: As Deputy Stagg is aWhip, under Standing Order 69 he is entitled tocall a vote through the lobby.

Question again put: “That Second Stage betaken now.”

23 Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2004: 31 March 2004. Order for Second Stage 24

The Dail divided: Ta, 71; Nıl, 56.

Ta

Ahern, Dermot.Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Sean.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Niall.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Seamus.Browne, John.Callanan, Joe.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Carty, John.Cassidy, Donie.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cregan, John.Cullen, Martin.Curran, John.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Sıle.Dempsey, Noel.Dempsey, Tony.Dennehy, John.Devins, Jimmy.Ellis, John.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Glennon, Jim.Grealish, Noel.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Sean.Hoctor, Maire.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.

Nıl

Allen, Bernard.Boyle, Dan.Breen, Pat.Broughan, Thomas P.Bruton, John.Bruton, Richard.Burton, Joan.Connaughton, Paul.Connolly, Paudge.Costello, Joe.Cowley, Jerry.Crawford, Seymour.Crowe, Sean.Cuffe, Ciaran.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard J.English, Damien.Ferris, Martin.Gilmore, Eamon.Gogarty, Paul.Gormley, John.Harkin, Marian.Hayes, Tom.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Joe.Hogan, Phil.Howlin, Brendan.Kehoe, Paul.

Tellers: Ta, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Nıl, Deputies Boyle and Harkin.

Kelly, Peter.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Seamus.Kitt, Tom.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McEllistrim, Thomas.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheal.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Mulcahy, Michael.O Cuıv, Eamon.O Fearghaıl, Sean.O’Connor, Charlie.O’Donoghue, John.O’Donovan, Denis.O’Keeffe, Batt.O’Keeffe, Ned.O’Malley, Fiona.Parlon, Tom.Power, Peter.Power, Sean.Ryan, Eoin.Sexton, Mae.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Wilkinson, Ollie.Wright, G. V.

Kenny, Enda.Lynch, Kathleen.McCormack, Padraic.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Finian.McGrath, Paul.McHugh, Paddy.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Olivia.Morgan, Arthur.Murphy, Gerard.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.O Caolain, Caoimhghın.O’Sullivan, Jan.Pattison, Seamus.Penrose, Willie.Quinn, Ruairı.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Eamon.Ryan, Sean.Sargent, Trevor.Sherlock, Joe.Shortall, Roisın.Stagg, Emmet.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.

25 Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2004: 31 March 2004. Second Stage 26

Question declared carried.

Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2004: Second Stage.

Minister for the Environment, Heritage andLocal Government (Mr. Cullen): I move: “Thatthe Bill be now read a Second Time.”

This Bill fulfils the undertaking of the amendedmotion passed by Dail Eireann on 18 February,to apply electronic voting to non-Dail electionsby primary legislation; establish an independentcommission to report on the secrecy and accuracyof the arrangements proposed for electronicvoting; provide for more explicit arrangementsregarding abstention from voting; and set outconditions under which tally data may be madeavailable from the electronic voting system tointerested parties.

The Oireachtas has been dealing witharrangements to prepare for electronic votingfrom as far back as 1999. In the Local Elections(Disclosure of Donations and Expenditure) Act1999, authority was given to my Department toobtain ballot papers used at the local elections forthe purpose of research relating to theintroduction of electronic voting and counting. InFebruary 2000, my predecessor announced thatthe Government had agreed to the introductionof electronic voting and counting at statutoryelections and to the drafting of the necessarylegislation. Subject to satisfactory procurement ofthe system and to the thorough testing of itshardware and software components, it was alsostated at that time that the Government wouldconsider using the new voting equipment at the2002 general election and nationwide at theEuropean and local elections of 2004.

The fundamental purpose of electronic votingis to improve the efficiency, accuracy and user-friendliness of Irish election procedures. At thecore of this is the objective of guaranteeing everyvoter that his or her vote will not be rejectedbecause of inadvertent errors. The democraticwastage associated with spoilt votes numberedmore than 20,000 at the 2002 general election,more than 24,000 at the 1999 local elections andsome 46,500 at the previous European election. Itis estimated, and this is a conservative figure andthat at least 95% of those invalid ballot paperswere inadvertently spoiled. I believe that everytrue democrat should view tackling this issue notas an option but as a priority. Every vote shouldbe counted accurately and every mandate shouldreflect the exact intent of those who have takenthe time to participate. This is what the newsystem will achieve.

During the first four years of debate on thetopic, the Opposition took a different approachto the issue. Those were the days when the peoplenow attacking me for going too far, too fastaccused my predecessor of not going far enoughand doing it too slowly. Those were the dayswhen Opposition Deputies wanted to move on toInternet voting and they called us timid. Thosewere the days when the new system could be used

over 400,000 times by the Irish electorate andgiven very high marks by Opposition candidates.Today the Opposition is calling us recklessradicals.

Mr. Allen: That was before the Ministersuppressed a report on the security of the system.

Mr. Cullen: During this debate it could verywell be that the Opposition will take aconstructive approach, eschew conspiracytheories and be reasoned and temperate.Unfortunately, we now live in an era of totalopposition where no charge can be hyped enoughand Deputies opposite feel no need to show anyrestraint or perspective. So be it, but I hope theOpposition will spare us the cynicism of its linethat the Government is somehow damagingpublic faith in the electoral process.

Mr. Allen: Will the Minister consult and notlecture us?

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy will have anopportunity to contribute shortly.

Mr. Cullen: It is the Opposition itself which hasused this issue to launch a political attack with noobjective other than damaging public faith in theelectoral process. Its behaviour has been like aperson who throws rubbish on the ground andthen complains that the place is getting very dirtythese days. I also hope that we will be sparedanother outbreak of Rabbitte disease whereDeputies make wild allegations and refuse toback them up. The master himself was at it whenhe said that Fianna Fail would try to subvertresults. Forgetting the fact that Ministers fromtheir own parties have been in the same electoralposition as I hold in my party, I have beenaccused of being at the epicentre of a wildconspiracy. Some Deputies have been moreactive than ever in hiding behind parliamentaryprivilege. The performance of one Fine GaelDeputy in casually slandering an eminent judge,while this was later withdrawn, showed just howfar things have gone.

Before getting into technical details concerningthe background to the Bill and its provisions, Iemphasise one point. Following the introductionof the new system, exactly the same people whohave always run our elections will continue to runour elections.

Mr. Gilmore: That is not so.

Mr. Cullen: I hope Deputies will have the goodgrace and honesty in this debate to acknowledgethis and not to try to compare our chosen systemwith fundamentally different ones used in partsof the United States. The new system is alsoabout more than just improving electionprocedures by the use of modern technology. Bymodernising and transforming elections in avisible way——


Mr. Allen: On a point of order, are Memberswho say Deputies who legitimately questionissues are dishonest protected by parliamentaryprivilege? If I call the Minister a liar, I have towithdraw it, but he is accusing the Opposition ofbeing dishonest.

An Ceann Comhairle: That is not a point oforder, Deputy.

Mr. Gilmore: The Minister has no argument,this is purely——

An Ceann Comhairle: Allow the Minister tocontinue. Deputies will have an opportunity tocontribute.

Mr. Allen: The Minister is waffling. I wish tocall a quorum.

Mr. Morgan: The Minister has a difficultenough job.

Mr. Cullen: We can see the way the day willgo, but I am not surprised.

Mr. Allen: I am not surprised at the Minister’sarrogance.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present;House counted and 20 Members being present,

12 o’clock

Mr. Cullen: By modernising and transformingelections in a visible way, we seek to create anopportunity to tackle voter apathy and improve

the image of elections, especially foran increasingly young electorate.

As well as permitting electronic voting at Dailelections, the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2001provided for the application of the new system toelections to the European Parliament, thePresidency and local authorities and toreferendums. The method of applying the newsystem to non-Dail elections was, however,indirect and derived from the primary provisionsof the 2001 Act on Dail elections.

Section 48 of the 2001 Act provides that theprovisions of the Act for electronic voting at Dailelections may be extended to other elections byway of ministerial orders to be laid before bothHouses. Such orders could be used to make anynecessary modifications or adaptations to thecodes, subject to the application of the principlesof the 2001 Act. Following the judgment in therecent Mulcreevy case, the Government decidedto apply the provisions of the 2001 Act to otherelections and referenda through primarylegislation rather than ministerial orders asenvisaged by section 48. This decision was takenout of respect for the significance of the electoralprocess and to avoid any doubt. Fulfilment of thisaim is the essential purpose of Part 2 andSchedules 1 to 4 of the Bill.

Part 3 provides for the establishment on astatutory basis of the independent commission onelectronic voting, the task of which is to prepare

a report on the secrecy and accuracy of thePowervote-Nedap system. In view of the urgencyof its work, the commission has already beenestablished and is operating on a non-statutory,ad hoc basis. Part 4 deals with miscellaneousprovisions, including the conditions forauthorising the release of tally information afterthe conclusion of an election.

As I have stated, the introduction of electronicvoting has been in preparation for a considerabletime. The project has been in the public domainsince 1999 when it featured in the first of twoseparate Bills. Electronic voting has been thesubject of Adjournment debates, detailedconsideration by the Joint Committee onEnvironment, Heritage and Local Governmentand numerous parliamentary questions. Thesystem has been debated on radio, television andin the print media. It has been demonstrated tothe public, political parties, members of themedia, election candidates and local authorityassociations. The successful use of the system inthree constituencies during the 2002 generalelection was widely covered by the media.

Following an international open procurementprocess, the Powervote-Nedap system was chosenas the most suitable and cost effective solution forIrish electoral conditions. This robust and provensystem has been used extensively in elections inthe Netherlands for more than ten years and insome German cities since 1998. It is based on abespoke electronic voting machine, developedsolely for the purpose of running elections, whichhas been refined and improved over its years ofuse. The lay-out of the voting machine panelfacilitates holding multiple polls simultaneously.This is a necessary feature given the nature ofIrish elections. All ballot papers are visible to thevoter who is not required to switch screens orscroll through pages to see all candidates as mightbe the case with personal computer based touch-screen systems.

The electronic system was favourably endorsedby 93% of voters surveyed after the last generalelection and preferred to the old manual systemby 87%. Following this success, the Governmentin June 2002 approved the use of the system inseven constituencies for the referendum whichtook place in October 2002. This use of thesystem was also very successful. The Governmentconfirmed in October 2002 its earlier statedintention to extend the use of the systemcountrywide on the occasion of the June 2004European and local elections. This position wascommunicated transparently and received bypolitical parties and the media withoutcontroversy.

I stress that the electronic voting system issecure, reliable and can be trusted by the people.It has been in use for more than ten yearsthroughout the Netherlands, which has apopulation of more than 16 million, for someyears in a number of German cities, in pilots inthe UK and in two polls in this country. Morerecently, the system has received general


approval from the French Government for use inelections. It has been used successfully in Brest.The Governments, opposition parties andpeoples of these countries do not operateinsecure or unreliable electoral systems. Theirdemocracies have not been damaged ordiminished through the use of electronic votingand counting. No such risk exists in relation tothe operation of electronic voting in Ireland.

The voting machine hardware and softwarehave been rigorously tested on two separateoccasions. First, before the pilot use of the systemin 2002 and, again, last year following somemodifications to the voting machine to make iteasier for voters to use and the addition of furthersecurity features. The German institute forscience and technology, PTB, specifically testedthe voting machine to ensure that the votes caston a ballot paper are stored correctly in the ballotmodule. The institute has certified that the systemcarries out the recording and storage of votescorrectly.

We should acknowledge the considerableimperfections of the paper-based voting system.Anyone who has attended counts knows thaterrors are unavoidable under the old system. Weshould be clear that the flaws in our currentsystem almost certainly impact on the results ofelections. During the most recent local elections,24,000 people had their votes disallowed. Thiswas overwhelmingly due to inadvertent errorssuch as the occurrence of indistinct numerals orthe failure to properly stamp ballots. At the sametime, 40 councillors were returned withdifferences of less than 50 votes. In Borris-in-Ossory, where ballots had been ruled out due tosimple human errors, there was a tie for the finalseat. In Ferbane, more than 300 votes were ruledout because a presiding officer had failed tostamp the ballots. On the same day, more than46,500 votes were ruled out in the Europeanelections. Anyone who has been at a closerecount has seen ballots held up to the light tocheck if the paper had been fully perforated. Inthe 21st century, there must be a better way ofdoing things. Every vote should be countedaccurately and every mandate should reflect theexact intent of those who have taken the time toparticipate in an election. This is what the newsystem will achieve.

In the development of the electronic votingsystem for use in Ireland, the security andintegrity of the electoral system have been ofparamount importance. The system incorporatessecurity and audit features at all stages frominitial set-up of a poll to the production of thecount result. The system has also beenbenchmarked with the five objectives of integrity,confidentiality, enfranchisement, availability andverifiability. The integrity test seeks to ensurethat preferences and votes are recorded andcounted as intended. It should not be possible toadd, modify or delete votes during the poll andvote counting stages. The voting machinesoftware has been tested by PTB, which is an

independent internationally accredited testinginstitute in Germany. Its report has confirmedthat the voting machine software complies withthe requirements and that any attemptedinterference with the ballot module in the votingmachine will be detected.

The voting machine incorporates physicalsecurity features to prevent tampering duringpolling day and it will be rigorously supervisedand securely maintained before polling day andthroughout polling hours. The physicalcomponents of the voting machine andprogramming unit have also been successfullytested by a separate international testing institute,TNO Electronic Products and Services, in theNetherlands. The software for the election set-upand vote counting has been subject to anarchitectural and code review by an independentIrish software company which had access to thesource code. The application of the count rulesby the software has been further functionallytested by the Electoral Reform Society in theUK. The society confirmed recently that each of2,807 cases tested was successful.

According to the confidentiality aim, it shouldnot be possible to associate a vote with a voter,duplicate a vote or view the results before theclose of poll. There is no link between the markedregister of electors and voting on the votingmachine. Votes recorded on the voting machineare stored randomly in the ballot module. Thiswas tested by PTB, which stated in its report thateach of the votes stored in a module in the votingmachine could not be associated with particularvoters. The system’s software further randomisesthe votes at constituency level after all votes havebeen read into the system and before thecounting of votes commences.

The enfranchisement objective means eacheligible voter should be able to vote only once.Access to the voting machine will be strictlycontrolled by the polling station staff. Thenumber of people accessing the voting machinecan be audited at any time during the day bychecking the number of voters marked off theregister of electors, the number of permit ticketsissued and the number of voters who have usedthe machine.

When a voter presses the “cast vote” buttonand the vote is stored, the voting machineautomatically deactivates itself until the pollingstaff activate it for the next voter. Theseprocedures functioned perfectly when the systemwas used on two occasions in 2002.

Mr. Durkan: Was there a recount?

Mr. Cullen: The fourth aspect — availability —requires that the system must be operationalthroughout the voting period. The votingmachines will be available for use for the pollinghours appointed for the poll or polls in question.There will be a voting machine to replace everyballot box, with spare voting machines on standbyon the off chance that a machine develops a fault


[Mr. Cullen.]or for use at the busy period in buildings with alarge number of polling stations. Arrangementshave been made to provide battery power back-up in the event of a power failure.

Mr. Durkan: Will that be a dry battery like inthe old days? I hope the Minister has hisbatteries charged.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Durkan shouldallow the Minister to continue withoutinterruption.

Mr. Durkan: Do not forget that the smallsystem we have here failed to work on three orfour occasions.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Durkan willhave an opportunity to make a contribution.

Mr. Durkan: I will.

Mr. Cullen: There is no point in responding tothe nonsense emanating from the other side ofthe House.

Mr. Allen: Is the Minister saying that everyonewho disagrees with him is wrong?

Mr. Cullen: The verifiability objective providesthat the key functions should be able to beverified. The various test reports on the votingmachine and software confirm that the votingmachine and associated software are fit for thepurpose intended. If an independentinternationally accredited testing institutecertifies that a product or software is fit for theintended purpose, it is not unreasonable that suchcertification be accepted. This has occurred withthe system to be used in this country andelsewhere.

Some opponents now argue that this systemmust be validated by a paper trail. They are flyingin the face of international practice withelectronic voting. In common with electoralauthorities in a wide range of countries, myDepartment does not consider that the additionof a printed ballot paper to accompany theelectronically stored vote would improve theadministration of elections.

Mr. Durkan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Cullen: I will not.

Mr. Durkan: I am not surprised.

Mr. Cullen: Electoral authorities have thepractical responsibility of ensuring that conditionsare in place on national polling days to allowmillions of voters to exercise their franchisequickly and without problem. The authoritiesmust also ensure that the possibility ofbreakdowns and confusion are minimised.

The addition of a printed ballot paper to theelectronic voting and counting system wouldgreatly increase the risks to the smooth runningof elections.

Mr. Durkan: The Minister might get found out.

Mr. Cassidy: The Deputy will no longer be ableto claim that he knows who votes for him.

Mr. Durkan: The purpose of the exercise is tocloud the issue.

Mr. Cullen: I understand that similarconsiderations have dissuaded otheradministrations that use electronic votingmachines from adding on a paper ballot. Thelimited adoption and subsequent abandonment ofthis approach in Brazil and Belgium are theexceptions that prove the rule. The add-on of apaper ballot would restrict the optimumdeployment of an efficient electronic voting andcounting system.

Members must consider the practicalimplementation of such a process running intandem with an electronic voting system. Theidea that a paper receipting process can validatean electronic voting system is highly questionableand creates many practical difficulties. Itsintroduction could lead to confusion anddisruption in the practical conditions of anelection in a number of ways. First, it wouldcreate a dual system of vote storage and counting.This could encourage candidates, on a morewidespread basis than now, to seek a paperrecount of a poll in the hope of improving theirposition. A dual system would also enable everyvoter to put in question the accuracy and validityof his or her electronically cast vote. The facilityof re-checking a cast vote has never beenprovided to voters under the paper ballot system,even where a voter has second thoughts orrealises an unintended mistake in his or herpreferences.

Mr. Durkan: The ballot paper is always visible.

Mr. Cullen: Paper trail proponents offer noadvice on how the proposed right for every voterto question the electronically cast vote can, inpractical terms, be accommodated at busy pollingstations, or how presiding officers shouldadjudicate on claimed discrepancies between thepaper and electronically cast votes.

The paper trail notion is premised on theuninterrupted and proper functioning of a printerthroughout the 14 or 15 hour continuous periodof polling. The risk of printer interruption,including that of poor or unreadable print quality,is a real one and certainly higher than that ofmalfunction of an electronic storage system. Inan arrangement that demands parallel paper andelectronic storage systems, any failure ormalfunction of the paper storage system puts intoquestion the individual voting transaction.Difficulties with the printer function at a pilot


project in Waasghoot, Belgium, in May 2003caused this approach to be abandoned.Furthermore, supporters of a paper trail inIreland have provided no research evidence onthe interface of this system with users or voters.This would be a reasonable expectation given thepotential problems for users. By contrast, theDepartment’s customer survey of the proposedelectronic system shows that 87% of voterssurveyed after the 2002 general election preferredthe electronic system to the paper ballot.

It is worth noting that there is strong andserious opposition to the paper trail idea in theUnited States. The Help America Vote Actgroup, led by senior US lawmakers, has recentlyexpressed concern about the movement towardsthe provision of a voter-verified paper recordwhich it feels will undermine disability andlanguage minority access requirements and couldresult in more, rather than less, voterdisenfranchisement and error. According to thegroup, the mandating of a voter-verified paperrecord would: “take the most advancedgenerations of election technologies and systemsavailable and reduce them to little more thanballot printers ... and would likely give rise tonumerous adverse unintended consequences”.Moreover, the group maintains that the proposalfor a paper trail: “would do nothing to ensuregreater trust in vote tabulations but would beguaranteed to impose steep costs on states andlocalities and introduce new complications intothe voting process”.

In any event, the Nedap-Powervote systemincorporates an important form of audit trail. Ifthere is an election petition, the High Court, orCircuit Court in the case of a local election, canrequire the system to print a ballot paper for eachvote cast after the mixing of the ballot. This willenable a manual count to be conducted toconfirm that the count rules have been properlyapplied.

In introducing electronic voting, theGovernment is conscious of need to makecontinuous service improvements to theoperation of the system. For example, after thesuccessful pilots, modifications were made to thevoting machine to increase the visibility andlegibility of the preference display.

I am including in the Bill for the provision oftally information by returning officers followingthe holding of a poll. While tally information hasbeen provided in past elections, it was largelydone on an unofficial basis. The introduction ofthe electronic voting and counting system meansthat if tally information is to be made available,this must be provided for in electoral law. Thenew system also has the capacity to furnishelectoral patterns and more detailed informationwith 100% accuracy. Consequently, we mustensure that, in whatever manner such data aremade available, it does not violate or infringe thesecrecy of the ballot. This is a fundamentalconstitutional obligation that must be respected.

However, taking these considerations intoaccount, it is envisaged that specified percentagesof votes from an electoral unit, such as on anelectoral area basis or part thereof, could providevaluable information without revealing the voteof any individual elector. My Department isworking closely with the Office of the AttorneyGeneral to consider the options and to set out therequirements and conditions whereby suchinformation could be made available, whileprotecting the privacy of individual voters. Theprecise arrangements for the tally informationwill be set out in appropriate regulations undersection 29.

Just as with the old paper ballot system, theelectronic voting process is designed to facilitatethe voter to cast his or her vote in a secret andcompletely secure manner. Polling staff thatoperate the voting machine control unit are notpermitted to approach the voting machine toactivate or deactivate it. They can perform theirfunctions remotely using the control unit. Whenthe poll clerk activates the voting machine for avoter, the voter can record preferences for thosepolls on which he or she is eligible to vote. Oncethe voter has checked the preferences displayedon the panel of the voting machine, the voter canthen press the “cast vote” button, whereupon thevoting machine display and control unit willconfirm that the vote has been stored properlyand the machine will be deactivated by thepolling staff. If the voter wishes to recordpreferences on one or more of the ballot paperswhile leaving another poll blank, the votingmachine will enable that vote to be cast and willregister the blank ballot as a null vote. This givesvoters the option to not record preferences onone or more of the ballot papers but to registertheir vote on the others open to them.

Those who decide to go to a polling station butnot to vote may have their names marked off theregister of electors and be authorised to use thevoting machine. Where the person leaves thevoting machine without pressing the “Cast Vote”button, the polling station staff will de-activatethe voting machine before the next prospectivevoter uses the machine. This is done by use of akey on the control unit with no need tocommunicate with the person who has leftwithout voting or to approach the voting panelitself. The abstentionist voter is neither advisednor required to communicate in any manner withthe poll clerk if he or she does not wish to pressthe “Cast Vote” button. The voting machinerecords the number of such failures to press the“Cast Vote” button and this will be published aspart of the election statistics.

I intend that the provisions of the Bill, and ofaccompanying guidelines to be made under it,will make these arrangements clear and thatreasonable provision will be made to ensure theprivacy of all persons using electronic voting,including those who come to the voting machinebut do not exercise their vote. Having said this, Ibelieve, as I am sure do all members of this


[Mr. Cullen.]House, that voting at free elections should ideallybe seen as both a right and a duty of Irish citizens.

I now turn to some of the detailed provisionsof the Bill. Part 1 contains a number of generalprovisions. Section 2 provides for offencesconcerning unlawful interference or damage tovoting machines and other related equipmentincluding software used for the voting systemequipment, while section 3 provides for therepeal of section 48 of the Electoral(Amendment) Act 2001, which will be replacedby Part 2 of the Bill and Schedules 1 to 4.

Part 2 and Schedules 1 to 4 of the Bill enablethe use of voting machines and electronic votecounting at statutory European Parliament, localand presidential elections as well as atreferendums. The text is generally the same asthat provided for in Part 3 of the 2001 Act whichdeals with Dail elections but is adapted asnecessary for the other three types of electionsand referendums.

Under section 5(1) electronic voting may onlybe undertaken on voting system equipmentapproved for such purpose by ministerial orderunder Part 3 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act2001. In addition, the Minister must decidewhether to make a further ministerial orderunder section 5(3) of the Bill, based onconsiderations of public interest, so as todesignate particular constituencies or allconstituencies for electronic voting at an electionor referendum.

Section 5 also provides that the Minister mayissue instructions to ensure the smooth andefficient introduction of voting machines and votecounting and uniformity of procedures under thispart. This is normal and has always been theposition. Sections 6 and 7 provide for themodification of certain provisions of thePresidential Elections Act 1993, Referendum Act1994, European Parliament Elections Act 1997and Local Elections Regulations 1995 to enablevoting on voting machines and electronic votecounting at the elections and referendumsconcerned.

Part 3 provides for the establishment on astatutory basis of the Commission on ElectronicVoting to consider the secrecy and accuracy ofuse of the system for the elections in June 2004and to make recommendations in that regard,including the application or not — as everybodywants and with which I have no difficulty — ofthe system.

Section 17 provides for the continuation of theindependent Commission on Electronic Votingconstituted by the Government prior to the Billand for the continuation in office of its chairmanand other members. Section 18 providesspecifically that the commission is independent inthe performance of its functions under the Bill.The terms of reference given to the commissionare set out in Schedule 5. These envisage a firstreport from the commission to the Ceann

Comhairle by 1 May 2004 together with asubsequent report or reports.

Section 19 sets out the membership of thecommission. The members comprise a judge ofthe High Court, who is chairperson, the Clerk ofthe Dail, the Clerk of the Seanad and two otherpersons with knowledge or experience in the fieldof information technology. Sections 20 to 28provide for the usual different functional aspectsof the commission relating to such matters asexpenses, staffing, submissions, vacancies etc. asoutlined in the explanatory memorandum. Undersection 22 the commission will present its reportsto the Ceann Comhairle who will have them laidbefore both Houses.

Part 4 has four sections providing for somemiscellaneous matters. Section 29 provides thatthe Minister may by regulations provide for theprovision by the presiding officer of election andreferendum information after the conclusion of acount, provided such information shall notendanger the secrecy of the ballot. This is theprovision designed to authorise release of dataanalogous to the former tallyman system.

Section 30 provides for consequentialamendments dealing with the form of ballotpaper at a Dail election for use on the votingmachine. Section 31 makes textual amendmentsto the personation section of the Electoral Act1992 when voting machines are used. Arisingfrom concerns, I will also be introducing anamendment on Committee Stage to provide thatit will be an offence to make improper use ofpolling information cards.

Section 32 provides for the repeal consequentto the Supreme Court decision in the Kelly caseof part of paragraph 2(a) of the Schedule to theElectoral Act 1997, which deals with the use ofproperty, services or facilities paid for out ofpublic funds at a presidential election, which wereexempt election expenses.

Section 33 provides for an amendment tosection 61 of the Local Government Act 2001 toenable an order to be made continuing in forcearrangements whereby certain local authoritystaff may become councillors and are notrendered ineligible for local elections in Junenext.

Nobody can doubt that the Opposition has aresponsibility in seeking to illuminate aspects ofpublic policy according to its own judgment.Some of the debate on this matter has been useful— much has been inaccurate, sometimes wilfullyso. I have no doubt that at certain times in recentdebates, Fine Gael spokespeople genuinely havenot known what they were talking about.

Mr. Durkan: That is something with which theMinister is familiar.

Mr. Cullen: This will not have been the firsttime Fine Gael have looked through the wrongend of the telescope, nor I suspect will it be thelast. The public, and indeed Fine Gael’s own


supporters, deserve a lot better — I suspect theyknow that already.

The move to electronic voting and countingdemonstrates a progressive and modern Ireland.

Mr. Durkan: Sneering becomes the Minister.

Mr. Cullen: Increasingly, people use electronicmeans for conducting their lives and electronicinterfaces between Government and citizen arebecoming more commonplace. In this regard I amdelighted that the on-line system for payment ofmotor tax is working so well. Change is part ofthe human condition and change in the way wevote is an inevitable part of our ever-changingworld. The majority of Irish people understandand react well to change. In a different context,the smooth introduction of the euro was a recentpositive experience. The electronic votingexperience in Ireland to date has been a good oneand I am confident that voters in the Europeanand local elections will perceive it so on 11 Junenext.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Allen: I again call on the Minister toformally declare his conflict of interest in the Bill.While he is promoting the Bill, he is also doublingup as director of elections for Fianna Fail.

Mr. Cassidy: The older the Deputy gets themore confused he becomes.

Mr. Allen: The Deputy should keep his hair on.

Mr. Durkan: The Deputy should notencourage comment.

Mr. Allen: The Fine Gael Party knows whereI stand on this issue. However, the ProgressiveDemocrats Members did not know where theMinister stood when he did a “Judas” on itsmembers. The Minister should not lecture meabout Fine Gael members — at least they knowwhere their representatives stand.

I have witnessed numerous elections in thedemocratic world, including those in CentralAmerican countries such as Nicaragua and ElSalvador. Despite reservations from manysources about the legitimacy of those elections,with colleagues from other parties, I was able tocertify that their elections, particularly the one inNicaragua, were legitimate and valid in the 1980s.Unfortunately, if the proposed electronic votingsystem is introduced in Ireland next June for thelocal and European elections and I am asked howlegitimate and above board the elections were, Iwill be unable to give the same response which Igave about the Nicaraguan elections. There willbe no proof, whatsoever. The Minister can sneerin his arrogant way.

Mr. Ring: He is laughing at the people.

Mr. Kehoe: That is why they threw the Ministerout of the Progressive Democrats Party.

Mr. Cullen: Nicaragua — is that the best theDeputy can do?

Acting Chairman (Dr. Cowley): Deputy Allenhas the floor and the Minister should allow himto continue.

Mr. Ring: The Minister wants to be dictatorCullen and for nobody apart from him to havea say.

Acting Chairman: Deputy Ring does not havethe floor, Deputy Allen does.

Mr. Allen: I will be unable to give the sameresponse I gave in respect of the Nicaraguanelections because there will be no proof that theintentions have been correctly registered by thevoting machines. I will not be able to say fordefinite that the wishes of the electorate havebeen registered as votes by the technology withinthe system because of the absence of a verifiablepaper audit trail and the lack of information onthe source code.

This proposed system, which was arrogantlypresented by the Minister and which has beenjack-booted through the House, is offensive toour democracy. It does not have the trust of thepeople and does not have the transparency tobegin to earn that trust. The Minister is like achild with a new toy that he does not want togive up. He behaved like a child this morning byengaging in name calling. Ireland is one of themost advanced countries in the world and,therefore, we should have the best availabletechnology, not a system without proper backup.

Irish experts have disagreed with the Bill’sintroduction without a verifiable paper audit trail.

Mr. Cullen: Not one of whom is accredited.

Mr. Allen: The Minister was unable to answerthe major questions under 41 headings.

Mr. Durkan: The Minister protests too much.What is wrong with him? Why does he not listen?

Mr. Cullen: I know a ready-up when I see one.

Mr. Durkan: The Minister knows everything.That is his problem.

Mr. Allen: The Progressive Democrats couldnot trust the Minister and we do not trust him.

Mr. McGinley: The committee could not trusthim.

Mr. Allen: The Minister is introducing thelegislation without listening to independentexperts. My primary concern is that the Bill isoffensive to Irish democracy and to thedemocratic principles of trust and transparency.

I wish to make the following key points: theextension of electronic voting to the local andEuropean elections should be suspended until a


[Mr. Allen.]statutory independent electoral commission hasbeen established and has addressed all thelegitimate concerns of political parties and thepublic on this issue; there must be widespreadtrust in any electoral system applied because it isclear the current controversy has lead to asituation where such public trust does not exist;there is serious concern about the lack of a voterverifiable paper audit trail as part of theelectronic voting process in order to be able toconfirm the accuracy required of a countingsystem; there is serious concern that the sourcecode of the Powervote-Nedap system is in privatecommercial hands; and many technical concernsraised by independent experts have not beenadequately dealt with.

The supervision of elections, and in particularthe introduction of electronic voting on anationwide basis, should be the responsibility ofa statutory independent electoral commission andit should not rest with those appointed by theMinister. At present, a number of bodies have aninput into elections and referenda. I refer here tothe Referendum Commission, the ConstituencyCommission, the Standards in Public OfficeCommission and the Department of theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government.My party believes that the time has come to unifythese functions into a single electoral commissionwhich can act in a way that is clearly independentof any political influence.

I wish to deal with the matter of trust, on whichthe Minister is not strong. Trust in the electoralprocess is vital. It is clear from a number ofopinion surveys carried out in recent months thatthere is a serious lack of trust in the proposedelectronic voting system. The Minister may statein simplistic terms that there is 80% approval butthat is utter and total rubbish. There is approvalfor the mechanical process of the voting but thereis no trust in what is happening with themechanism and the technology involved. TheMinister should not give us those falsified figures.

Mr. Cassidy: The electronic voting system wasnot lucky for the Deputy’s party in Dublin North.

Mr. Allen: The root of the mistrust to which Irefer relates directly to concerns about thesecrecy and accuracy of the electronic votingsystem and, therefore, trust must be central to thecommission’s work.

The key concern about the system, which isshared by many people, is the lack of a verifiablepaper audit trail. The Minister, again in asimplistic manner, dealt with that in his speech.This is an issue which many independenttechnical experts have highlighted and no doubtthe commission will receive submissions fromthose experts on the technical feasibility ofproviding such a trail. It is Fine Gael’s view thatthe absence of a verifiable audit trail is central topublic mistrust of the proposed system. Trust inelectronic transactions is rooted in the user

having access to a mechanism of checking that thetransaction was carried out in accordance with hisor her wishes. This means that when voters casttheir votes on voting machines, a permanentpaper record of their votes should be made. Thiscould then be checked by voters before theelectronic record is made of the vote.

In addition to giving confidence to voters, thispaper record could also be retained and used ina number of randomly-selected constituencies ateach election to audit the accuracy of theelectronically-prepared result, as well as any caseswhere a result is in dispute. It is, however,disturbing that the issue of an adequate audit trailprocess was raised as early at March 2002 inparagraph 4.1 of the Zerflow report, which theMinister suppressed until the Oppositiondemanded its publication and which was carriedout on behalf of the Department of theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government.

I am concerned that there should be publicownership of the rules for conducting theelectoral process. Currently the source code forthe voting system is in private commercialownership. This is an unacceptable position andshould be resolved before any election using thesystem is held.

I have in my possession the uneditedtranscripts of meetings of the Joint Committee onthe Environment and Local Government thatwere held on 10 and 18 December. Theseshameful documents make for difficult readingbecause what went on was similar to what theNazis did in Germany. Jack-boot tactics wereused to vote through a system against the expresswishes of those who had questions about it. Thecommittee heard from a number of externalexperts who raised serious concerns about thePowervote-Nedap system. It is clear from thetranscripts that these debates did not reach asatisfactory conclusion and that a premature endwas put to them. In my opinion, the commissionmight well review the transcripts of these debatesand explore many of the technical issues whichwere raised therein. I do not understand how thecommission, particularly in view of its narrowterms of reference, will be able to examine allthese issues and make credible responses inrespect of them by 1 May.

Since this issue has become controversial, FineGael has received numerous representations fromindividuals in the technology sector expressingtheir concerns. We have requested each of theseindividuals to make a submission directly to thecommission and we know that a number havealready done so.

Many of the technical issues which will comebefore the commission are beyond theunderstanding and knowledge of members of thepublic, politicians and, possibly, members of thecommission itself. It is, however, essential thatthese concerns be addressed and that sufficienttime and deliberation be given to this process.Fine Gael believes that the commission, if it hasserious concerns about the public perception of


the accuracy and secrecy of the proposed system,should be in a position to recommend that theextension of the system to the local and Europeanelections in June should be suspended pendingfurther consideration. The request to thecommission to provide a report by 1 May shouldnot preclude it from seeking further time for itsdeliberations if that is considered necessary.

The Bill before us may appear to be justtechnical in nature and of little significance. Thetruth is, however, that it is part of an effort by theMinister, Deputy Cullen, and the Government topush through his electronic voting system. I say“his” because he has point blank refused tocountenance any alternative system being used.His only response to anyone with a valid questioncomes in the form of personalised abuse. Thisfrom a Minister who failed to attend beforecommittees and answer questions and who senthis Ministers of State to do his dirty work. TheMinister took the easy option of giving softinterviews on television and radio and would notpartake in the democratic system in the Houses.That is arrogance of the worst type. I have beena Member of this House since 1981. I regret tosay I have not witnessed such arrogance from aMinister, with one exception, and that man hassince been discredited.

Mr. Kehoe: Hear, hear.

Mr. Allen: I say this because the Minister hasrefused to countenance the use of any alternativesystem. His directive to the Fianna Fail membersof the Committee on the Environment and LocalGovernment meant a premature vote was calledon the suitability of this electronic system. Manyquestions remain unanswered, yet the Ministerfor the Environment, Heritage and LocalGovernment, Deputy Cullen, has his owntimetable to work to. He wanted to commit thenecessary money in December before anyimpediment could be put in his way. He jack-booted the decision through on 18 December andthe contract was signed within 24 to 48 hours.That contract, committing taxpayers’ money formany machines already in the country, was signedand the committee was forced to terminate itsdeliberations by weight of numbers.

We were once told by former Minister of State,Deputy Molloy, that a commitment on theintroduction of electronic voting would havecross-party support. That commitment has beengrossly dishonoured by a Minister of thisGovernment. In a democracy, a person’s vote isof paramount importance and one’s ability toexercise one’s vote freely and fairly is vital to thehealth of that democracy. What is at issue here ispublic trust in our election system. TheGovernment has reneged on its commitment tocross-party consultation and support and hasmisled the people in terms of the new systemsaving money when it will cost a great deal moreas further information on costings becomesavailable.

The uncontrolled spending of money in thismanner is a scandal when one considers the cutsin widows’ benefits, a matter recently discussedin this House. The cost is estimated at \45 millionupwards. Storage of the machines in Waterford,the Minister’s constituency, will cost \50,000. Iobtained the contract under the Freedom ofInformation Act and noted that the figure\25,000 had been crossed out and replaced inhandwriting with a figure of \50,000. Is there astory behind that?

Mr. Kehoe: They are probably in a garagesomewhere.

Mr. McGinley: They will not be too safe there.

Mr. Cullen: The matter of storage has nothingto do with me. I do not know who is involved.

Mr. Durkan: Is the Minister saying he does notknow about it?

Mr. Allen: The Minister should know about it.

Mr. Gilmore: The Minister is in charge.

Mr. Ring: The Minister should know about it.It is costing \50,000.

Mr. Durkan: The Minister is supposed to bein charge.

Mr. McGinley: Who owns the warehouse?

Mr. Durkan: The Minister should watch out.There are gremlins about trying to catch him. Heshould be careful.

Acting Chairman: Allow Deputy Allencontinue without interruption, please.

Mr. Allen: The Minister does not know what ishappening in his constituency. If he is trying totell us he has trust in an electronic voting system,God help us.

Mr. Cullen: The people concerned areappointed by the Department.

Mr. Allen: Are there no regulations on thestorage of the machines?

Mr. Cullen: No.

Mr. Allen: Is the Minister saying there are noregulations in that regard?

Mr. Durkan: The machines may already becontaminated.

Mr. McGinley: God knows what is going ondown in Waterford.

Acting Chairman: Allow Deputy Allen speakwithout interruption, please.


Mr. Allen: The Government promised to dealwith the issue of spoilt votes. The Minister statedthat people can spoil their votes but only bybreaking their anonymity. I have noted what theMinister said earlier but do not understand it.The presiding officer will know if a person spoilshis or her vote. Votes spoiled during the trial ofthe system in the constituencies concerned werenot announced so as to maintain the image ofelectronic voting as being perfect. Initially, wewere told there had been no spoiled votes and,later, we were told only a small percentage hadbeen spoiled. It is the issue of perfection on whichwe need to focus. The Government has impliedthe system of electronic voting is perfect; that ithas been so well tested and developed it isbeyond reproach and does not require a voter-verified paper audit trail because the software isperfect. There are few things in life that areperfect and this electronic voting system is notone of them.

The testing procedures have not been up tostandard. Independent companies were asked totest very specific aspects of the components of thesystem but no one did extensive independenttesting of the entire system from vote casting tovote counting. Testing of the system was done anumber of years ago and, we were recently toldin committee, it is still being worked on for theJune elections. There will be no extensiveindependent testing of the completed systembefore the June elections. If such testing hastaken place, it was not independent because wewere not consulted on it.

Computers are programmed by people andpeople make mistakes and so, computers can alsocontain mistakes. Computers have back-upsystems in regard to important transactions orbusiness. Whether such transactions or businesscome in the form of receipts or balancestatements, there are ways of verifying they havebeen carried out in accordance with the person’swishes. Aircraft contain back-up systems so that,if things go wrong with one system, it can switchto another. We are expected to believe that thehard learned lessons in other areas of computingare irrelevant in this case. I submit that they arevery relevant. The Minister can bluster all hewants about modernising and internationalembarrassment but, when it comes to ourdemocracy, a vindication of the voters’ intentionsis infinitely more important than theGovernment’s latest gimmick. This electronicvoting system, which is second rate andfundamentally flawed, is probablyunconstitutional.

Electronic voting is a good idea but this systemhas been badly thought through and publicconfidence has been badly shaken by aGovernment unwilling to listen to anyone but itsown so-called experts. The Government hascalled the introduction of this system a stepforward, a point reiterated by the Minister. Isubmit that it is a retrograde step based oninsufficient knowledge on the use of technology.

The Minister has a new toy and thought everyonewould like it. They do not. The Irish ComputerSociety said: “Any electronic voting system mustinclude a paper-based voter-verified audit trail.”The Minister in his arrogance recently said thesepeople were cranks and Luddites

Mr. Durkan: Are they cranks?

Mr. Cullen: They are linked to the anti-globalisation movement. The Deputy shouldcheck them out. They are all the same.

Mr. Allen: It is all a——

Mr. Cullen: If Fine Gael bases its policies onsuch people, it is no wonder it is in decline.

Mr. Durkan: The people concerned arecomputer experts.

Mr. Allen: We do not know what the Minister’spolicies are and where he stands on any matter.

Mr. Kehoe: The Minister should know moreabout policy having been a member of more thanone party.

Mr. Allen: Irish technology experts have toldthe Government its system must include a paper-based voter-verified audit trail.

Mr. Cullen: They are not experts in this field.

Mr. Allen: The Minister has made a seriousallegation about genuine people——

Mr. Cullen: They are not accredited toanything. They have no expertise orinternational accreditation.

(Interruptions).

Mr. Ring: Fianna Fail are experts oneverything. They have filled every tribunal inthe country.

Mr. Allen: The Minister has come to thisHouse and——

Acting Chairman: Deputy Allen should directhis comments through the Chair.

Mr. Allen: The Chair should ask the Ministerto cease interrupting.

Mr. Cullen: Such comments are pathetic. It isno wonder Fine Gael is in such a disorderly state.

Mr. Ring: Fianna Fail are the experts.

Acting Chairman: I remind Members that thisis not a Committee Stage debate. We are dealingwith Second Stage and I ask Deputies to allowDeputy Allen to continue without interruption,please.


Mr. Allen: The Minister has vilified people whocannot protect themselves.

Mr. Durkan: Outside the House.

Mr. Allen: The Minister should withdraw theallegation against——

Mr. Cullen: I have not vilified them. I said theyare not accredited——

Mr. Allen: The Minister said they are linked tothe anti-globalisation movement and suggestedwe should check them out.

Mr. Cullen: Yes, they are.

Acting Chairman: Deputy Allen, pleasecontinue.

Mr. Allen: The Minister should withdraw thatallegation against people who cannot protectthemselves.

Mr. Cullen: I will not.

Acting Chairman: Deputy Allen, pleasecontinue.

Mr. Durkan: The Minister has cast aspersionson people outside this House. In accordance withStanding Orders——

Mr. Cullen: I think they are proud of theirlinks.

Mr. Durkan: On a point of order, the makingof such an allegation is not in accordance withthe Standing Orders of this House. Perhaps theMinister would like to comment.

Acting Chairman: The Chair has ruled on thatmatter.

Mr. Durkan: With respect, the Chair has noauthority to rule on this matter. Standing Ordersapply.

Acting Chairman: That Chair has ruled on thematter.

Mr. Durkan: No, I am sorry, I do not agree. Ona point of order, the Minister has castaspersions——

Mr. Cullen: I paid them a compliment.

Mr. Durkan: The Minister has cast aspersionson people outside this House.

Mr. Cullen: They will regard my remarks as acompliment, a badge of honour.

Mr. Durkan: Perhaps the Minister will repeatthe compliment.

Acting Chairman: Deputy Durkan, theMinister has not cast aspersions on an individual.Deputy Allen, please continue.

Mr. Allen: I will continue but I believe theMinister has sunk to a new low. Anybody whodoes not agree with his policies or party arecranks, anti-social and anti-everything. That is theMinister’s standard.

Irish technology experts have told theGovernment its system must include a paperaudit trail but the Government will not listen tothem, nor will it listen to public opinion andcertainly not to Opposition spokespersons.Surely, the Government knows by now that thissystem cannot proceed. It will have to beconvinced that our democracy is worth more tous than this system.

A paper audit trail will solve many of theproblems of trust and suitability inherent in thedesign of this system. A person will be able topress his-her buttons of preference, view a print-out of it behind a perspex window, verify it is thevote he-she wishes to cast and watch itmechanically dropped into a sealed ballot box.

The Minister said today that there had been apilot project in Belgium that did not work out.That is the first that we have heard of that.

Mr. Cullen: The Brazilians abandoned it.

Mr. Allen: Why did they try?

Acting Chairman: Deputy Allen shouldaddress his remarks through the Chair.

Mr. Allen: I am doing so, but the Minister isinterrupting.

Acting Chairman: The Minister should notinterrupt. Deputy Allen should continue.

Mr. Allen: Such a system would solve issues oftransparency and accuracy, as well as making itas secure from tampering as our present system,with all the bonuses of electronic voting in savingtime and eliminating spoilt votes.

Mr. Cullen: That is what I proposed to theDeputy this morning.

Acting Chairman: Please allow the Deputy.

Mr. Allen: The Minister has his own systemand does not want to hear suggestions.

Mr. Cullen: Which is the valid vote?

Mr. Allen: The Minister refused to give way toDeputy Durkan, yet he keeps interrupting menow.

Acting Chairman: The Minister should allowthe Deputy.


Mr. Cullen: He asked me a question, but hedoes not want the answer.

Mr. Durkan: The Minister likes the sound ofhis own voice.

Mr. Allen: He has set up a Commission onElectronic Voting, but I regret that it ishamstrung with incredibly narrow terms ofreference before June’s elections. He ensuredthat Ms Emily O’Reilly, the Ombudsman, whohad raised concerns, was not involved as wouldtraditionally have been the case.

Mr. Durkan: I wonder why.

Mr. Allen: The Minister does not want to hearcriticism or alternatives. He is trying to stage-manage the issue of electronic voting in themedia, and it is no coincidence that he waited tointroduce this Bill until this week, when thesmoking ban is being implemented.

Mr. Durkan: Another smoke screen

Mr. Allen: There was a point in this debatewhen I genuinely thought the ProgressiveDemocrats were listening with an open mind toconcerns on electronic voting. The Tanaiste wason record as having such concerns. Alas,however, they have been brought to heel byFianna Fail and have embraced this flawedsystem. “Single Party Government — NoThanks” was the slogan which now rings sohollow. This country is not a Fianna Fail fiefdom,and the Minister cannot dictate to the people orto experts in opposition parties with reservationsabout the system that we must accept it becauseFianna Fail and the Progressive Democrats havedecided to push it through and the latter havebeen unwilling to keep certain standards. That isprecisely what is happening. As we saw again thismorning on the Order of Business, the Tanaistedoes not want to be a watchdog in Government,and the result is a system that cannot berecommended as trustworthy.

At a time when this Government is beingpilloried from all sides about broken promisesand accusations of misleading the public, itshould make an extra effort to reach out topeople and be willing to close the trust gap.Instead we have a ministerial diktat and closed-down debate, whether at committee or in thisChamber. This is another case of the Governmenttaking the people for granted. The governmentdoes not care about what the people of Irelandsay about their concerns regarding this electronicvoting system. The Government would soonertake us down a foolish and dangerous road thanlose face. That is arrogance, pure and simple.

People listening to or reading about this debatecannot now make a submission to the commissionuntil after they have decided on whether to useelectronic voting on June 11. The commission isnot there to allay people’s fears. It existsexpressly to pass judgment on just two narrow

issues regarding the proposed electronic votingsystem. The very highly esteemed members of thecommission should not be hamstrung by theMinister’s terms of reference. There will be noreport before June on the suitability of thissystem, and that is the key question. Is this systemsuitable, is it the best available, and is the trustbuilt up in the current system worth less than thebenefits of the proposed system? With the rightsystem, electronic voting will become theaccepted norm here, but I demand that theMinister’s system be thrown out. It represents \45million wasted by a Government whose sole aimis to retain power. It is a pity that it did not usethe money to pay for the widows’ entitlementsinstead.

The money was wasted when the Committeeon the Environment, Heritage and LocalGovernment foolishly voted to endorse theproposed system in the face of fundamentalexpert criticism. It was a political decision not inthe best interest of the people of Ireland but inthat of Fianna Fail saving face. Our losses shouldbe cut, and the Government should stop digginga hole for itself. We must restore publicconfidence and set up a fully independentelectoral commission, letting it start with a cleanslate.

The Commission on Electronic voting shouldimmediately be transformed into an electoralcommission, its membership increased, and itsterms of reference changed to examine methodsfor the casting, recording and counting of votes.Fine Gael also believes the source code of anyelectronic voting system should be in publicownership. Fine Gael opposes the roll-out of thissystem and is opposed also to the manner inwhich it has been railroaded through in recentmonths.

How much time do we have left?

Acting Chairman: The Deputy has two minutesand 22 seconds.

Mr. Allen: Such is the unsatisfactory nature ofthis debate. We are subject to time constraints,and I have not even dealt with the sections of theBill yet.

This Bill effects two principal objects. Itprovides a statutory basis for the introduction ofelectronic voting and replaces the temporaryelectronic voting commission with a statutoryone. It also allows for the provision of tallyinformation and remedies, matters raised in theDes Kelly case regarding electoral expenses. In abriefing note to the Whips, the Governmentclaimed that the need for the Bill arose from therecent Carrickmines case, which cast doubt on theuse of orders to amend primary legislation, andthat the new provisions were intended to avoidany doubt. That is a gross under statement. TheGovernment is trying to play down the gravity ofits error, first in enacting section 48 of theElectoral (Amendment) Act 2001, and second byproceeding to make other orders pursuant to that


section. Section 3 now repeals section 48 of theElectoral (Amendment) Act 2001 and, despiteassurances from the Tanaiste and the Minister ofState, Deputy Gallagher, that electronic votingwould be introduced by order and that suchorders were constitutionally sound, theGovernment is now acknowledging the positionthat Fine Gael has been arguing for some time,namely, that section 48 and any orders madeunder it are clearly unconstitutional.

The introduction of electronic voting is notconditional on the Commission on ElectronicVoting being satisfied with the system. Nor is itconditional upon the Government implementingthe reports of the commission. That begs thequestion of what real purpose the commissionserves. Most importantly, from our point of view,the introduction of electronic voting is notconditional on the agreement of all parties in theHouses. The Minister for Justice, Equality andLaw Reform recently feigned all-partyconsultation on the proposed referendum oncitizenship, yet the proposal to change the waythat we vote fundamentally does not appear tomerit all-party consultation or agreement. As anaside, it is interesting to note that the penaltyprovided for in subsection 2(2) is \3,500. That isthe first time I have seen a summary penalty ofthat level. It would be interesting to see if thismarks the beginning of a departure from the oldstandard of \3,000. I question the \3,500 penalty.Is that the price we put on preserving theintegrity of the system?

This Bill seeks to introduce a completely newregime and system into electoral events in theState. It is clear it does not sit comfortably in theexisting legislative framework, which consists offrequent references to ballot boxes, voting papersand so on. What a conflict, and what shoddydraftsmanship, that represents. This Bill’sinconsistency with the present regime is such that,in subsections 5(1) and 5(2), the Government haseffectively had to override large portions ofexisting electoral legislation to allow electronicvoting to be used in presidential, European andlocal elections as well as referenda. The samemay be said of sections 6 and 31. That pointserves to highlight the fact that, if theGovernment is going to introduce a reform asradical as electronic voting, the electoral lawsmust be revised and restated.

1 o’clock

Subsection 5(3) allows the Minister todesignate constituencies and electoral areas inwhich electronic voting may be used. I know the

Labour Party has expressedreservations at that provision. Itseems that, from June, electronic

voting will be used in every election andreferendum in every constituency. In practice,that section means that, before the Europeanelections, the Minister will make an orderdesignating the constituencies in which electronicvoting will be used — presumably everyconstituency. If, as seems to be the case,electronic voting is to be used throughout the

country from June, it raises the question of whythe discretion to use it remains with the Minister.In other words, if electronic voting is to becomea continuous feature, why is its use on apermanent basis not set down in the Bill? Whatsignificance lies in the Minister holding thispower? Assuming the power will be exercised ingood faith, there does not appear to be anythingparticularly sinister about it.

Whether it is appropriate for a Minister to becharged with the running of elections issomething I touched on earlier. If the issue wasapproached in a proper manner as in any opendemocracy, these issues would have been suitablyaddressed in consultations with experts and allparties. However, the Minister has made anunbelievable mess of it. I regret that I have toconclude on an issue that affects the fundamentalprinciples of this democracy. There are issues thatstill need to be raised, which would take meanother half an hour.

Acting Chairman: I do not make the rules ofthe House. The Deputy got three minutes extra.

Mr. Allen: I thank the Acting Chairman forthat. I appreciate he is working under imposedrules.

Mr. Gilmore: I have spoken on a number ofoccasions about the issue of electronic voting andcontributed to the discussions at the JointCommittee on the Environment and LocalGovernment in this regard. I have onefundamental question about the introduction ofelectronic voting in this country. Why is FiannaFail so determined to bring in electronic voting?Why is the Minister for the Environment,Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen,almost obsessed with implementing electronicvoting at the local and European elections on 11June? Why has electronic voting become such atop priority for this Government? Why is thisweek’s entire Dail business given over to this Billon electronic voting, ahead of issues, for example,such as the disability Bill, the Bill to reform andmodernise the Garda Sıochana, overduelegislation on criminal justice, employmentpermits, motor insurance, health and safety atwork, etc. A total of 150 Bills have been promisedat some stage or other to deal with the realconcerns of the people who sent us here and theyhave all taken a back seat to this Bill onelectronic voting.

Why is electronic voting the top priority for theMinister for the Environment, Heritage andLocal Government, claiming two successive daysthis week of scarce Dail time and jumping aheadof Report Stage of the Residential Tenancies Billfor which 150,000 tenants in this country havebeen waiting for nearly four years? It may, ofcourse, be that giving legal rights to tenants is nolonger a priority for this landlords’ Government,which is more interested in supporting propertyinvestors than in meeting the housing needs of


[Mr. Gilmore.]the poor. Why has the electronic voting Billassumed such urgency that it has upstaged thepromised legislation to allow for the completionof the M50 at Carrickmines, the delay on whichis reputedly costing the taxpayer \250,000 perweek and for which the Minister promisedemergency legislation? Why is legislation tochange the way people vote — the Government’stop legislative priority today — being broughtforward before the strategic infrastructure Billwhich the Taoiseach told Fianna Fail lastSeptember was urgently needed to fast-track thenational infrastructure needed to underpin thecountry’s economic well-being?

Why is the Minister giving so much of his timeand effort to changing what happens in thepolling stations when he could be tackling theway we deal with illegal dumping, poor waterquality and the housing crisis? What hashappened, for example, to the Water Services Billwe need to comply with EU law on theenvironment, which was published last Decemberbut has not yet got an airing in this House? Whyhas that legislation, which will affect everyhousehold in the country, been moved out of theway for the electronic voting Bill? Why, of all thereforms need to our electoral law, is prioritybeing given to electronic voting? What hashappened to the promised legislation on the fullimplications of the Kelly judgment? Would wenot be better off considering how to improve thedilapidated state of the electoral register?

Why, at a time when most people cannot evenpost a letter or get it delivered, is thisGovernment insisting that the most pressingbusiness for the national Parliament is to changethe way elections are conducted so that electronicvoting may be put in place on 11 June? Why isthe Government unilaterally forcing theimplementation of electronic voting when it hadinitially promised to implement it by agreement?The Labour Party opposed the Electoral Act2001 which permits the introduction of electronicvoting. I am on record as criticising that Bill onSecond Stage, proposing amendments to it onCommittee Stage and urging a cautious approachto any switch to electronic voting. The thenMinister of State at the Department of theEnvironment and Local Government, formerDeputy Bobby Molloy, assured both Houseswhen the Bill was being debated that electronicvoting would only be implemented by agreementwith the political parties. I was surprised,therefore, that the Government decided,following the trials at the 2002 general electionand the second Nice referendum, to switch overtotally to electronic voting for all elections and inall constituencies. That decision was made by theGovernment without discussion or consultationwith Opposition parties. I was even moresurprised that when last autumn, the LabourParty, Fine Gael and the Green Party expressedserious concerns about the plans for electronicvoting, they were ignored. Was I naive in

believing that in our democracy the sittingGovernment would not use its parliamentarymajority to force changes in the way elections areconducted, in the face of unanimous oppositionfrom all the other parties?

When electronic voting was being consideredby the Joint Committee on the Environment andLocal Government, last November andDecember, I genuinely expected the Governmentto step back from its implementation in June andallow time for a consensus to develop on theintroduction of electronic voting, for technicalissues to be addressed and for the confidence ofthe public to be assured. I was astonished whenon 18 December last, the Government partiesused their numerical majority on the committeeto force a vote to approve electronic votingbefore it had completed its consideration of theissue. I was alarmed to discover that on the dayafter that vote, the contractual arrangementswere completed with the private companiessupplying the hardware and software.

When the Government responded to theOpposition motion in February by announcingthe appointment of a commission and byconceding that new primary legislation would benecessary, I again believed that the opportunitywould be taken to slow down the introduction ofelectronic voting. By then it had become clearthere was no public demand for electronic votingand that indeed there was considerableopposition to its introduction. A growing body ofexpert opinion warns of its dangers. TheOpposition parties are distinctly uneasy at theGovernment’s approach and at the very least thisfundamental change in our voting system shouldnot be undertaken within such a short timeframe.I have again been surprised that contrary to alladministrative and political logic, theGovernment intends to determinedly switch thiscountry over to electronic voting on 11 Junewhether the Opposition likes it or not.

What is all this about? What is behind theGovernment’s single-minded drive to introduceelectronic voting? I do not accept it is all downto the Minister’s ego. It is tempting to imaginethe Minister, as my party leader put it, as aNapoleonic figure throwing a tantrum on hisreturn from the Far East and insisting that he getshis own way. However, the Minister is not likethat and he is hardly so desperate as to stake hispolitical reputation on a project which was nothis own idea in the first place. In any event, suchdelusions would hardly be indulged by theGovernment as a whole to the extent of handingover valuable Dail time for it if the Governmentitself were not fully committed to it. It could bedown to arrogance. This Fianna Fail-ProgressiveDemocrats Government has been in office for solong that it thinks it owns the country.

Mr. Allen: Exactly.

Mr. Gilmore: The Government thinks that italone can change the way in which people cast


their votes, no matter what the Opposition thinks.If this Bill is indeed the product of Governmentarrogance, then it is the Government, not theelectoral process, which needs to be changed. Thequestion remains, why is Fianna Fail so desperateto change the way in which people cast theirvotes?

There is one other country where the rulingparty has become obsessed with the sameobjective of introducing electronic votinguniversally, and that is the United States ofAmerica, where President Bush’s RepublicanParty shares Fianna Fail’s passion for electronicvoting. The experience of the United States isilluminating. I accept that the systems beingintroduced in various states differ from thesystem being introduced in Ireland, but there aredistinct parallels in the systems and the meansof introduction.

Following the Florida debacle of hanging chadsand so on, the United States Congress enactedthe Help America Vote Act in October 2002,with the objective of introducing fully electronicvoting all over the country. Different states mayuse different systems, and electronic votingsystems have already been used in US elections.The Republican Party is particularly keen onelectronic voting, and with good reason.Journalist Bev Harris, who now specialises inelectronic voting, points out that the state ofGeorgia was the first to introduce DREs — directrecording electronic voting systems, similar to,though not the same as, the new system beingintroduced in Ireland. In the 2002 elections, a pollin the Atlanta Journal, two days before theelection, put the Democratic incumbent SenatorMack Cleland, five points ahead. On election day,however, the Republican challenger, a Mr.Chambliss, won by seven points, a 12-point shiftin 48 hours. For the first time in 134 years, aRepublican became Governor of Georgia, eventhough his Democratic opponent was 11 pointsahead in opinion polls just two days before theelection.

Election results can be surprising, no matterwhat system is used, but in researching theelectronic voting used in Georgia, journalist BevHarris came across an FTP link which led her toa trove of programme files used by Diebold, themakers of the system, the purpose of which wasto make the machines do what they do. Onefolder was entitled Rob Georgia, and containedmaterial designed to replace the files on the newGeorgia voting system with other files unknown.She also discovered that key people in Dieboldand in companies hired to test the system weresignificant financial contributors to theRepublican Party - Diebold chairman and CEOMr. Walden O’Dell was a Bush pioneer, havingcontributed at least $100,000 to President Bush’sre-election campaign, and on June 30 2003 helpedorganise a fundraiser for vice-president Cheney,which raised $600,000.

Faced with this, the people involved claimedthat this was impugning their integrity. It may

indeed be, but some of the people associated withthe company are no strangers to computer fraud.One director of an associated company had beenconvicted of money laundering and tax fraud,while another was convicted on 23 counts ofembezzlement, including what a court documentdescribed as “a high degree of sophistication andplanning in the use of alteration of records in thecomputerised accounting system that thedefendant maintained for his victim.”

Mr. Allen: That sounds familiar.

Mr. Gilmore: It is important to keep a sense ofproportion about all this and to eschewconspiracy theories, as the Minister promises todo. Just because some people associated with thecompany were convicted computer crooks,because senior people in the company arecontributors to the Republican Party and becausethe company’s computer files for the votingsystem describe how it can be fiddled, it does notfollow that the company which built theelectronic voting system fiddled the election infavour of the Republicans, no matter howsurprising the result. The problem is that we haveno way of knowing, or of checking.

Mr. Cullen: Was it tested internationally?

Mr. Gilmore: Yes.

Mr. Cullen: By which institute?

Mr. Gilmore: I forget. Two companies whichtested it were named. One was also contributingto the Republican Party.

Mr. Durkan: That is a bit like Fianna Fail.

Mr. Cullen: It is not because there is noconnection between that German institute andthe Fianna Fail Party, or anyone here.

Mr. Gilmore: In one case, the company wascontributing to a successful candidate in theelection. The problem is not whether we believethat the election was fiddled, but that we have noway of knowing or checking. Just like the Nedap-Powervote system being proposed in Ireland,there was no paper record in Georgia which couldbe audited.

Stories of election fiddling, or just plain error,may be exaggerated or wide of the mark, butevery time a plausible one is raised, which cannotbe rebutted because there is no paper audit,public confidence in the election process will bedealt another blow. That is why the debate in theUnited States is now centring on the need for avoter verifiable paper audit trail of the votes caston electronic voting machines. CongressmanRush Holt of New Jersey and Senator HillaryClinton of New York have brought forward Billsin their respective Houses of Congress to add apaper trail to all touch-screen machines. TheState of California has decided that from 2006 all


[Mr. Gilmore.]electronic voting machines must have anauditable, voter verifiable paper trail. Such apaper trail was a key reform recommended by theLabour Party in the document on electronicvoting, Electronic Voting in Ireland: a Threat toDemocracy? published last autumn andrubbished by the Minister. Without such a papertrail, whereby the voter can see a paper record ofthe vote which he or she is casting electronically,where that paper is stored and can be cross-checked against the results producedelectronically, the electronic voting system willalways be open to doubt.

The concerns about electronic voting are nolonger confined to the computer experts who firstraised them and to political participants alarmedby them. They now feature regularly in thepopular media. For example, the current issue ofVanity Fair contains a nine-page article byMichael Shnayerson, entitled Hack the Vote,which reports the work of Bev Harris to which Ihave referred. It summarises the situation asfollows: “This is a story of good intentions goneawry, of Congress bamboozled into thinking themachines were ready when they were not.” Itgoes on to say that “like most American stories,it is about money.”

Mr. Cullen: Were the machines PC-basedpossibly connected to phone lines?

Mr. Gilmore: No, they were stand-alonemachines. Big money was involved, with $3.9billion showered on the states to buy themachines and buy them fast. The money inIreland may not be in the same league, but thecontracts for the system are worth about \40million and the contract for the publicitycampaign is worth about \4.5 million. It is acoincidence of course that one of these contractswas given to a company, one of whose principalsis a recent senior official of the Fianna Fail Party.

I have been curious for some time about someaspects of the contractual arrangements for theelectronic voting system. The Governmentcommitted itself to Nedap-Powervote as far backas November 2000, a month before the originalelectoral Bill, which became the Electoral Act2001, was published. I remember that we weretold this during Committee Stage of the debateon that Bill, and the record of the debate showsthat I expressed alarm at that. The Governmenthas never explained this. How could it havealready decided to proceed with electronic votingand have already selected the system to be used,as well as the companies to deliver it, before thelegislation enabling electronic voting was evenpublished, much less passed. What was going on?

Mr. Cullen: No Government had aninvolvement in the system or decided what thesystem was to be — neither this Government northe last one.

Mr. Gilmore: The system was selected.

Mr. Cullen: It was not.

Mr. Gilmore: In more recent times, theGovernment was in an extraordinary rush to signoff on the contracts. During the Oireachtas JointCommittee on the Environment and LocalGovernment consideration of the issue, itemerged that the contracts for the system had notbeen finalised. Members of the committee arguedthat no final contracts were to be entered intountil the committee had concluded itsconsiderations. However, Government membersof the committee voted through approval of thesystem and, the following day, the contracts weresigned off.

Mr. Durkan: Another indication of theGovernment’s arrogance.

Mr. Gilmore: Why was the Government in sucha rush to sign the contracts? Why was the publicmoney used to purchase this system put throughthe Central Fund which cannot be audited by theComptroller and Auditor General and cannot besubject to examination by the Committee ofPublic Accounts? It appears that nothing aboutthis electronic voting system — the votes and themoney used to purchase it — can be audited. Allthis is odd and has resulted in the privatisation ofthe system, both the machinery and the software,by which people will vote.

The source code for the system, which isessential for anyone wishing to make asubmission to the commission, is the property ofa private company and will not be released. Ihave been told by persons wishing to make aninformed submission to the commission that,when they asked for the source code, thecommission informed them they could not haveit. After further inquiries, it emerged that noteven the commission had it.

Mr. Durkan: I wonder why.

Mr. Gilmore: The control of our electoralsystem has been handed over to a privatecompany. As this issue has now become thesubject of a partisan political debate, thiscompany has a vested interest in the re-electionof the Government committed to giving it thecontract. We are asked to take all this on trust.We are asked to trust the Government onspending public money which cannot be audited,to trust the companies that are delivering thesystem but will not release the source code, andto trust the machines and the software when noone is in a position to check these systems.

The Bill is unconstitutional and makes amockery of both the electronic votingcommission and electoral law. The Bill purportsto solve the constitutional problem identified bythe Government’s initial bungled attempt tointroduce e-voting for the local and Europeanelections without primary legislation. However, it


does nothing of the kind. The Bill gives generaldiscretionary power to the Minister for theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government tomake regulations dealing with crucial matterswhich should have been properly set out inprimary legislation. The Minister, who is alsoFianna Fail director of elections, has introducedlegislation to give himself critical powers todecide how to conduct elections. This should notbe tolerated in any democracy and, if enacted,will undermine the independence of ourelectoral system.

To determine by regulation whether electronicvoting should be used and, if so, to what extent isthe most fundamental power contained in theBill. It leaves this entirely in the hands of theMinister without any adequate parliamentarycontrol. Under section 5(3) the Minister isentitled to exercise this where “the public interestso requires”. What is in the public interest is leftto the Minister’s discretion.

Mr. Allen: I can well imagine.

Mr. Gilmore: The Minister will also have thepower to amend the form of the ballot paper byregulations under section 30. When read inconjunction with the existing Electoral Acts, thisis a matter for concern and, for constitutionalreasons, it should be spelled out in the Bill. TheBill leaves intact the existing discretionary powerof the Minister to make regulations amendingelectoral law, a power which is constitutionallyinfirm, as has been demonstrated in the recentSupreme Court decision on Carrickmines. Themeaningless nature of the safeguards in the Billis highlighted by what may well be anunconstitutional attempt to oust the jurisdictionof the courts by provisions which state that noaction can be taken to question an electronic votein the event that some of the safeguards aredisregarded. Sections 9(2), 11(5) and 12(10) statethat no action may be taken to the court wherethe records produced by the machines cannot beproduced.

Even though comparable provisions exist incurrent law, the Bill was to solve all constitutionalproblems. It clearly does not. Section 29(4) is alsounconstitutional in that it allows a detailedbreakdown of votes to be published for areaswhere there are so few votes that the privacy ofvoters would thereby be infringed. The sectionsays is that in such a case, a returning officer“may” refuse to publish the data. However, it alsoindicates that a returning officer may decide topublish in any event. The Labour Party believesit is constitutionally improper to leave the matterup to a returning officer’s discretion.

The Bill fails to eliminate the random elementin counts, a basic requirement advocated bysupporters of electronic voting. Section 16(4) and(5) provide that a recount cannot disturb theoriginal mix of votes. The Bill is designed toensure that both voting and vote counting atlocal, Dail, European, presidential elections and

at referenda can be conducted on any votingsystem equipment once it is approved by theMinister under the 2001 Act. Under thelegislation, voting system equipment means anykind of mechanical, electro-mechanical orelectronic apparatus for use in a voting system.

The term “voting system” can also mean amethod of casting and counting votes that isdesigned to function wholly, or partly, by use ofmechanical, electro-mechanical or electronicapparatus. It can include the procedures forcasting and counting votes and the programmes,operating manuals, print-outs and other softwarenecessary for the system’s operation. There is,however, no provision in the existing or proposedlegislation for the Minister’s approval of aparticular voting system equipment to be subjectto the approval of the Houses, or for details ofthat voting system equipment to be published tothe Houses or the public at large. This includesthe programmes and operating manuals, whichremain the property of the company that suppliedthem. Once approved by the Minister andwithout parliamentary approval, any votingsystem, not just the Nedap-Powervote one butany future system involving electrical, digital,magnetic, optical, electro-magnetic, biometric orphotogenic measures, can take over both votingand vote counting at forthcoming elections andreferenda.

Mr. Durkan: We might as well abolishelections altogether.

Mr. Gilmore: The electronic votingcommission’s terms of reference are, however,confined to the Nedap-Powervote system. It isdesigned to stand down once it has delivered itsreport on the secrecy and accuracy of the chosenelectronic voting and counting system by 1 May.In other words, it can neither opine as to themerits of that choice, given that it has alreadybeen taken, nor speculate as to what choice ofalternative system might be made in the future.The programmes, operating manuals, print-outsand other necessary software will remain privateintellectual property, governed by a privatecommercial agreement between the Minister andthe present, or any future, chosen privatecommercial consortium.

Historically, the integrity of the electoralsystem has largely relied on a system of givingcandidates and their agents a monitoring role atthe voting and vote counting process. They have,after all, a major interest in securing the integrityof the outcome. If all of them get to watch theprocess as it unfolds and to intervene as theythink necessary, then most will be reasonablysatisfied with the accuracy of the result. So far, ithas worked reasonably well. However, if any oneof them is dissatisfied, he or she can petition theHigh Court. However, under the new system, nocandidate or agent will be able to say that theyhave personally monitored either the vote castingor vote counting arrangements. Neither, for the

59 Priority 31 March 2004. Questions 60

[Mr. Gilmore.]reasons already stated, will the High Court beadequately able to review the result or theprocess by which the result was arrived.

The principal question on the constitutionalityof this legislation revolves around whether it ispermissible to privatise the conduct of aquintessential public phenomenon, that is, theelection of public representatives, so that therules by which the election is held become thesubject of commercial confidentiality and theHigh Court is debarred from lines of inquiry thatwould otherwise be available to it. Under Article6.1 of the Constitution, it is the right of the peopleto designate the rulers of the State. Presumably,concomitant with that, is the right to ensure thatthe process of designation of those rulers isaccurately carried out. In 1972, the Chief Justice,Mr. Justice O Dalaigh, speaking for the majorityin the Supreme Court in McMahon v. AttorneyGeneral, a case about the electoral system, said:

Constitutional rights are declared not alonebecause of bitter memories of the past, but notleast because of the improbable, but not-to-be-overlooked, perils of the future.

The Labour Party is opposed to the Second Stagereading of the Bill.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at2.30 p.m.

Ceisteanna — Questions (Resumed).

Priority Questions.

————

EU-US Summit.

2. Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister forForeign Affairs the agenda for the upcoming EU-US summit meeting in June 2004; the matters ofconcerns that the Government will be raising withPresident Bush; and if he will make a statementon the matter. [10192/04]

4. Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if he will report on his meeting in earlyMarch 2004 with the Bush administration onplans for the EU-US summit; and if he will makea statement on the matter. [10189/04]

6. Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister forForeign Affairs if details have been confirmed forthe planned EU-US summit to be attended byPresident Bush at the end of June 2004; if alocation has been agreed; the likely agenda; andif he will make a statement on the matter.[10191/04]

Minister of State at the Department of ForeignAffairs (Mr. Kitt): I propose to take QuestionsNos. 2, 4 and 6 together.

The Government attaches considerableimportance to the European Union’s relationshipwith the United States. As the holder of the EUPresidency, it looks forward to continuing itswork to enhance that close transatlanticpartnership. It fully acknowledges that therelationship has been through a difficult period,not least as a result of differences in policy onIraq. However, it is significant that there has beena noticeable improvement in the relationship inrecent months. As the holder of the EUPresidency, the Government is building on thatimprovement. It aims to hold a summit in Junethat restores stability and vitality to the EU-USrelationship and reconfirms the importance ofthe partnership.

The EU-US partnership is central toaddressing many of the issues on the internationalagenda. As the holder of the EU Presidency, theGovernment believes that the best way to restoreconfidence in the relationship is to focus onpragmatic co-operation on specific issues and toconsult regularly and honestly on an ongoingbasis. In this context, the Minister, DeputyCowen, led an EU troika to Washington on 1March last to meet the US Secretary of State, Mr.Colin Powell, and the US national securityadviser, Dr. Condoleezza Rice. The outcome ofthe meeting was positive. A large number offoreign policy issues were covered during frankand constructive discussions. The meetingprovided a strong foundation on which to buildwhen the EU-US summit takes place in Irelandin June.

The Taoiseach took advantage of his St.Patrick’s Day visit to the White House toexchange views on a number of internationalissues on the EU and US agenda, such as theneed for counter-terrorism following the terroristattacks in Madrid, as well as Middle East and Iraqmatters. It is not possible to have full agreementon all issues, of course, but it is important thatboth sides consult and explain their approachesto the various issues on the shared agenda andmanage any differences in a way that avoidsdamaging the overall relationship.

The summit will take place in Ireland on 26June next. As the holder of the EU Presidency,the Government is working closely with its EUpartners and the US authorities on thepreparations for the important meeting. While itis too early to indicate in detail the topics fordiscussion during the summit, we expect thatissues relating to foreign policy, economic andtrade relations and other areas of shared interestwill arise for consideration. Following the recentappalling act of terrorism perpetrated againstinnocent people in Madrid, we anticipate thatcounter-terrorism will be a key area of co-operation to be discussed with the US at the Junesummit. We anticipate that the Arab-Israelipeace process, wider relations with the MiddleEast, Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea and non-proliferation are some of the international issuesthat might feature in our discussions.


The media’s focus on economic and tradeissues too often tends to be on disputes ratherthan on areas of co-operation. It is important,therefore, that such differences are put intoperspective. During its Presidency, Ireland isconcentrating on the positive EU-US economicagenda, while seeking to manage effectively thelimited number of outstanding disputes, whichaccount for less than 3% of overall trade. It isexpected that the EU-US summit will recognisethe need to strengthen and widen thetransatlantic economic relationship to includemany aspects which affect our investmentrelationship and trade in goods and services. Thesummit is also likely to highlight the continuedcommitment and leadership of the EU and theUS in the global fight against HIV-AIDS.

A close EU-US partnership is essential forprosperity and growth on both sides of theAtlantic, as well as in the broader internationalcommunity. As the holder of the EU Presidency,the Government is working to reaffirm thestrength, depth and significance of suchrelationships in a sprit of partnership, with theaim of delivering a successful summit in June.

Mr. G. Mitchell: I thank the Minister of Statefor his reply. I am pleased to hear that the globalHIV-AIDS issue is on the agenda. I urge theMinister to do everything he can to put the issue,which is of great concern to people in Ireland,elsewhere in Europe and the US, as high on theagenda as possible.

Who will be in charge of security for the visitof President Bush? Has the Government receiveda request for immunity from prosecution of USsecret service agents in the event of somebodybeing injured or killed as a result of the dischargeof their weapons here? Will the Minister of Stateconfirm that Iraq will be on the agenda as part ofthe discussion on the general Middle East region?Regarding EU-US transatlantic relationships, willthe Minister, Deputy Cowen, raise the possibilityof an EU-US transatlantic foundation in Ireland,preferably in Shannon, which I have mentionedin the House on a number of occasions? Is theMinister prepared to mention this importantissue, given that I have set out a policy documentand I have raised the matter in the House onmany occasions?

Mr. Kitt: I agree with Deputy Gay Mitchell thatHIV-AIDS is an important issue. As the Deputyis aware, I chaired a recent conference on HIV-AIDS in the central Europe and central Asiaregions. I consider the conference, which led to aDublin declaration and a Dublin action plan, tohave been very successful. The Minister, DeputyCowen, and I are anxious that the issue of HIV-AIDS should be on the agenda following theconference, so that we can tackle this globalpandemic. I am as anxious as Deputy Mitchell tosee that the issue is given priority.

As the host of the June summit, Ireland willprovide security for all visitors. The Deputy will

appreciate that many heads of state and ministershave been arriving in this country on a regularbasis during our Presidency. The Garda has beenorganising the security arrangements in all suchcases. We have done it before and we will do iton this occasion. The Deputy mentioned specificarrangements, such as immunity fromprosecution. As such issues have not been dealtwith to date, I presume that they will be dealtwith in due course.

Mr. G. Mitchell: Has the question been asked?Did they ask for immunity?

Mr. Kitt: As I understand it, no, not at thisstage. Such issues may arise before 26 June. Weenvisage that Iraq will definitely be on theagenda. I am aware that the Deputy has raisedthe possibility of an EU-US foundation in thepast. The Minister, Deputy Cowen, has not ruledout the possibility of such a foundation, as far asI recall. He has referred to the fact that theInstitute of European Affairs and otherorganisations are examining such a concept. Icertainly think we should consider it.

Mr. Gormley: Was the Irish Governmentthanked by the Bush Administration for allowingUS forces to use Shannon Airport — in breachof Irish neutrality — for its illegal, stupid andcounterproductive war in Iraq? Did the Ministertell his American counterparts that he was, to usethe Taoiseach’s phrase, “dead against” the war,or was it the usual fawning, forelock-tuggingdisplay?

I listened carefully to what the Minister said toDeputy Gay Mitchell about securityarrangements. As someone who was a participantin the demonstrations during the visit of RonaldReagan, I can tell the House that the Americansecret service ruled the roost on that occasion.We experienced it firsthand. What permission, ifany, has been granted to the US Air Force topatrol above Ireland in fighter aircraft andhelicopters?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That is a securitymatter and should be addressed to a differentMinister.

Mr. Gormley: Perhaps the Minister of State canenlighten us. The Czech Government was obligedto pass special legislation on this issue. We willprobably not be required to do that, given thatthe US Administration seems to have free accessto this country in any case.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: A question to theappropriate Minister would be more correct.

Mr. Gormley: I am discussing the matter ofsecurity arrangements on which the Leas-CheannComhairle allowed Deputy Mitchell to ask aquestion.


An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I allowed him toask a general question in the area. I do not wantthis to develop into a discussion of securitymatters.

Mr. Gormley: Has a sterile zone beenspecifically requested by the US Administration?Was this matter raised at the meeting?

Mr. Kitt: I also recall the security provisionssurrounding the visit of Mr. Reagan, so I amconscious of the Deputy’s concerns. To follow upon what I said to Deputy Mitchell, the provisionof security for visiting Heads of State is decidedon a case by case basis. It is customary thatcertain Heads of State are permitted to haveavailable, on an exceptional basis and byarrangement with Irish authorities,supplementary measures for their security. Thearrangements for the visit of Mr. Bush have yetto be finalised and I would not consider itproductive to speculate on the details. We are atan early stage in the preparations.

No requests for overflights by US militaryaircraft have been received. I do not consider itprudent to speculate on matters of security.However, the Government is taking a responsibleand realistic attitude to the question of providingsecurity for the visit of Mr. Bush. Members willhave heard the comments of the GardaCommissioner in this regard. It is DeputyGormley’s prerogative to speculate in anacademic way on what might happen. He referredto visits of previous Presidents. We have a goodpolice force with a good Commissioner who isconscious of the need to provide security. I haveoutlined the special circumstances for visitingHeads of State. We will be vigilant in managingthis.

Mr. Gormley: What about Iraq?

Mr. M. Higgins: The Minister’s replies soundedlike an introductory chapter from a marriageguidance book. He talked about restoringrelationships that have been through a rockyperiod. We all join in wishing him stability andvitality in these relationships in the future. In themeantime, he might answer my question aboutwhether a location has been agreed for the visit.To take up the point raised by Deputy Gormley,I too was part of the protests against Mr. Reagan,as the Minister of State might remember. At thattime US security services sought permission toput snipers in the attics of houses in Galway andwere refused. The Minister of State suggested thiswas an academic matter; it is far from that. Eitherthe Government has already been asked aboutsecurity arrangements or it is waiting to havethem imposed upon us, as happened the last time.Will the same thing happen again?

What message will the Government convey toits US counterpart about the war on Iraq? Whichof the Taoiseach’s versions will it offer — the onein which he was really against the war all along,

or the one in which he decided it would be abreach of our friendship with the USA if we didnot allow planes to land in Shannon carryingarmaments and soldiers which were going on tokill civilians in Iraq?

Mr. Kitt: We are working closely with our EUpartners and the USA on the arrangements forthe summit. For security reasons, it is notappropriate to be specific about the location untilarrangements have been finalised. Deputies willhear about this in due course.

My position on the war in Iraq, as somebodywho has been involved on the humanitarian sideas Minister of State with responsibility fordevelopment, is well known. I am conscious ofthe debates that have taken place in the House inwhich my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Cowen,has clearly spelled out the position of theGovernment——

Mr. M. Higgins: No, he did not. The questionsremain the same. We are all interested in thefuture, but I would like an answer to thequestions asked.

Mr. Kitt: I heard the debate and I have thecopies of the transcript.

Mr. M. Higgins: So do I.

Mr. Kitt: The United States is obviously animportant ally for Europe. The summit is thecontinuation of a dialogue that was establishedsome time ago. Its location alternates betweenthe US and the country that holds the EUPresidency. People have suggested that it shouldbe happening in Brussels, but that has never beenthe case. Under the Greek Presidency it tookplace in Washington and now it is the turn of theIrish Presidency.

It is important for Ireland, as the country whichholds the Presidency of the EU, to consider thewar in Iraq. The UN special representative, Mr.Brahimi, recently said that Iraq is at a crossroads.He did not underestimate the scale of thechallenges ahead but he clearly believes the UNcan play a useful role. There will be a new UNresolution on Iraq in May. Transfer ofsovereignty will take place in June and there willbe a more central role for the UN. There will alsobe elections next year. I recently witnessed thereconstruction that is taking place after thehorrific conflict in Liberia. Elections are beingheld and they are rebuilding democracy. That isthe challenge facing us.

Mr. M. Higgins: When will there be electionsin Iraq?

Mr. Kitt: Politics is about moving forward.

Mr. Gormley: What is the Minister of State’sposition? What did the Governmentrepresentatives say in Washington?


Mr. Kitt: We have heard very good academicdebates about what has happened.

Mr. M. Higgins: They are not academic.

Mr. Kitt: That was then and this is now.

Mr. G. Mitchell: Is it the case that during thevisit of Mr. Reagan, members of the Army guardof honour were obliged to remove the firing pinsfrom their weapons?

Mr. M. Higgins: That is true.

Mr. G. Mitchell: Will the Minister of Stateconfirm to the House — he should be upfrontabout this — that security will be taken over bythe American secret service? Does he expect thatthe Minister for Foreign Affairs or any memberof the Government will receive a request fromthe US Administration for immunity fromprosecution for secret service officers whodischarge their weapons and injure or killsomebody?

Mr. Kitt: No official request has been receivedfrom the US authorities for the carrying ofweapons by security staff accompanying thePresident on his forthcoming visit. It is likely thatany such request will be received closer to thevisit. The final decision on these issues rests withthe Minister for Justice, Equality and LawReform. There are specific procedures involvedand Deputies may be sure they will be followedas they have been in the past. The GardaCommissioner has made it clear that the GardaSıochana will be in charge. There will beconsultation closer to the event.

Mr. Gormley: This is all very clandestine.Clearly, the request will go in when the Dail is inrecess and we will know very little about it. Thisis most unsatisfactory.

The original question I asked, to which Ireceived no reply, was about the Irish position inWashington. Did the Governmentrepresentatives tell the US Administration wewere against the war? When the Minister of Stateand I were on the radio together, he said that the100,000 people who marched against the war inIraq were marching in support of theGovernment’s position and that the Governmentsupported them. What was the position of theGovernment in Washington?

Mr. Kitt: If the Deputy listened carefully towhat I said, I outlined the various issues that wereraised, first by the Minister for Foreign Affairs,Deputy Cowen, who led a meeting with the USSecretary of State, Colin Powell, and the USNational Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice,and by the Taoiseach in his meeting withPresident Bush. I would not be privy to thespecific comments that were made but——

Mr. Gormley: For or against the war?

Mr. Kitt: The US Administration is very muchaware of our view and of the debates in thisChamber through the US Embassy here.

Mr. Gormley: The Minister of State says onething here and another thing over there.

Mr. Kitt: No. As current holders of the EUPresidency, we have a important responsibility totry to move the debate on Iraq forward. This is aunique opportunity and Ireland is well positionedto do that. We have seen how the Taoiseach hasgiven leadership on the EU constitution, whichthe Deputy has acknowledged, and leadershipcan also be provided on this issue. I am not privyto the specific details of the Taoiseach’sconversations with President Bush but theDeputy knows precisely what the Taoiseach andthe Minister, Deputy Cowen, have said about thewar in Iraq. My main concern now is how we canmove forward together and make some progressin a very difficult conflict situation.

Mr. M. Higgins: Clarity would be useful beforeleadership is offered. The question is areasonable one: will the Taoiseach beencouraging the United States to move backwithin the ambit of international law? Will he beasking the US to accept multilateralism? In theirdeepened and vital relationship, will Ireland andthe USA be reflecting upon the absence ofweapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Does theMinister of State have any assessment of thenumber of civilian deaths in Iraq? He was not ina position to provide such information on the lasttwo occasions on which the House dealt withforeign affairs questions.

Mr. Kitt: We will be supporting greater UNinvolvement. The policy position, as articulatedby the Taoiseach and the Minister, DeputyCowen, on many occasions, is that we will besupporting a greater multilateral approach to thatparticular conflict. It is a very difficult situationand, as we speak, people are being killed in Iraq.There is a process, however, as I have outlined.We strongly support the UN Secretary General,Kofi Annan, but we want to see developmentsmoving towards a proper government and aproper election system in Iraq, just as we haveseen in other parts of the world. We will supportthat clearly defined, multilateral approach thatentails a more central involvement of the UnitedNations.

Co-Operation Against Terrorism.

3. Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister forForeign Affairs his views on whether theimplementation of Resolution 1373 of the UNSecurity Council which called for internationalco-operation against global terrorism has beendamaged by the pre-emptive strike, invasion andoccupation of Iraq. [10190/04]

Mr. Kitt: The Security Council’s counter-terrorism committee, which was established


[Mr. Kitt.]pursuant to Resolution 1373, is the bodyresponsible for monitoring the implementation ofthe resolution. Since its establishment, thecommittee has noted remarkable progress amongUN member states in the implementation of themeasures contained in that resolution. Thecommittee has co-operated closely with themember states in reviewing and facilitating theimprovement of existing national counter-terrorism legislation.

The committee receives and analyses regularreports from United Nations member statesoutlining their progress in discharging theirresponsibilities under the resolution. Last week,the Security Council unanimously adoptedResolution 1535. This will revitalise the work ofthe committee and give renewed momentum toits efforts in promoting and monitoring theimplementation of all aspects of Resolution 1373.I am not aware of any concern by the counter-terrorism committee that the war in Iraq hasimpacted negatively on the efforts of memberstates in this regard.

There remains a strong multilateral support forthe fight against international terrorism. On 11and 12 March, the counter-terrorism committeeheld a special meeting in Vienna involvinginternational, regional and sub-regionalorganisations, which stressed the importance ofinternational co-operation in effectivelycountering global terrorism, and identified areaswhere such co-operation could be enhanced inthe future.

Mr. M. Higgins: I do not wish to be personal,but that is one of the most evasive answers I haveheard in a long time. I asked a specific andimportant question as to whether the invasionand occupation of Iraq, without any UN mandate,had in the view of the Department and theGovernment, weakened international support forResolution 1373. The question is there in blackand white, so the Minister of State must have anopinion on it. I certainly have. Is it not the casethat many of the countries that were willing andeager to respond to the threat of internationalterrorism, deplored the unilateral action takenagainst Iraq? That is a fact with which theMinister of State either agrees or disagrees.

3 o’clock

The Minister of State referred to the work ofthe UN Security Council’s counter-terrorismcommittee, but that is a different question. Is the

Minister of State in a position todeny that the Government has notratified all that was required by

Resolution 1373? I believe there are someoutstanding conventions that have not beenratified, and the same is true for a number ofother EU countries.

I want the Minister of State to answer myquestion as to whether international co-operationhas been damaged by the pre-emptive strike,invasion and occupation of Iraq. If a large familyof nations within the United Nations supports

Resolution 1373, yet a separate coalition of thewilling is operating outside the UN Charter, howcan the Minister of State tell me that I should besatisfied with an answer about the workings ofthe counter-terrorism committee? I know aboutthat committee but that is not what I asked. TheMinister of State should answer the question Iposed.

Mr. Kitt: Ireland has ratified six of the 12conventions.

Mr. M. Higgins: So six have not been ratified?

Mr. Kitt: Yes. The Criminal Justice (TerroristOffences) Bill is currently before the House. Itwill provide for the ratification of four of theremaining six conventions: the InternationalConvention for the Suppression of the Financingof Terrorism, the International ConventionAgainst the Taking of Hostages, the InternationalConvention for the Suppression of TerroristBombing, and the Convention on the Preventionand Punishment of Crimes AgainstInternationally Protected Persons, includingDiplomatic Agents. In addition, the MaritimeSecurity Bill 2004, which will allow for theratification of the two remaining instruments —the Convention for the Suppression of UnlawfulActs Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation,and the Protocol for the Suppression of UnlawfulActs Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms on theContinental Shelf — is being brought forward bythe Minister for Communications, Marine andNatural Resources.

If the Deputy listened, I made the pointcarefully in my reply——

Mr. M. Higgins: I listened carefully.

Mr. Kitt: ——that I am not aware of anyconcerns of the counter-terrorism committee thatthe war in Iraq has impacted negatively on theefforts of the member states in this regard. Iwould remind the Deputy that there is muchwork ongoing——

Mr. M. Higgins: That is not the question Iasked the Minister of State.

Mr. Kitt: The Deputy should let me finish.Currently, there is much work ongoing as regardssecurity. The Government initiated a similarresponse by the EU where tough, efficientprocedures were introduced to deal with theterrorist threat. We have sharpened our focus inthat regard. It is also important to pursue themany other issues, such as development, povertyeradication and conflict prevention, side by sidewith these security measures. They go hand inhand, as do the various issues with which I haveto deal, including debt, infectious diseases andproviding stable government.

Mr. M. Higgins: Does the Minister of Statedeplore the attempt to suggest that those who

69 Priority Questions 31 March 2004. (Resumed) 70

opposed the illegal invasion and occupation ofIraq, without a UN mandate, are somehow softon terrorism? It is an outrageous suggestion.Does he also deplore attempts in the media tosuggest that those who wanted the UN Charterto be respected are soft on terrorism? Havingalmost obtained unanimity from the family of UNstates, does the Minister of State not agree thatthat goodwill was squandered by acting outsidethe UN Charter?

Mr. Kitt: I agree with the Deputy that peopleholding views such as he has expressed should notbe criticised for being soft on terrorism. I supportpeople’s right to express differing views on thismatter. Many people have different views. TheEuropean security strategy sets out the concept ofpreventative action, which is different from pre-emptive action. Many issues will be debated atthe summit and this issue also needs to bedebated.

Visit of UNESCO Director General.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I wish, on my ownbehalf and on behalf of the Members of DailEireann, to offer a special and sincere welcometo Mr. Matsuura, the director general ofUNESCO, who is with us in the DistinguishedVisitors’ Gallery. I express the hope that yourvisit will be enjoyable, fruitful and to our mutualbenefit.

Priority Questions (Resumed).

————

EU Presidency.

5. Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister forForeign Affairs the position with regard to thepossible achievement of an agreement on the newconstitution for the EU during Ireland’sPresidency of the European Union; and if he willmake a statement on the matter. [10193/04]

Mr. Kitt: In fulfilment of our mandate fromDecember, the Irish Presidency submitted areport to colleagues on prospects for progress inthe IGC ahead of last week’s meeting of theEuropean Council. This provided a basis for thediscussion among Heads of State andGovernment over dinner on Thursday evening.

We set out in the report our assessmentfollowing the intensive process of consultationthat has been under way since the start of theyear. We said there continues to be consensus onthe importance and value of the proposedconstitutional treaty and there is a strong sharedsense of the desirability of concludingnegotiations as soon as possible. There is awidespread view that delay would makeagreement more difficult to achieve. We also saidwe expected an overall solution covering allremaining points of difficulty could be found ifthere was sufficient political will and flexibility.

The Taoiseach outlined further our generalapproach to a number of the key outstandingissues in presenting the report at the meeting onThursday. On the Commission, he expressed ourview that the mutually valid requirements foreffectiveness and legitimacy can be met throughmaintaining, for an extended period, aCommission comprising one national of eachmember state, moving thereafter to a reducedsize.

On voting in the Council of Ministers, theTaoiseach set out our assessment that only asystem based on double majority can commandconsensus and that it should be possible to reachan outcome that meets the concerns of allthrough some adjustment of the population andmember state thresholds and througharrangements for confirmation of the transitionfrom the current system. On the EuropeanParliament, he said it should be possible to reachconsensus on a modest increase in the minimumthreshold of seats per member state. He did notask colleagues to discuss these matters in detail.However, he asked partners to committhemselves to a firm timescale for agreement.

The Presidency report was warmly welcomedby partners. Following a positive and constructivediscussion, the European Council reaffirmed itscommitment to reach agreement and, on the basisof the Presidency’s report, requested thePresidency to continue its consultations and assoon as appropriate to arrange for the resumptionof formal negotiations in the IGC. It decided thatagreement should be reached no later than theJune European Council.

This is welcome and positive progress but weare far from complacent. Considerable workremains to be done if agreement on theconstitutional treaty is to be reached under theIrish Presidency. If we are to resolve alloutstanding issues, everyone will need toapproach the task with a shared spirit ofcompromise and flexibility. It is not yet possibleto say with certainty that agreement will beachieved by June. However, I assure the Housethat the Government will continue to doeverything it can to facilitate and encourage asuccessful outcome.

Mr. G. Mitchell: When will the IGCreconvene? Does the Minister of State have adate in mind? If the deadline of the EuropeanParliament elections in early June is to be met,the IGC will have to reconvene soon.

With regard to the content of the draft treaty,when will we have sight of the protocol ondefence? The current draft proposes a commondefence entity for member states that wish to signthe declaration and join but a protocol is to bepublished setting out the obligations ofmembership. The protocol could accommodateboth NATO members and the non-alignedmember states of the Union but it is importantthat we have sight of the protocol. When is itlikely we will see the protocol?

71 Other 31 March 2004. Questions 72

Mr. Kitt: On the question of timing andreaching agreement before the June summit, theGovernment will move to secure agreement asquickly as possible. However, we need to berealistic. Political circumstances in severalmember states must be factored in and we alsoneed to give ourselves sufficient time to workthrough all the issues involved. We will continueto do our best to bring the IGC to a successfulconclusion at the earliest opportunity, as agreedlast week. It will be no later than June. If we canmanage to reach agreement before then, that willbe done.

A text on defence was published in December.Nothing in the IGC is agreed until everything isagreed. In our extensive bilateral conversations,nobody has sought to open the substance of thepackage tabled prior to the December summit.Other Members had concerns in this regard,recognising Ireland’s tradition in this area.However, nobody has expressed problems orraised issues regarding the text. On the basis thatnothing is agreed until everything is agreed, it isexpected the package will remain in place.

Mr. G. Mitchell: Can I take it we will not seethe protocol until the IGC concludes? Theprotocol will be before the IGC and, therefore,its contents will be known and Ireland will knowwhat it is signing up to and the question that willbe put to the people. Has the Government madesuggestions regarding what the protocol shouldcontain? Have suggestions been made by othersources, such as the Commission or othermember states? Will the Minister of Stateconfirm that for the foreseeable future, it is likelyeach member state will continue to nominate aCommissioner?

Mr. Kitt: The Taoiseach has played animportant role in the Commissioner issue. He setout his belief at the European Council that theequally valid requirement for effectiveness andlegitimacy in the Commission can be met throughmaintaining, for an extended period, aCommission comprising our national nomineeand a nominee from each member state movingthereafter to a reduced size. If this is theoutcome, there must be absolute and strictequality among member states in rotating theright to nominate a Commissioner. It was agreedunder the Nice treaty that a reduced Commissionwould come into being after the Union reached27 members and this was endorsed by the peoplein the treaty referendum. The Taoiseach hastaken an interest in this issue.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs and theMinister of State at the Department of ForeignAffairs, Deputy Roche, are more involved in theprotocol issue. My understanding is that when weare ready to proceed with the IGC, all the issuesinvolved will be openly discussed. Like theDeputy, I have spent time as Minister of Statewith responsibility for European affairs under aprevious Government and it is important that

should be the case. However, I will revert to theDeputy on this issue if necessary.

Other Questions.

————

Human Rights Issues.

7. Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if he has had recent contact with theGovernment of China on behalf of Falun Dafapractitioners (details supplied); and if he willmake a statement on the matter. [9992/04]

Mr. Kitt: The Government takes seriouslyconcerns about human rights in China, includingthose of Falun Dafa members. The issue of thetreatment in China of followers of Falun Dafa hasbeen raised both bilaterally and through theformal framework of the EU-China human rightsdialogue, which was established in 1996. Throughthe dialogue, the EU shares with China itsexperience in the field of human rights protectionand promotion, and urges China to take clearsteps to improve the human rights situationgenerally, and more specifically with respect tothe freedoms of expression, religion and belief,which have a particular impact on individualpractitioners of Falun Dafa.

The last session of the EU-China human rightsdialogue took place in Dublin on 26-27 February.Ireland, as President of the EU, discussed withChina a wide range of human rights issues ofconcern, including individual cases of allegedhuman rights abuses. Among the cases raisedwere those of the individuals of concern to theDeputy. A response was subsequently receivedfrom the Chinese authorities. This stated that oneof the individuals had been sentenced to re-education through labour for two years but hadbeen relatively quickly released on bail so hecould seek medical attention. We understand thathe is in hospital receiving treatment. Theresponse on the second individual was vague,stating the authorities had no record of theperson being admitted to a labour institute.

The cases to which the Deputy refers involveChinese citizens. They are subject to Chinese lawwhile in their own country and, as they are notIrish citizens, we have no consular function in thismatter. However, because of our concerns aboutthe human rights situation in China, we wereprepared to raise the cases.

Mr. G. Mitchell: What an appalling abuse oflanguage in a response from the ChineseGovernment to the Irish Government or to theEuropean Union when it was stated that peopleare being admitted to a labour institute or thatone may be sentenced to two years labour for re-education. For a government to think suchlanguage is normal in communicating with theEuropean Union or the Irish Government, onbehalf of the European Union, is an indictmentin itself. During the February meeting of the EU-


China human rights dialogue, did the Minister ofState specifically raise with the Chinese authoritythe Falun Dafa case, and what was its responseto the Falun Dafa movement in particular? Iknow the Minister of State has raised individualcases and I urge him to continue to do so.

Mr. Kitt: All these issues, including individualcases, were raised during that meeting. TheDeputy will be aware that the ChineseGovernment continues to regard the Falun Dafaas an evil cult. The Irish Government isconcerned about human rights in China, includingthose of Falun Dafa members and I will continueto raise such issues during my meetings withChinese Ministers, as I regularly have done so.The issues were raised both bilaterally andthrough the European Union channels, notablythrough the formal EU-China human rightsdialogue, which was established some years ago.Through the dialogue, the EU shares with Chinaits experience in the field of human rights. Thepurpose of the dialogue is to make progress andto put our case in a very clear cut way. Iaccompanied the Taoiseach on a very importanttrade mission to China some years ago, duringwhich he raised human rights issues with thehighest leadership.

I note the recent amendment of China’sconstitution to include an express reference tohuman rights and I hope it will be fullyimplemented in law and will lead to practicalimprovements for the people of China. Progressis being made in certain areas but we willcontinue to raise these issues.

Mr. M. Higgins: Is the Minister of State awarethat people are of the impression that on visits toChina we are strong on trade opportunities andweak on human rights? During the recent visit ofa large delegation to China, was the opportunitytaken to discuss these issues? Did theaccompanying Minister raise these issues? Whywere these issues excluded from theconversations during the high-level visit toChina? Is the WTO concerned with China’scompliance with international human rights,which has nothing to do with the relationship ofChinese law to the Chinese constitution, but withinternational standards? When is it intended toraise these issues again? When will the issue ofTibet be raised? How will the Minister convincepeople from concluding that the Government iseager to trade with a very large population but isnot so eager to advance the case for respect forinternational human rights?

Mr. Kitt: As I said I accompanied theTaoiseach on state visits to China and was presentwhen the then President Robinson raised humanrights issues. President McAleese has raised theseissues also. I know that at presidential, primeminister and foreign affairs ministerial level theseissues are raised in a very open way. With regardto the activities of trade Ministers——

Mr. M. Higgins: It was reported on the newsthat these issues were avoided.

Mr. Kitt: I agree with the Deputy. As aMinister of State with responsibility for humanrights, I would prefer if these issues were raisedon every occasion but these issues were raised ina very open way on any occasion that Iaccompanied the then Taoiseach and the thenPresident. That is the way we conduct our affairsand equally the issues were responded to in anopen way.

Let me remind the Deputy that the Dalai Lamaissued a statement on 10 March 2004 whichexpressed the hope of a significant breakthroughin relations with the Chinese Government andthat he has instructed his envoys to continue theprocess of dialogue with Beijing at an early date.Effectively the Dalai Lama is saying that dialoguecan pay off. We will continue to engage in theEU-China human rights dialogue, which is anongoing process and I was personally involved inthat process during the past week. It is wrong tosuggest that we shy away from raising theseissues. If, as the Deputy suggests, a trade Ministerdid not raise these issues, I accept his point.However, I agree with the Deputy that it isimportant that these issues are raised in an openway.

8. Mr. Kenny asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs his views on the treatment of the Kurdishpeoples in Turkey, Iraq and Iran; his furtherviews on the representations being made by theEU to Turkey with a view to enhancing thehuman rights of the Kurdish peoples; and if hewill make a statement on the matter. [9999/04]

Mr. Kitt: There are significant Kurdishminority populations in Turkey, Iraq, Iran andparts of Syria. There are some 14 million peopleof Kurdish ethnic origin living in Turkey. TheGovernment’s concerns about human rights inTurkey, including the situation of the Kurdishpopulation, are raised regularly in officialcontacts with the Turkish Government and itsrepresentatives, and in co-operation with ourpartners in the European Union. We continue tomonitor the human rights situation through theembassy in Ankara and through our membershipof international organisations, including theCouncil of Europe.

I welcome the very significant progress whichTurkey has made in legislating for human rightsreform during the past two years. Legislation hasbeen enacted which is aimed at strengthening theenforcement of human rights and enhancing thecultural rights of all citizens, including those ofKurdish origin. Nevertheless, the EuropeanUnion considers that further progress is required.The revised accession partnership with Turkey,which was adopted by the Council in May 2003,provides the framework for an intensive dialoguebetween the European Union and Turkey on itspreparations for accession, including itslegislative reform programme. Since the


[Mr. Kitt.]beginning of 2003, progress on the introductionand implementation of political and human rightsreforms has also been monitored closely inregular political monitoring meetings between theEU and Turkey.

Representing the Irish Presidency, the Ministerfor Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, headed anEU ministerial troika delegation which visitedAnkara on 8 March for meetings with the PrimeMinister and the Foreign Minister. Thediscussions covered the full range of issues in EU-Turkey relations including progress on politicaland human rights reforms. The EU emphasisedthe importance of ensuring implementation ofthese reforms at all levels of the administration.On the issue of cultural rights, Deputy Cowenpointed to the restrictive nature of the currentregulations for broadcasting in languages otherthan Turkish and the relatively slow progress onmoves to permit Kurdish language teaching. TheEU delegation was briefed on plans by theTurkish Government to promote the economicdevelopment of the south-east region ofurkey where Kurds form the majority of thepopulation.

I recognise that the Turkish Government iscommitted to ensuring the full implementation ofthe reforms, including those directly relating tothe rights of people of Kurdish ethnic origin. Theprogress made will be a significant element of thedecision to be taken by the European Council inDecember on Turkey’s fulfilment of theCopenhagen political criteria for EUmembership. If that decision is positive, the EUwill open accession negotiations with Turkeywithout delay.

In Iraq, it is clear that the situation for theKurdish people has improved since the end of theregime of Saddam Hussein. There are fiveKurdish representatives in the Iraqi GoverningCouncil and the level of autonomy the Kurdishpeople enjoyed previously has been retained inthe transitional arrangements now in place. Thesearrangements are set out in the TransitionalAdministrative Law, signed by the IraqiGoverning Council on 8 March. This will, wehope, open the way for the transfer of power to asovereign Iraq in which the rights of the Kurdishpopulation will be respected fully.

Additional information not given on the floor ofthe House.

The Government is not aware of any currentdiscrimination against Kurdish people in Iranspecifically related to their ethnic origin.However, the overall human rights situation inIran continues to be a matter of concern. Irelandco-sponsored a resolution adopted by the UNGeneral Assembly last December, whichexpressed serious concern at the continuingviolations of human rights in Iran. Among anumber of recommendations, the resolutioncalled upon the Government of Iran to eliminateall forms of discrimination based on religious

grounds or against persons belonging tominorities.

Speaking on behalf of the EU at the UNCommission on Human Rights in Geneva lastweek, Ireland, as holders of the Presidency,regretted that there has been little improvementin the human rights situation in Iran. As holdersof the Presidency, we are working with theIranian Government to agree dates for the nextround of the EU’s human rights dialogue withIran. We will continue to monitor the humanrights situation in Iran, including the situation ofthe Kurdish minority, through our embassy inTehran and in co-operation with our EUpartners.

Mr. G. Mitchell: I thank the Minister of Statefor his reply. The Minister of State will be awarethat there are some 20 million to 25 million Kurdsin south-eastern Turkey, northern Iran, northernIraq and parts of Syria. The original plan afterthe end of the First World War was that it wouldbecome a nation state. Clearly with such aconcentration in three bordering states, but infour states in total, there is an issue, yet the issueof secession is one which international law andnorm creates major difficulties and borders willnot change.

Has the European Union made special effortsto work with Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria on themanner in which they would address issues ofconcern to the Kurdish people? Is the Minister ofState aware of the Commission’s report on theEU-Turkey relationship for 2003 whichconcluded that by accelerating the pace of reformover the years, Turkey has made determinedefforts and significant progress toward achievingcompliance with the Copenhagen criteria, towhich he referred? The report referred to theguaranteeing of political, civil, economic, socialand cultural rights. Did the report lookspecifically at Kurdish rights in Turkey? If so,what was said on the matter?

Mr. Kitt: The Helsinki European Council ofDecember 1999 decided that Turkey was acandidate country for membership of theEuropean Union. The Council laid down certaincriteria according to which a candidate countrymust achieve stability of institutions guaranteeingdemocracy, the rule of law, human rights andrespect for the protection of minorities. The EUhas adopted specific measures. At theCopenhagen Council of December 2002 a clearcommitment was given that if the EuropeanCouncil meeting of December 2004 decidedTurkey had fulfilled the Copenhagen politicalcriteria, the EU would open accessionnegotiations without delay. Clearly, the EuropeanUnion’s approach has focused very much onaccession. An opinion on the matter will bedelivered in the near future.


To answer the Deputy’s question, the issue ofthe Kurdish minority has been an EU priority inits discussions on Turkish accession.

Mr. J. Bruton: Is the Minister of State satisfiedthat this matter will be decided at the Decembersummit on the basis of the Copenhagen criteriaalone rather than on other factors? Has theattention of the Minister of State been drawn toan article in today’s issue of Le Monde? In it, aleading Deputy in President Chirac’s UMP partysays one of the best ways for it to recover in theEuropean elections ground lost in the regionalelections would be to come out clearly againstTurkish membership, regardless? Does theMinister of State agree that this is probably awidespread opinion among people seeking toexploit opposition, regardless of the Copenhagencriteria, to Turkish membership to curry favourwith domestic electorates?

Mr. Kitt: I agree this is a crucial issue in thecontext of accession discussions. Progress madewill be a very significant element in the decisionto be taken at the European Council inDecember on Turkish fulfilment of theCopenhagen political criteria for EUmembership. I have referred to the details of thecriteria. If the decision is positive, the EU willopen accession negotiations without delay. Iagree it is unfortunate that people are exploitingthe issue. While Turkey is an important countryin the context of the development and growth ofEurope, there are important issues to consider.Ireland takes very seriously its commitment onhuman rights and, in particular, the treatment ofminorities. The Government will raise theseissues continuously during the Presidency andbeyond.

Mr. G. Mitchell: The accession of Turkey to theEuropean Union would bring the borders of theUnion to Syria, Iran, Iraq, Armenia and Georgia.We have heard recently the suggestion that Israelshould apply for membership of the EU. Therewere reports on the matter today. Will theMinister of State confirm that the application byTurkey is being considered seriously and that theCouncil of Ministers is not leading the countrydown a cul-de-sac?

Mr. J. Bruton: Hear, hear.

Mr. G. Mitchell: Will he further confirm thatTurkish accession is genuinely on the agenda andbeing dealt with transparently?

Mr. M. Higgins: I ask a question which hasbeen asked already. I put it bluntly to theMinister of State that the view that Turkey is nota European state is being widely canvassed. Itsbasis is an anti-Islamic prejudice against thepresent Turkish Government.

On what basis does the Minister of Stateconclude that the position of the Kurds in Iraq isbetter? In how many of the five countries across

which the Kurdish population is distributed is theKurdish language recognised? I understand thateven under the current reforms, the Kurdishlanguage is not recognised nor is the right toeducate through it. I stress that it has nothing todo with Turkey’s application to join theEuropean Union.

Mr. Kitt: There are five Kurdishrepresentatives on the Iraqi governing counciland the level of autonomy previously enjoyed bythe Kurdish people has been maintained in thetransitional arrangements now in place. Thearrangements are set out in the transitionaladministrative law signed by the Iraqi governingcouncil on 8 March. We hope this will open theway to the transfer of power to a sovereign Iraqin which the rights of the Kurdish population willbe respected fully.

It is important to ensure that the EuropeanUnion plays a significant role in the developmentof a proper democratic representative system.

Mr. M. Higgins: Does the Minister of Statefavour their right to secede?

Mr. Kitt: Deputy Gay Mitchell asked howserious the European Union is about Turkishmembership. The reforms which have been put inplace by Turkey include legislation providing forthe abolition of the death penalty, the abolitionof torture and ill-treatment of people in custody,the lifting of restrictions on broadcasting inminority languages, judicial reform, civiliancontrol of the military and prison reform. Thatconstitutes a raft of reforms.

Mr. G. Mitchell: That is not the question Iasked.

Mr. Kitt: As far as the Irish Presidency isconcerned, the European Union is serious aboutTurkish membership.

EU Membership.

9. Mr. J. Bruton asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if Croatia fulfils the Copenhagen criteriafor membership of the European Union; and ifnot, the respect in which it is deficient. [9559/04]

Mr. Kitt: The Government welcomed Croatia’sapplication for membership of the EuropeanUnion when it was presented in February 2003.At the request of the Council, the Commission ispreparing a formal opinion on the application asrequired under Article 49 of the Treaty onEuropean Union. This opinion is expected in thenear future. If it is positive, Ireland, as EUPresidency, will facilitate its consideration bymember states with a view to a possible decisionon candidate status by the June EuropeanCouncil.

The Commission’s opinion will be based on anassessment of Croatia’s progress towardfulfilment of the Copenhagen political criteria forcandidate states. These criteria, which were


[Mr. Kitt.]agreed by the Copenhagen European Council in1993, stipulate that membership requires acandidate country to achieve stability ofinstitutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule oflaw, human rights and respect for, and protectionof, minorities. Issues of particular importance inCroatia’s case will include progress in the wide-ranging institutional reform process, minorityrights and the implementation of measures toenable the return of refugees forced to leave theirhomes during the conflicts of the 1990s. Theassessment of Croatia’s co-operation with theInternational Criminal Tribunal for the formerYugoslavia will be crucial.

Croatia has made considerable progress in itsreform process and in the development of afunctioning market economy in recent years. Itsigned a stabilisation and association agreementwith the European Union in October 2001. In itsreport last year on progress under the agreement,the Commission noted that Croatia hadcontinued to make progress in the transitionprocess. It concluded that to meet EU politicaland economic standards further efforts wererequired to implement the reform agenda and totackle remaining shortcomings.

The new Government of Prime Minister IvoSanader, which was formed following a generalelection last December, has made the applicationfor EU membership its top priority. TheTaoiseach had discussions with the PrimeMinister in Berlin on 9 January. The CroationForeign Minister, Dr. Miomir Zuzul, visitedDublin for a meeting with the Minister forForeign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, on 10 February.Deputy Cowen headed the EU troika which metDr. Zuzul in Brussels on 23 February. At eachmeeting, the Croatian Government emphasisedits determination to do everything possible toachieve a positive Commission opinion. PrimeMinister Sanader and Dr. Zuzul underlined theircommitment to strengthening the reform process,improving minority rights and developingregional co-operation. They stated also that theywould make every effort to ensure that Croatiafulfilled all its obligations to the tribunal in theHague.

The EU-western Balkans summit inThessaloniki in June last year agreed that thefuture of the countries of the region lies in theireventual integration into EU structures. Progresswill be made through the European Union’sstabilisation and association process for theregion which involves the implementation ofdetailed and wide-ranging reforms. It is acceptedthat the pace of reform will be different for eachof the five countries of the western Balkans andthat their eventual membership of the EU willrequire the development of closer regional co-operation. The progress made by Croatia in itsrelations with the European Union should,therefore, encourage its neighbours in their ownreform processes. It should also contribute topeace and stability in the western Balkans.

Mr. J. Bruton: While I thank the Minister ofState for his lengthy reply, will he answer thequestion he was asked? Does Croatia fulfil theCopenhagen criteria? If not, in what respect isit deficient?

Mr. Kitt: The Commission will make thedecision and the opinion is expected later in thespring.

Mr. J. Bruton: I am trying to establish theGovernment’s opinion.

Mr. Kitt: Arising from our contacts withCroatia, we accept its bona fides and that it isdetermined to put in place reform processes, dealwith minority rights and develop regional co-operation. There is also the issue of the warcrimes tribunal at the Hague and this is animportant aspect. I think of a Croatian general,whose name now escapes me. Deputy Bruton hashis name.

Mr. J. Bruton: I do not need his name. If theMinister of State would only answer the questionI asked. Where is Croatia deficient in meeting thecriteria? It is a simple question.

Mr. Kitt: It is General Gotovina. The reactionof the Croatian Government to this case iscrucial. There is an opinion that GeneralGotovina’s case will be a hindrance to theprogress made. There are a number of areas inwhich the Croatians must improve. While thecommission will make the decision, theGovernment will be anxious to support it in everyway possible.

Mr. J. Bruton: Is the Minister of State awarethat the per capita GDP of Croatia isapproximately four times that of Bulgaria andRomania, and higher than that in Hungary?Croatia has a well-developed economy and wouldclearly be a useful contributor to the EU. Will theMinister of State re-read his notes and find outwhich of the four criteria Croatia is failing tofulfil? The general is not mentioned in criteria,nor is the court. Will the Minister of State takethe trouble to establish what criterion Croatia isbreaching and let us know?

Mr. Kitt: I will.

Mr. J. Bruton: This House should know whatis the breach, if there is one.

Mr. M. Higgins: Following a meeting with theforeign affairs committee of the Croatianparliament a month ago, I noted a concern amongmembers that the decision on Croatia would notbe made on the basis of its case or compliance.Members of the committee were concerned thatthe position of Croatia’s neighbours would betaken into account and would serve as aneffective block and may delay the decision. I alsounderstood that all the parties contesting the last


election were committed to co-operation with theHague tribunal.

Mr. G. Mitchell: Deputy Bruton has raised aninteresting question. As I understand it, thedifficulty lies with the army officer, AnteGotovina, and co-operation with theInternational Criminal Tribunal on the FormerYugoslavia. The EU is open to every democraticEuropean state. Presumably the difficulty forCroatia lies in meeting democratic standards.Does the Minister of State anticipate that theseproblems will be overcome so that Croatia willjoin the EU, presumably with Bulgaria andRomania in 2007?

Mr. Kitt: Deputy Higgins is correct; the majorissue is the achievement of a positive commissiondecision and it requires co-operation with the warcrimes tribunal in The Hague. Britain and theNetherlands have suspended their ratification ofthe stabilisation and association agreement withCroatia in order to underline their concern onthis issue. The Croatian Government has made agood start in co-operating with the tribunal andhas improved in a relatively short time. Full co-operation is an obligation on all states in theregion.

Deputy Bruton is correct to point to Croatia’seconomic progress. Reforms have beenimpressively implemented across a wide range ofareas. As far as I am aware, Croatia would be inline for accession along with Bulgaria.

Nuclear Weapons Proliferation.

10. Mr. Perry asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if he has had contact with theGovernment in Pakistan with regard to thereported leaking from that country ofinformation relating to the development ofnuclear weaponry to Iran; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [10040/04]

Mr. Kitt: The recent revelations about a secretnetwork illicitly trading in highly sensitive nuclearequipment and technology, organised by theformer Pakistani chief scientific advisor A.Q.Khan, are of serious concern. This issue was onthe agenda of the recent EU Troika meeting withPakistan, held at foreign minister level, inIslamabad on 18 February 2004. The EU side,which was led by the Minister for Foreign Affairs,expressed our serious concern at recentdevelopments in Pakistan regarding proliferationactivities. We also urged Pakistan to ensure a fullinvestigation of these activities and to offer allassistance and co-operation required or requestedby the International Atomic Energy Agency,particularly regarding its ongoing verificationactivities in Iran and Libya. The EU Troika wasassured by Pakistan, at both foreign minister andpresidential level, that there was no governmentknowledge or sanction for Dr. Khan’s activitiesand that new controls have been put in place toprevent proliferation. Pakistan also indicated that

it was willing to share information with theIAEA.

The issue of a black market in nucleartechnology was addressed by the director generalof the International Atomic Energy Agency, Dr.Mohammed El Baradei, in his statement to thismonth’s IAEA board of governors meeting. Dr.El Baradei underlined the necessity of full co-operation on the part of those countries fromwhich nuclear technology and equipmentoriginated. The IAEA board of governorsadopted, by consensus, a resolution concerningIran on 13 March. This resolution notes withappreciation that the agency is investigating thesupply routes and sources of technology andrelated equipment, and nuclear and non-nuclearmaterials, found in Iran. It also reiterates that theurgent, full and close co-operation with theagency by all third countries is essential in theclarification of outstanding questions concerningIran’s nuclear programme, including theacquisition of nuclear technology from foreignsources.

Ireland and our EU partners supported theterms of this resolution, the adoption of whichwas welcomed by the March meeting of theGeneral Affairs and External Relations Council.We urge all third countries to co-operate with theagency in accordance with the resolution. EUMinisters have agreed to continue theirdiscussions on all aspects of the Iranian nuclearprogramme in light of IAEA director general ElBaradei’s next report, due in May. This report isscheduled for consideration at the meeting of theIAEA board of governors in June. Ireland,together with our EU partners, will continue toclosely monitor developments.

Mr. G. Mitchell: I am grateful to the Ministerof State for his reply. The Minister of State willbe aware that Dr. Khan is, or certainly has been,something of a hero in his native country. ThePakistani government has dismissed his activitiesas the actions of a greedy person and has deniedinvolvement in them. This may be the mostextraordinary development of all time. Dr. Khanhas got a slap on the wrists, is apparently able tokeep his acquired property, and is swanningaround the place like a hero.

We have just dealt with a question on Croatia.Croatia will not be admitted to the EU until ithands over a general for trial before theInternational Criminal Tribunal on the FormerYugoslavia. This case refers to people dealing inatomic bombs. The reaction of the USAdministration, which is apparently concernedabout terrorism, has been feeble. The reaction ofthe EU has been even more feeble. This issue hashuge implications for regional and global safety.Will this matter be discussed at the EU-USsummit? Will the IAEA be given new powers?Will those who trade in nuclear weapons behauled before an international court or tribunaland made an example of so that others will not

83 Adjournment 31 March 2004. Debate Matters 84

[Mr. G. Mitchell.]follow in this outrageous trade of nuclearweapons?

Mr. Kitt: I agree with the Deputy’s descriptionof the seriousness of this matter. I will certainlyconvey his views at the EU-US summit and Iagree that the issue warrants discussion at thislevel. At its recent meeting in Pakistan, theTroika indicated EU concerns about proliferationactivities. We urged Pakistan to fully co-operatein the dismantling of the international blackmarket network, as well as offering all assistanceand co-operation required or requested by theInternational Atomic Energy Agency. The EUacknowledged the work on dismantling thisnetwork and indicated that it would co-operatewith Pakistan in this matter. The Pakistani sideemphasised that there had been no officialknowledge or sanction of Dr. Khan’s activitiesand that there were now new controls in thesystem to prevent proliferation. The troikaemphasised to both India and Pakistan theUnion’s commitment to universalisation andstrengthening of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons — the NPT.

We have concerns over the controls in thirdcountries and we must use political avenues toimpress upon these countries the urgency ofimproving their export control system to ensurethat proliferation does not occur. I met the headof the IAEA in the course of my work and wasimpressed with his work. We must support him inhis efforts. I agree with the Deputy in suggestingthat this matter be on the agenda for the EU-US dialogue.

Mr. M. Higgins: A number of matters ariseform the Minister of State’s reply. For some timethe Irish foreign policy was opposed not only toblack market proliferation but also toproliferation as stated in the UN Treaty on theNon-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Inaddition, it was in favour of disarmament. TheMinister of State’s reply could suggest that it isaccepted that Pakistan and, I presume, Indiaremain as nuclear powers, which would beabhorrent in a way. One would have hoped thatthe thrust of foreign policy was that this shouldbe eliminated and would assist in creating betterrelations between the two countries.

The Minister of State also mentioned Dr. ElBaradei. A war over weapons of mass destructionthat did not exist has taken place. We now havea case of weapons of mass destruction that existand the technology has been transmitted toanother country, Iran. Does the Minister suggestthat separate standards exist? For example, Iunderstand that Libya, which has recentlydeconstructed its capacity, has moved itsequipment and uranium to the United States.Does the Minister of State agree that existingnuclear powers have no discipline? Some nuclearpowers, such as Israel, do not allow Dr. ElBaradei assess their capacity. Is the Minister of

State only opposed to black market activity innuclear technology capacity?

Mr. Kitt: As one who strongly supports theTreaty on the Non-proliferation of NuclearWeapons, I consider this instrument to be thecornerstone of the international non-proliferationregime and the essential foundation for thepursuit of nuclear disarmament. HistoricallyIreland has played a strong role in this area andwill continue to do so.

Mr. M. Higgins: That was some time ago.

Mr. Kitt: In our Presidency capacity, we furtherstated that the EU would continue to underlinethe importance of this issue in all relevant fora.We will endeavour to be consistent as Presidentof the European Union and at national level onthis issue.

Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.

Adjournment Debate Matters.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I wish to advisethe House of the following matters in respect ofwhich notice has been given under StandingOrder 21 and the name of the Member in eachcase: (1) Deputy Gilmore — the continuingfailure to address the need for a permanentschool building for the Monkstown EducateTogether national school; (2) Deputy Crawford— the situation where the Department ofAgriculture and Food insists on buying out thetotal herd where an individual animal is foundwith BSE; (3) Deputy O’Sullivan — the need forthe Minister to fulfil the commitment to build anew school at Aghina, Macroom, County Cork,in view of its listing under “proceed toconstruction” in the 2003 schools buildingprogramme and in view of the cost savingsachieved in accordance with the conditions ofapproval; (4) Deputy Durkan — the failure toprovide sufficient funding to facilitate theemployment of adequate staff at Naas GeneralHospital; (5) Deputy Boyle — to ask the Ministerto respond to concerns following the discovery ofa 45-gallon drum of toxic waste discovered on theroadside in Ringaskiddy, County Cork, on 22March; whether he is able to assure the residentsof this area that necessary protective measuresare in place to prevent the discovery of furtherhazardous waste; and whether he can guaranteethat incidents of this type will become lessprevalent should a national toxic wasteincinerator be located in this area; (6) DeputyMorgan — the implications for the partnershipprocess of the statement by the Tanaiste andMinister for Enterprise, Trade and Employmentthat she will collapse the coalition Governmentif the break-up of CIE and the privatisation oftransport services does not go ahead; (7) DeputyO’Dowd — the findings of the EuropeanCommission to impose binding measures on theUK operator, British Nuclear Fuels plc, which has

85 Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2004: 31 March 2004. Second Stage (Resumed) 86

failed to comply with the provisions of theEURATOM Treaty and the rules concerningaccounting for nuclear material at Sellafield,which is currently held in an area of high levelradiation and poor visibility, and that thesituation has now become untenable and callsinto question the credibility of safeguardsdesigned to ensure that nuclear material is notdiverted from peaceful uses; (8) Deputy Cowley— the reason a person (details supplied) assessedas “moderate Down’s syndrome” has beenrefused entry to St. Dymphna’s special school,Ballina; (9) Deputy Broughan — the urgent needfor the Dublin city manager to withdraw aproposed material contravention, by executivefunction, to rezone St. Anne’s Park, Raheny,Dublin 5 — Dublin city’s premier park — for anindustrial waste management process and largeindustrial premises; (10) Deputy Deenihan — theurgent need to provide adequate and appropriateaccommodation for the pupils of Dromcloughnational school, Listowel, County Kerry; (11)Deputy Shortall — the imminent closure of CityLodge, run by the South Western Area HealthBoard, and the serious implications of this for a17 year old (details supplied) vulnerable youthand other residents who are currently beingsuccessfully cared for in this facility. The mattersraised by Deputies Crawford, Gilmore, Cowleyand Durkan have been selected for discussion.

Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2004: Second Stage(Resumed).

Question again proposed: “That the Bill benow read a Second Time.”

Mr. Connolly: I wish to share time withDeputies Cuffe and Morgan.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Is that agreed?Agreed.

Mr. Connolly: The Bill provides for theconduct of this year’s European Parliament, localand presidential elections using electronicmachines and counting systems. I cannot bringmyself to have full confidence in the e-votingsystem as reasonable doubts persist. As time goesby, the doubts become greater. Based on theresults of surveys it is clear the public does nothave complete confidence in the system and agrowing percentage of people are losing faith inthe proposed e-voting mechanism.

Under the old manual voting system, stealingan election would take some doing. Sometimesthe dead needed to be resurrected to cast theirvotes and this practice may not entirelydisappear. However, in America it took theintervention of its Supreme Court in 2000 todetermine the outcome in favour of George Bush.That election raised serious concerns overwhether the result was fair. We should try toavoid that type of problem here. With the new e-voting cartridges it may be possible to hijack the

result with little more than a magnet. People existwho want to spoil their votes and would takegreater joy in spoiling everybody’s vote if thatwere possible. If they thought something like amagnet could disturb the electronics and throwup an incorrect result, this would represent avictory for them. I am sure hackers exist whoregard this system as an opportunity andchallenge to hack.

In June, thousands of polling stations will havevoting machines and screens instead of the oldmanual systems. However, in spite of so-calledsafeguards, passwords and reassurances toprotect the integrity of the e-ballot, the electionprocess has become more vulnerable to systemicfraud than the old system ever was. In the oldsystem a mistake affecting one or two votes couldoccur. However, a mistake in the e-voting systemhas the potential to be one of enormousproportions. There is nothing fanciful aboutsomething going wrong, as ways have been foundto manipulate the source code to producefraudulent results in the US.

Even more serious would be a rogue ormalicious programmer working on the votingmachines who might implant functionality tocause the outcome of the election to bedetermined by a hacker. Electronic voting hasbeen rushed upon voters around the world withlittle regard for the risks and cost to ourdemocracy. Computerised voting is inherentlysubject to programme error, human error,equipment malfunction and malicious tampering.Due to the opaque nature of the technologyinvolved, which few understand, it is crucial thatthe electronic voting system provide for a voterverifiable audit trail — in other words apermanent record of each vote that can bechecked for accuracy by the voter before the voteis cast.

On making a small purchase a receipt is givenshowing the amount paid for a product. There isno reason this functionality should not be addedto this machinery. It would be difficult orimpossible to alter this paper record after it hadbeen checked by the voter. This could also beachieved without compromising the secrecy orintegrity of the ballot. Thus a vote would not beretained by the voter but would be retained in amachine. This audit trail could be used for anypossible recount to verify the electronic result.Without a verifiable voting system every electionwould be open to allegations that it raised doubtsover the results. Election returning officers wouldbe unable to disprove such allegations withoutthe benefit of a paper audit trail.

However, a paper trail alone would not besufficient. All aspects of the voting process wouldneed to be made secure. While not all machinescurrently produce such paper slips, without oneno record exists of how people voted other thanwhat is contained in the machine’s electronicmemory. If any doubt exists over the result of anelection, there will be no votes to examine onlyelectrons inside a computer’s server. A recount


[Mr. Connolly.]on the machine would always produce the sameresult and there would be no way to prove ordisprove allegations of fraud.

The provision of a voter verifiable audit trailwould be one of the most essential requirementsfor any new electronic voting system. If any doubtexisted about the results from the electronicvotes, the securely stored paper votes would bechecked but should match the electronic votes.As a deterrent, the paper trail should be checkedin random constituencies or wards even if theresults are not in any doubt. This could take placeperhaps one, two or three months after theelection in order that the public can rest assuredthat the system is working adequately.

Advocates of electronic voting often say thatpaperless ballots may save money and eliminatethe problems common to old systems. However,the technology gives rise to a new breed ofsecurity concerns such as software errors andmalicious manipulation of election results.Everyone wants a system of electronic votingwhich is at least as open as the current papersystem. Such a system must be capable of beingaudited. There is no point in having a recount,particularly if one presses a button and the samenumbers appear. It must also protect the privacyof individuals and the counting process. Thesewould appear to be simple requests and onecannot help but question someone who saysotherwise. People who vote electronically shouldbe able to view a paper record of theirpreferences. This would boost their confidence inthe system.

Ensuring the accuracy of the ballot is aparamount function of returning officers and itmakes perfect sense that the highest standardsshould obtain. Following a close election inAustralia in 1998, the authorities decided toinvestigate electronic voting because they werealready concerned about the reliability, securityand openness of the system. The recounts in the2000 US presidential election made them doublycautious. They settled on a particular system forwhich the design and implementation werecarried out by a private company. However,documents and codes were made available forpublic debate and scrutiny as well as for formalanalysis. Trials showed that the system performedas specified and complaints about error or fraudare non-existent. The system runs on Linux andthe emphasis from the start has been on total andutter transparency. This transparency has theeffect of enhancing the voting process and thecountry’s democracy. Conversely, anyinformation withheld from the public would havethe effect of undermining democracy.

Election counts should also have the provisionfor election tally persons to maintain final talliesfrom each ballot box. Software is highly complex.Large software packages are so complex thatthere is virtually no way to successfully examinea programme for malicious behaviour. Fairelections are the lifeblood of democracy. The

consequences for democracy would be dire ifmachines were to have potential security flaws.Democracy has always been something of amessy process but so far it is the best option wehave.

In previous election counts, often due to sheerfatigue on the part of count officials, ballot papershave been misread and bundles of voting papersmisplaced or credited to the wrong candidates.On polling day, some disabled people have beenunable to vote privately and some illiteratepeople have been unable to vote for the desiredcandidate. We have come a long way from havinga show of hands or shouts of “Ta” and “Nıl”.Electronic voting is the latest in a long line ofimperfect solutions.

During the 2000 US presidential election, atown in Indiana with a population of 17,000recorded more than 130,000 votes on itselectronic machines. There was no way to checkthe authenticity of those votes which weresubsequently credited to none other than GeorgeW. Bush. As everyone knows, similar abusesoccurred in Florida and the rest is history.

Problems in electronic voting may be nothingmore than engineering incompetence allied topolitical expediency. However, it could be moresinister. People have complained that there is noprovision to spoil one’s vote. I do not believe itwould take a great deal of time to type in “Isupport none of the above”. We were asked tocomment on electronic voting but I have not yetseen one of the machines that will be used. Itwould have been reasonable to provide theHouse with such a machine in order thatMembers could examine it and know what theyare talking about.

Independent candidates will be misplaced onthe electronic voting system. Members of partieswill have the logo of said parties either beforeor after their names. However, nothing appearsbefore or after the name of an Independent.Perhaps the word “Independent” or thatrepublican slogan which was given away recentlycould be inserted in front of our names. As JosefStalin said, “Those who cast their votes decidenothing. Those who count the votes decideeverything.”

Mr. Cuffe: The Green Party is in favour ofelectronic voting, with the caveat that we wish tosee a voter verifiable audit trail. We are alsoconcerned about the costs involved. From theevidence to date, it seems the costs will be aquantum leap higher than the traditional costsrelating to an election. I appreciate that there willbe one-off, start-up costs but there are somestorm clouds gathering in respect of the issue ofcosts. The storage costs for these machines willbe significantly higher than would be the case fortraditional ballot boxes. We are concerned thatthe overall costs, even measured over a 20-yearcycle, could be significantly higher than thoserelating to our more traditional methods ofvoting.


I reiterate and re-emphasise some of the pointsin the Green Party’s submission to theCommission on Electronic Voting. In Ireland weuse the proportional representation, singletransferable vote electoral system. Traditionally,members of the electorate have marked theirpreferences on a ballot paper using a pencil. Theballot paper would have been validated by thepresiding officer by means of a stamp prior tomarking of said preferences. Once completed, thevoter placed the marked ballot in a sealed ballotbox. At the end of the poll, the aperture of theballot box was sealed, in open view, with a waxseal in order to prevent deposition of additionalballot papers. The box was then transported tothe count centre by authorised personnel whereit was guarded until the commencement of thecount. At the commencement of the count, theballot box was opened by the returning officerunder observation by the candidates andcandidates’ agents. This whole process wascompleted in the open, using well understoodprocedures. It was completely transparent andevery step in the process could be audited foraccuracy, while still maintaining the secrecy ofthe vote.

That was the case until October 2002, when theGovernment decided to roll-out electronic votingnationwide for this year’s elections. The e-votingsystem being proposed comprises two elements:computerised voting machine running bespokesoftware on a Motorola chip; and a vote countingsystem based on the Microsoft Jet (Access)database engine, running on a standard WinTelPC with a Microsoft Windows operating systemrunning on an Intel or compatible processor.Using the e-voting system, the voter indicatespreferences by touching a button or switchadjacent to the details of each of the candidates,in the sequence of his or her choice. Pressing thebutton causes information about the candidate tobe displayed on an LCD display at the top of themachine. The sequence of the choice is displayedon an LED display adjacent to each button orswitch. Once the voter has completed his or herchoice, he or she presses the Cast Vote button torecord his or her choice.

From this point the voter’s choices arerecorded electronically, transported to the countcentre electronically and are countedelectronically. Handling of the electronic vote isby the software and hardware of the votingmachine and the count PC. As such, it isincapable of being scrutinised, verified or auditedby interested parties for the duration of theprocess or afterwards. This is a significantdeparture from the open and transparent systemcurrently employed, as it removes the voter’sability to observe the process from beginning toend. Instead, it requires the voter to blindly trustthe claims of the manufacturer and theDepartment of the Environment, Heritage andLocal Government about the capabilities of thesystem.

It is significant that a number of informationtechnology professionals, including the IrishComputer Society, have identified potentialproblems with the system. We note that theMinister has refused to meet the IT professionalsto discuss the issues of concern and that theSecretary General of the Department has not yetmade good on his promise to the Oireachtas JointCommittee on Environment and LocalGovernment on 18 December 2003 to engageconstructively with the IT community on the issueand to obtain answers to questions raised at thatmeeting which the Department and its supplierswere unable to answer at that time.

Three discrete issues come under the headingof secrecy: many details of the Nedap-Powervotesystem are held to be commercial secrets and are,therefore, not open to independent study, test orverification by interested citizens; the system doesnot provide for the maintenance of the secrecy ofthe vote for certain categories of voter; and thesystem does not facilitate voters with impairedvision who could have voted in secret had the e-voting system been planned in a different way.

The Nedap-Powervote system has beendeveloped using an outdated proprietarydevelopment model which holds key parts of thesystem to be trade secrets and therefore notavailable for scrutiny. The nature of this approachmeans that, in practice, the returning officer nolonger has effective control of the process butmust instead trust that the vendors and their staffhave not made a mistake somewhere along theline. It is wholly inappropriate that a privatecompany, based outside this jurisdiction, shouldhave this level of control over the nation’svoting system.

We draw the Minister’s attention, as have otherspeakers, to the development model used by theAustralian Capital Territory electoralcommission in Canberra. Its system, developedfrom scratch in six months at a cost of 125,000Australian dollars, used an open sourcedevelopment model to ensure appropriatetransparency.

By way of contrast, the Irish system is based ona modification of an existing system but has costmore than \475,000 and remains incompletefollowing nearly four years of development. Theprimary benefit of the open source approach isthat the software developed remains the propertyof the electoral commission in Australia, orIreland as would be the case here, and there areno limitations on the ability of the public toreview the code to see how the system works.

I will now touch briefly on the issue of secrecyfor voters wishing to abstain. The Minister saidthat a voter need not press the cast vote buttonand that would, in effect, ensure an absent votewas recorded. I am concerned this might fail tooperate correctly in practice. What is theabstainer to do on leaving the polling booth —cough loudly? There is a real danger that the nextvoter would take upon himself or herself to castthat vote. Will the returning officer examine the


[Mr. Cuffe.]machine to ensure it is clear for the next voter? Iam not convinced the abstainer’s needs will betaken on board by the current system.

On the issue of secrecy for visually impairedvoters, the Green Party would like the Ministerto refine the system, although it may not bepossible to do this for the upcoming elections. Itis relatively simple to reconfigure the system toprovide for visually impaired voters. Perhapsthere could be an audio input into the machines,by way of headphones, that would allow a visuallyimpaired voter to cast his or her vote in a secretmanner. We would like the Minister to take thisissue on board for future elections.

I will now deal briefly with the accuracy ofballots. The Association of ComputingMachinery, the primary, global professional bodyfor the information technology profession, statedthat computers are inherently subject toprogramming error, equipment malfunction andmalicious tampering. On many occasions, wehave asked the Minister to outline the securityprocedures in place for the vetting of staff ofNedap-Powervote but he has thus far chosen notto respond to that question.

The procedures for storing, transporting,erecting and dismantling the e-voting machinesdo not appear to have been written or audited atthis time. The position is the same in terms of theprocedures for upgrading the software, applyingpatches to it or applying security seals to thehardware. From an operational perspective, theprimary reason the Nedap-Powervote system isconsidered unsafe by the IT profession is thatunlike any important — never mind critical —application of IT, the system does not includeprocedures to provide independent real-timeverification that it is operating properly. It alsofails to provide the ability to audit the operationof the system following the event. This is a crucialpart of our concerns.

4 o’clock

The introduction of a paperless e-voting systemis a major departure in the conduct of electionsin this State. The e-voting system is being

introduced despite the fact thatmajor technological and practicalissues have not been addressed to the

satisfaction of the IT community. The Oppositionparties are in agreement that the system is not yetdeveloped to a standard they are happy tosupport. The fact that the electoral system willbe owned by a private Dutch company and thetechnical details will be held to be trade secrets isunacceptable to the Green Party. We note thatNathean Technologies have advised that thecount software should be migrated to a moreappropriate platform and that this is planned forby the Department. We request that thecommission recommend to the Department ofthe Environment, Heritage and LocalGovernment, that an open source solution,similar to the Australian system, be used whenperforming the migration. This will eliminate the

issue of trade secrets and will make the systemmore transparent.

We request, therefore, that the commissionconclude that the Nedap-Powervote e-votingsystem requires further development in all theareas outlined and that the system should not beused until such time as all the issues have beenaddressed to the satisfaction of the ITcommunity. The Green Party is in favour of e-voting but it must be verifiable and deliver bettervalue for money than the current system.

Mr. Morgan: The defining feature of theelectronic voting debacle has been its contra-democratic nature. The coalition partners aretrampling over citizens’ democratic rights.

In assaulting the electoral process, the Ministerhas outdone himself. In one fell swoop he hasdriven a wrecking ball through the electoralsystem. Without any justification, he has decidedto introduce fundamental changes in how we voteby way of a flawed voting system. The wholefarce has distracted from the Minister’s abysmalrecord since taking office. He is guided in theintroduction of e-voting by his arrogance and thecontempt in which this Government holdsdemocracy and the will of the people. He has onlyreluctantly introduced this legislation havinginitially claimed that primary legislation was notrequired and that the system could be introducedby way of ministerial order. I am sure theMinister would be only too glad to do away withthe need for legislation and to implement hisideologically driven desires by way of ministerialorders across the board.

A fundamental conflict of interest arises in thecontext of the Minister being director of electionsfor the Fianna Fail party while being in charge ofthe organisation of the forthcoming elections. Heshould decide which position he chooses to holdon to or declare an interest in this issue beforethe Dail.

Dr. Devins: That is rubbish.

Mr. Morgan: I will now address the Minister’sfailure to take on board the concerns raised bySinn Fein and other Opposition parties, membersof the public and computer science experts. I willthen address a number of specific elements in theBill. Sinn Fein raised its concerns regarding theelectronic voting process at an early stage. Theissue of a paper trail remains central to ourconcerns on the proposed introduction ofelectronic voting and is a critical factor inensuring public confidence in the system. Arecent Sunday Business Post Red C pollillustrated that the majority of Irish voters wouldlike the introduction of electronic votingpostponed until it has been modified to include apaper trail, yet the Minister refused to meetrepresentatives of the concerned group, IrishCitizens for Trustworthy E-voting and has nowrefused to address in this legislation thosepertinent concerns.


Deputy Cullen is an opportunistic Ministerwho defected to Fianna Fail from the ProgressiveDemocrats for his own advancement and to goodeffect. He is blindly following the Americanexample. The American public learned the perilsof electronic voting when it was forced upon it inthe form of Diebold election systems. Why is thisMinister dragging us down the same misguidedpath? There are numerous examples of thefailure of electronic voting systems in the UnitedStates. For example, six electronic votingmachines used in the two North Carolina countieslost 436 ballots cast in early voting in the 2002general election because of a software problem.

Mr. Cullen: It is a different system. The Deputymight as well be speaking about growing carrots.

Mr. Morgan: Where e-voting has been used,there has been an array of other problems,including machines that sometimes fail to boot upor to record votes, or that even record them forthe wrong candidates. The Minister might as wellbe discussing growing vegetables the way he isperforming — he is certainly not paying muchheed to what we are advocating here.

Mr. Cullen: I listen to every sensible argument.

Mr. Morgan: He has not done so to date andthere are very real concerns, not just in thisHouse but well beyond, to which he has given noconsideration whatsoever. My party supports theidea of electronic voting with the Mercurimethod applied——

Mr. Cullen: The likes of the Deputy havefanned the flames.

Mr. Morgan: ——whereby a paper copy of thevote could be verified by the voter.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy, withoutinterruption, please.

Mr. Morgan: A Cheann Comhairle, theMinister does not really want to hear me soplease allow him to interrupt if he wishes. He hasshown no serious concern or interest in this todate.

An Ceann Comhairle: Now that the Ministerhas ceased to interrupt, I suggest that the Deputynot provoke him.

Mr. Morgan: A Cheann Comhairle, even toaddress the Minister on any issue in his portfoliois regarded by him as provocation. He should giveme a break. Without a paper trail, voters cannotbe assured that the choice they entered on themachine is the same as that recorded by it. Thatis the fundamental problem which the legislationdoes nothing to address. The reality is thatcomputers fail and break down. Only last week,an entire internal network in the Dail collapsed.I am sure the Minister, Deputy Cullen, and his

experts would have told us that it could nothappen, yet it did. Many Members lost files thatthey held on their computer systems. I know,since I lost several myself, as I am sure othersdid too.

Mr. Cullen: Sinn Fein lost much more thantheir files over the years.

Mr. Morgan: One thing that we have kept isour credibility. We maintain our integrity. Wewill stick with the Bill. I do not want to get intoabusing the Minister. That would not be fair.

Mr. Cullen: Do not go there.

Mr. Morgan: Unfortunately, computers areunreliable and can be interfered with. TheMinister is essentially asking voters to put theirballot paper into a black hole and trust an e-voting system whose source code is not evenavailable to the Government, let alone the public.There is not even a provision for the Commissionon Electronic Voting to examine the source code.Can we really trust an e-voting system whosesource code is not publicly available? How canthe commission fulfil its obligations fully in sucha situation?

I would like to ask the Minister specificallyabout section 9(2), which states: “An election orreferendum shall not be questioned on thegrounds that the requirement in subsection (1)with respect to the production by a votingmachine of the printed statement referred to inthat subsection has not been complied with.” Thepurpose of that certificate, required under section9(1) is to prove that no votes were fraudulentlyentered into the machine before thecommencement of voting. Neither is the failureto comply with the requirement for the machineto produce a statement at the close of votingcause to bring an election into question.Essentially, therefore, we are being told that itdoes not matter if the minor safeguards containedin this Bill are ignored. I would appreciate aresponse on that from the Minister. Surely it isobvious that, if a presiding officer wished tointerfere with a voting machine, he or she woulddeliberately not print out such a statement.

Section 29, a provision to make statisticalinformation available, is rather dubious andseems merely a capitulation to pressure from theendangered species known as “Fianna Failtallymen”. I ask the Minister to make itabsolutely clear that the Government will act onthe recommendations of the Commission onElectronic Voting and that, if the commissionrecommends the non-application of e-voting, theGovernment will accept that and abandon the useof electronic voting until such time as a proper,verifiable system has been identified. I appreciatethat the Minister has acknowledged thatpositively. Does the Government havecontingency plans in place to deal with thateventuality?


[Mr. Morgan.]The commission’s terms of reference must

contain a provision for it to carry out backgroundchecks on the company providing the votingsystem proposed for use in this State. In otherstates, voting company employees have beenimplicated in bribery or kickback schemesinvolving election officials. What precautions arebeing taken against such an eventuality in thiscase? Sinn Fein will introduce amendments tothis Bill to ensure that a paper copy of the voteverified by the voter will be held for the purposesof independent recount and calling for thecomplete source code to be publicly available forinspection by citizens and specifically bycomputer science experts.

In the same section of his address, the Ministersaid that ballot papers were held up to checkwhether the perforation had gone through incases of close counts. He concluded his commentsby saying that in the 21st century, there must bea better way of doing things. That quote from theMinister represents the only agreement that heand I are likely to have on this Bill. There mustbe a better way.

Dr. Devins: I wish to share time with DeputyDan Wallace.

An Ceann Comhairle: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Dr. Devins: I am delighted at this opportunityto speak on this important legislation, theElectoral (Amendment) Bill 2004. It is importantbecause it concerns something at the very heartof our democratic system, namely, the electoralprocess. There has been considerable publicinterest in the proposed change from manual orpaper ballot to electronic voting. That interest isvery welcome since it reflects great awareness onthe part of the public in the democratic process.Unfortunately, it has been obvious for some timethat the number of people who vote in electionshas been falling, and it is in the interests ofdemocracy in general that any fall in voterparticipation be arrested. The right to cast one’svote in a fair and transparent way is the basis ofour democracy. It took a long time for the peopleof this country to acquire that right, and it issomething that we as legislators must defend.Voter apathy is very dangerous, and anything thatcan reverse that trend of falling numbers of votersis welcome.

For that reason, the controversy over thechange from traditional voting methods toelectronic ones is welcome, and one hopes that itwill result in increased numbers of people votingin future elections. The first question we must askourselves is why the system should be changedsince it has served this country well for manyyears. The answer lies in the advantages thatelectronic voting will bring to the electoralprocess. I believe that it is safer than the oldsystem, but the establishment by the Minister of

the Commission on Electronic Voting willconfirm or refute that belief.

The commission is composed of eminentpeople. Its chairman, a judge of the High Court,the Clerk of the Dail, the Clerk of the Seanadand two other persons with knowledge orexperience of information technology will havethe job of reporting by 1 May 2004 on the secrecyand accuracy of the system chosen for use at theforthcoming elections in June. Their report mustbe laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas andthey will advise regarding the application of thechosen system in the forthcoming elections. It willput to bed once and for all the debate that hasraged regarding the advantages or disadvantagesof electronic voting, especially regarding secrecyand accuracy. It will reassure the public.

Another advantage of electronic voting is thatit is a much quicker method of calculating theresult of an election. Since electronic voting issimply the calculation by a counting machine ofvotes cast, the process of counting votes iscompleted within a very short period, therebyallowing the result of the first count to beannounced very shortly after the process hasstarted. I welcome the fact that the public andthe candidates will be informed of the first-roundresult so that they have a chance to assess howthey are polling. The whole country remembersthe situation at the last general election whenonly the final result was announced and thedisappointment of an unexpected result wasapparent on some candidates’ faces. By allowingeach count to be made public, candidates, theirfamilies and supporters, and members of thepublic, will all be better prepared for the eventualresult. Owing to this much faster method ofcalculating the result, it is expected that the finalresult will be known a few hours after the pollingbooths have closed.

Much has been made by some members of theOpposition of the fact that the long, drawn-outprocess of manual counting with its tallymen andso on will be lost. However, in reality the day or,in some cases, days of counting votes manuallyconsisted of long periods of inactivity with shortbursts of hyperactivity. It was a slow cumbersomeprocess and as in all walks of life progress in thisfield is welcome. It is true the media will nowhave to find other ways of filling their timeschedules in the day after the election. However,knowing how resourceful and inventive membersof the media are, especially television and radio,I have no doubt they will have no difficulty infinding other newsworthy items.

Another great advantage of electronic voting isthat it is much more user friendly. At the momentmany of these voting machines are on displaythroughout the country. Last Monday night Iattended a meeting in west Sligo. Everyone therewho had attended a demonstration on how to usethe voting machines that day concurred that itwas simplicity in the extreme. The electronicvoting system allows the voter to simply press abutton to select his or her candidate or


candidates. It provides clear voting instructions sothat human error is much less likely. Most spoiledvotes occur in error. People go the polling boothto cast their votes. We live in a democracy. Ifsomeone does not want to vote, he or she maystay away from the polling booth. Unlike somestates, we do not force people to vote. Anythingthat can be done to eliminate accidentally spoiledvotes is to be welcomed. Electronic voting will dothis and so it is a progressive step. We live in the21st century, not in the 19th century. As aprogressive country we should embrace moderntechnology. The reactionary and outdated viewsof some members of the Opposition in this regardis amazing. Coming as they do from someDeputies who profess to be radical thinkers, it iseven more amazing. Is it not true that their loveof the media limelight has driven some of themto espouse an antiquated position on this, whiledeep down they must be embarrassed because oftheir so-called radical stance on other issues?Their thinking and standing on electronic votinghas exposed the paucity of their thoughts and leftthem, to use a paraphrase, like the emperorwithout clothes.

When this Bill is passed Ireland will have asafer, much more efficient, faster and more user-friendly voting system than in the past. It is worthremembering that this system of electronic votingis not new here. In Ireland it has already beenused by more than 400,000 members of theelectorate at the last general election. It is alsoworth remembering that many members of theOpposition were loud in their praise of electronicvoting at that time. Some members of Oppositionparties went so far as to introduce electionleaflets in support of electronic voting. This is amodern country and we live in the 21st century.Let us embrace modern technology to improveour democracy. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. D. Wallace: I take the opportunity to paytribute to the Minister for the Environment,Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen.His is a large Department with greatresponsibility. Since he became Minister hisperformance has been excellent. He has beendecisive, with a no-nonsense approach, which iswidely recognised outside this House. This maynot be the view of all sections within the House,but I assure the Minister that the public recognisethe difficult job he has and the role he is playing.He should keep up the good work.

Mr. Morgan: Who is the Deputy talking about?

Dr. Devins: The Minister.

Mr. D. Wallace: Deputy Morgan did not makemuch of a contribution when he had his time.There are few issues on which everyone in thisHouse agrees. Different parties have disparatepolicies and individuals have alternativeperspectives on varied issues. Everyone has thesame mind set, however, when it is a question of

democracy. The view is that nothing should bedone that erodes the democratic process. Againstthat background, therefore, any change in themanner in which elections are run deserves themost careful scrutiny to ensure the proposedchanges will not impact adversely on theelectoral process.

The introduction of electronic voting willstrengthen and enhance the democratic processand the operation of elections, for a variety ofreasons. The reasons include, among others, thefact that modern technology is used to ensure amore accurate result. It will result in the exactpreferences of the voter being recognised asopposed to the opinion of the returning officer incases of partially legible ballot papers. It willallow for faster counting of votes and theelimination of recounts.

Some of the concerns expressed do no notstand up to scrutiny, particularly over the use oftechnology to allow people to vote. We shouldhave no apprehensions about the capacity of thevoting public to understand and avail of theopportunity to vote electronically. Anyone whohas seen the machines at the various informationsessions held around the country mustacknowledge that the system is easy to use andsimple to follow. There is a responsibility on allMembers of this House, irrespective of politicalopinion, not to try to confuse the people. Peopleuse technology-based systems every day in avariety of different settings, whether turning onthe microwave or withdrawing money from thebank. We should not under estimate the ability ofthe public to adapt to the new voting system.

The most frequently articulated view fromthose who oppose this measure is, “If it is notbroken, why fix it?” If we can improve the systemand make it fairer we have a responsibility toconsider this. Anyone who has ever been at atight count, as I certainly have — having beenbeaten by five votes at a recount — will knowthat the present manual system results inthousands of ballot papers being declared invalidand very often votes not being counted becauseof some inadvertent action by either the voter orthe polling station staff. Issues such as bad writingand incorrectly stamped ballot papers lead tomany votes being spoilt. At the last generalelection seats were decided in 18 constituenciesby less than the number of spoilt votes. If aperson takes the trouble to go to a polling stationto cast his or her vote, there should at least be anassurance that the vote will be counted.Unfortunately, under the current system, toomany people are denied this right.

One of the defining features of any society ishow democracy operates. It stands to reason thatevery available technology should be used toensure the chance of achieving the fairestoutcomes in elections is maximised. Removal ofthe element of the inadvertent spoilt vote will goa long way towards achieving this objective. Aperson’s right to deliberately spoil his or her votewas mentioned. I do not share the view that we


[Mr. D. Wallace.]should facilitate people who wish to follow thiscourse of action. People have the right to go to apolling station and have their names marked offthe register and not vote. That is sufficient asregards protest and it is open to all voters whowish to exercise their franchise in this way. Froma technological viewpoint, the most importantaspect of the introduction of electronic voting isthat it has already been tested in two previousballots, in a referendum and a general election,and 400,000 voters have used the system withoutany problems or any challenges to the results.Feedback from voters who have used the systemhas been overwhelmingly positive. That includespoliticians who are Members of this House. Theyhave acknowledged it is a good system and werequite happy with it. There might be a differentview in the House today, during this debate, butthat is the position on the record.

Obviously, in the run-up to the election it willbe important to step up the public informationcampaign. A key factor critical to the successfulintroduction of electronic voting will be to ensurethat the public is fully informed and that peopleare totally comfortable about using the newsystem. the television and radio campaigns, alliedto the road shows and billboard posters willensure that voters are fully informed in advanceof the elections. Change is never easy. Peopleoften fear the unknown. However, we shouldhave no fears about this new system.

We have a proud position of independently runelections, providing results for which the peoplevoted. This system will not change that, but willfurther enhance the quality of service to thevoting public at elections. It will ensure a moreaccurate result in a much speedier fashion. Wehave a responsibility to embrace the change andto make reasoned and valued contributions sothat the public can also recognise the merits ofthese proposals. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Visit of Hungarian Delegation.

An Ceann Comhairle: Before proceeding withbusiness, I wish on my own behalf and on behalfof the Members of Dail Eireann to offer a ceadmıle failte, a most sincere welcome, to membersof the committee on municipalities of theNational Assembly of Hungary, who are in theDistinguished Visitors’ Gallery. I hope they willfind their visit enjoyable, successful and to ourmutual benefit.



Mr. McCormack: I wish to be associated withthe Ceann Comhairle’s welcome. It may be acoincidence that yesterday we were speaking on

a motion of no confidence in the Minister, whiletoday he is under pressure regarding theintroduction of electronic voting.

Mr. Cullen: I am not under any pressure.

Mr. McCormack: The Minster looks like a manunder pressure.

Mr. Cullen: I am wrong. I apologise. I amunder ferocious pressure because of the smokingban. That is where the pressure is.

Mr. McCormack: My eyes are deceiving me. Iregret that the Minister is under such pressuretwo days in succession. He might not have neededto be under any pressure regarding electronicvoting if he had made a genuine effort to bringthe Opposition parties with him. All of us in thisChamber would have liked to support electronicvoting. The previous speaker said there is nodifficulty in voting for it. No one has any problemwith the machines. Everyone has a difficulty withtrust in the machines and in the peopleintroducing them. That is where the public’sdifficulty lies, not with the voting. The arroganceof the Minister has led us to the situation we arein today. It would have been much better if hehad tried to bring everyone with him rather thanbulldozing the legislation through.

We are discussing the Bill which will make thislegal. A year ago, however, the Minister waspursuing the issue and, six months ago, he wasbuying the machines. They were then introducedwith the contract signed on 19 December.Clearly, all this was done without Dail approval,which was a serious mistake. It is a classicexample of putting the cart before the horse.

I remind the Minister of the meeting of 18December. I am a member of the JointCommittee on Environment and LocalGovernment. Early in December we werediscussing this matter at the committee, and haddecided to bring in experts from both sides of thedebate — information technology experts,experts from the Department of theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government,and representatives of the foreign manufacturersof the machines. We had a fruitful discussion inthe morning, with 41 questions posed by theexperts. After lunch we intended to continue theexchanges. The Minister was not at the meetingbut must have been watching proceedings on hismonitor. I do not know what happened duringlunch time but there was a complete reversal ofevents afterwards. The Fianna Fail members ofthe committee immediately put the matter to avote to allow the Minister to proceed with theintroduction of electronic voting. The meetingthen concluded, some five or ten minutes after ithad resumed after lunch. The contract was signedthe following day, 19 December.

Mr. Durkan: That was the major factor.


Mr. Cullen: One would think I signed thecontract myself.

Mr. Durkan: The contract was signed withnothing decided.

Mr. McCormack: The contract was signed and,four and a half months later, we are only nowbringing the legislation before the Dail. That isnot the way to do business.

Mr. Durkan: Sign the contract first and look forthe money afterwards.

Mr. McCormack: It has since been discoveredthrough a freedom of information request that4,500 voting machines costing \20 million hadbeen imported before the contract was signed andthat 1,100 of them were imported before thedesign was certified on 19 December. Somebodywas in a great rush to facilitate the manufacturersof this machine and bring in electronic voting.

Mr. Durkan: Men of action.

Mr. McCormack: The Minister said that thepurpose of the Bill is to provide primarylegislation for the conduct of European, local andpresidential elections and referendums usingelectronic voting. It also provides for theestablishment of an independent electoralcommission. Accordingly, the Bill will give theauthority to the Minister to proceed withelectronic voting whereas, before that, he had noauthority to buy machines on behalf of theGovernment or anyone else.

Mr. Cullen: I had the authority of theOireachtas.

Mr. McCormack: I did not interrupt theMinister and I wish he would have some mannersand not interrupt me.

Mr. Cullen: I would hate the Deputy to beincorrect.

Mr. Durkan: According to the Minister,everything is incorrect except his own opinion.

Mr. McCormack: This Bill will be passed by theGovernment majority when it goes to a voteeither tomorrow or next week. The ProgressiveDemocrats Party members, who have expressedserious reservations about this matter, have oncemore decided to roll over and protect their ownpositions.

Mr. Durkan: They are falling on their swords.

Mr. McCormack: What promise have theyreceived on this occasion? Where are the self-proclaimed watchdogs of the Government? Inparticular, where is the Minister for Justice,Equality and Law Reform whose general electionposters urged people not to trust Fianna Fail or

single party government and to help electProgressive Democrats candidates to keep an eyeon them? That is what the Minister said, and whatthe people did. They elected ProgressiveDemocrats candidates to ensure Fianna Failwould not have an overall majority.

Mr. Durkan: Tarzan did not deliver.

Mr. McCormack: The Progressive Democratsmembers have now become more like Fianna Failthan Fianna Fail members.

Mr. Durkan: They are worse.

Mr. McCormack: They made some noises whenthe Minister, Deputy Cullen, was abroad, butthey quickly quietened down when he returned.Clearly, the Minister knows a little of the mindsetof the Progressive Democrats, having been amember himself. The public, however, cannotunderstand why the Progressive Democratswould cave in on this matter. That party’s attitudeseems to be one of not rocking the boat andcontinuing with its cosy arrangement.

This Bill will be passed by a majority, but thereis more than that to governing, especially when itinvolves a precious democratic process.Governments were twice before in power for longperiods. Such Governments, like the current one,become arrogant. Twice in the past aGovernment tried to change the voting system byabolishing proportional representation. Althoughthe Government had a majority at the time, thatattempted abolition was twice rejected by thepeople. The Minister says everyone is in favourof electronic voting, but I challenge him to putthe matter to a referendum. Our Constitutionstates that all power comes from the people. Thisdebate will not change the Government’s maddesire to rush into electronic voting because weexpect that the Progressive Democrats and someof the Independent Deputies strenuouslyopposed to electronic voting will support theGovernment.

Public opinion at the June elections willeventually change the Government. Given thearrogance with which the Government haspushed this matter through, I call on the peopleat the June elections to show their distaste by notsupporting the Government parties. Where werethe Progressive Democrats members when all thistook place? They woke up for only a short period.The public will want more. It is not good enoughfor the Government to say that the machines areokay. The public wants more information. I willnot go into the technicalities. They have beendealt with by other speakers, including DeputyCuffe, who noted how dangerous and unreliableelectronic voting could be under the proportionalrepresentation system. I will leave that to theexperts.

Given what has been exposed regarding theworking of politics in Ireland and involvingpeople at the highest levels in Fianna Fail over a


[Mr. McCormack.]number of years, and given all that has happened,people have lost confidence in politicians doinganything right. They are always looking for anexcuse. The public agrees with the Minister forJustice, Equality and Law Reform that FiannaFail is not to be trusted.

In his speech earlier the Minister claimed thatthe people now attacking him for going too farwere the ones four years ago who wanted hispredecessor to do more on the issue. He is alsoclaiming that in those first four years, no one hadanything concrete to say about electronic voting.However, it was not a public debate at the time.Those were the days when people had more trustin politics and politicians than they have now. Itis all right for the Minister to say——

Mr. Cullen: They trusted Fianna Fail more thanFine Gael in 2002. Those are the facts.

Mr. McCormack: I will ignore the Ministerwhen he is in that mood. The Minister claimedthat 87% of the people had no problem withelectronic voting in the three pilot areas in thelast election. I agree that 87% would have noproblem with electronic voting, but the samenumber do not trust politicians or the possibilitythat there will be errors in the vote. They want averifiable print-out audit. It is simply that and Icannot understand why the Minister is notgiving it.

Mr. Cullen: What would that mean?

An Ceann Comhairle: Allow DeputyMcCormack to continue without interruption.

Mr. McCormack: The Minister had hisopportunity to——

Mr. Cullen: The machine will only print theresult. What does the Deputy want the machineto print?

An Ceann Comhairle: Allow DeputyMcCormack to continue without interruption.

Mr. McCormack: It is easy to see why peopleare suspicious of this move to e-voting. Whetherthe Minister likes this, the perception is that somepoliticians might be tempted to interfere with theelectronic voting system.

Mr. Cullen: Then remove it.

An Ceann Comhairle: Allow DeputyMcCormack to continue. The Minister will havean opportunity to respond at the end of thedebate.

Mr. McCormack: That perception is therebecause of the exposure of some politicians’ pastactivities, many at the highest level of Fianna Fail.Compared to that, fiddling with the electronicvoting system would be nothing.

Mr. Cullen: Fine Gael would be better off outcanvassing to win a few seats in the localelections. Things must not look good for itscandidates.

Mr. McCormack: I know what the people onthe ground are thinking on this issue.

In his Second Stage speech the Minister madearrogant remarks which I consider a personalinsult. He stated:

I have no doubt that at certain times inrecent debates, Fine Gael spokespeople [thatincludes me] genuinely have not known whatthey were talking about. . . . This will not havebeen the first time Fine Gael have lookedthrough the wrong end of the telescope ...

I resent those remarks because all Members areelected by the people. Irrespective of hisperceived intelligence compared to myintelligence——

Mr. Cullen: I never mentioned the Deputy. Iwas not even thinking of him when I said that.

Mr. Ring: Of course those are not theMinister’s words. Those are the words of anofficial or a programme manager.

Mr. McCormack: Unlike the Minister, I havebeen elected while representing the one party.The people have confidence in me. I might notbe as much an intellectual as the Minister.

Mr. Cullen: I was not even thinking of theDeputy.

Mr. McCormack: I am elected to represent theviewpoints of the ordinary people on the ground.They do not trust Fianna Fail or this Minister inintroducing electronic voting because of thestrong possibility of interference. The sooner theMinister realises that——

Mr. Cullen: Why is Fine Gael down to 20 oddseats in the Dail?

Mr. McCormack: The sooner you realise thatand try to bring all the parties into——

An Ceann Comhairle: If Deputy McCormackwill address his remarks through the Chair, hemight not provoke the Minister.

Mr. Ring: A Cheann Comhairle, come back onthe other side of the House. The Minister hasspent the whole day mouthing off. He should goout and smoke a cigarette to relax.

Mr. Cullen: That is a good idea.

Mr. McCormack: The Minister will not insultme as a public representative. I am elected by thesame vote as the Minister. I will represent——

Mr. Cullen: Correct.


Mr. McCormack: That is what the people aresaying. They are afraid of the mechanics——

Mr. Cullen: Fine Gael is out of touch.

Mr. McCormack: The people are afraid thatthe system will be fiddled. One cannotprogramme a ballot paper in advance but amachine can be programmed against voters’intentions. I will not take that rubbish about theFine Gael representatives from the Minister.

Mr. Cullen: The Minister for Finance——

An Ceann Comhairle: Minister, you will havean opportunity to reply at the end of debate.

Mr. McCormack: If the Minister listened moreto the people on the ground as I do and broughtthe Opposition parties with him, this debatewould not be taking place.

Mr. Cullen: The Minister for Finance——

Mr. McCormack: The Minister can interrupt allhe likes. It is obvious that he does not like whathe hears. A Cheann Comhairle, can he just closeup?

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy McCormack,without interruption.

Mr. McCormack: The Minister should have themanners to close up.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy McCormack,now that we have the Minister silent, perhaps youwill address your remarks through the Chair.

Mr. Ring: It is not easy.

Mr. McCormack: He is not silent at all, he ismaking faces and grinning.

Mr. Cullen: Can the Deputy stop? I will notsay anymore.

Mr. McCormack: I appeal to the Minister, if hehas any intelligence left, which I believe he does,to re-examine this legislation. The Nobel PeacePrize winner, Archbishop Tutu, said recently howwonderful it would be if politicians could bringthemselves to admit they are only fallible and notGod. By this definition they can make mistakes.If the Minister took Archbishop Tutu’s advice, hewould be a far better man.

Mr. Cullen: I am already that.

Mr. McCormack: The Minister will not bediminished by admitting to a mistake on thislegislation and acknowledging that the public hasno confidence in the electronic voting machines.Our Constitution states that all power comesfrom the people. The Minister should realise thisand I appeal to him to stall this legislation and

respect what is laid down in the Constitution. Bydoing so, he will restore the people’s confidencein the democratic process and the institutions ofthe State.

Will he rise to the occasion? I do not believehe will by the attitude he is displaying in theChamber. However, it will be the people who willdecide on this matter. There will be a sham Dailvote on this Bill, with the Progressive Democratsand Independent Members who are against theBill voting for it to ensure the Governmentsurvives. However, on 11 June it will be up to meand others, such as Deputy Ring, to ask thepeople to give their verdict on the Government’sarrogance and the Minister’s enforcement ofelectronic voting without the simple safeguardswe are seeking. I would be delighted to welcomeelectronic voting but only if the safeguards soughtby the people are included. There is no reasonthat a print-out paper trail cannot be provided.

Mr. Cullen: It is not available in other states.

Mr. McCormack: The problem does not lie inhow people would be able to vote but in the trustthey have in our democratic electoral system,which is the most important issue to them. Whyis the Minister resisting this so fiercely? In hisspeech he stated:

Some opponents now argue that this systemmust be validated by a paper trail. They areflying in the face of international practice withelectronic voting. In common with electoralauthorities in a wide range of countries, myDepartment does not consider that theaddition of a printed ballot paper toaccompany the electronically stored vote wouldimprove the administration of elections.

Why would it not improve it? It is the Minister’sduty to give the people what they want. Hequestioned the receipting process and claimed itcreates many difficult problems. He stated: “Adual system would also enable every voter to putin question the accuracy and validity of his or herelectronically cast vote.”

Mr. Cullen: If Fine Gael had its way, we wouldstill be working in candlelight.

Mr. McCormack: If that puts a doubt in theelectronic vote cast, that is the firstacknowledgement by the Minister of a doubt inthe system.

What is the rush in respect of this provision?Why is this legislation being introduced?

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy has oneminute remaining.

Mr. McCormack: I thought I had more timeremaining than that. I lost a great deal of timebecause the Minister ignorantly interrupted me.

Why is the Minister rushing the introduction ofelectronic voting? When I am in my office everyMonday dealing with constituents, nobody comes


[Mr. McCormack.]to ask me about electronic voting. They ask howthey can get an appointment in a hospital after ithas been cancelled four times, how they can gettheir children on an orthodontic waiting list sothat their treatment can be carried out, or howthey can get a bed for their mother who has spent18 hours on a hospital trolley. People in westGalway are asking about such things; nobody isasking me about electronic voting.

Mr. Cullen: They are not asking the Deputyabout it because they are happy with it.

Mr. McCormack: They are asking me why theiroperations have been cancelled.

Mr. Cullen: It is only the Deputy’sblackguarding in here that is raising the issue.

Mr. McCormack: They do not want electronicvoting.

Mr. Cullen: The public are very happy.

Mr. McCormack: It is a hobby horse. TheMinister wants to have something after his nameafter his four years in Government. TheTaoiseach wanted the Bertie bowl, the Ministerfor Health and Children wants to be rememberedfor prohibiting smoking and the Minister for theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Governmentwants to be remembered for electronic voting.The electorate might hang it around his neck inJune, when the people will give their verdict onelectronic voting.

Mr. Kehoe: He will be electrocuted.

Mr. McCormack: We would welcomeelectronic voting in certain circumstances. TheMinister is laughing.

Mr. Cullen: I am amused by the Deputy’scolleague.

Mr. McCormack: The Minister has beeninterrupting my contribution and skitting——

Mr. Cullen: I would not skit.

Mr. McCormack: ——but the people will givehim his answer on 11 June. I will make this issuepart of my election campaign.

Mr. Cullen: That is a wise decision.

Mr. McCormack: I will make it part of myplatform.

Mr. Cullen: That is wise.

An Ceann Comhairle: Allow DeputyMcCormack to conclude.

Mr. McCormack: I will include electronicvoting in my election platform because the

Minister has arrogantly introduced it withoutseeking the assistance of the Joint Committee onthe Environment and Local Government. Heinstructed members of the joint committee tobring to an end the work they were doing to tryto iron out certain difficulties and to answercertain questions.

Mr. Kehoe: Is the Minister leaving?

Mr. Ring: He will be back.

Mr. McCormack: I wish he had left before Istarted my contribution, as it would have beeneasier for me to make it.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy’s time hasconcluded

Mr. McCormack: The Minister’s time iscertainly concluded.

Mr. Cullen: I wish to inform the House that Ihave to leave to meet the director general ofUNESCO.

Mr. McCormack: I wish the Minister had leftlong ago, as we would have had a much moreconstructive debate. I would have made a lessemotional contribution if the Minister had notinterrupted me. I apologise for that, a CheannComhairle.

Mr. S. Power: As Chairman of the JointCommittee on the Environment and LocalGovernment, I wish to clarify a suggestion thatwas made earlier. I can honestly say that Ireceived no instruction — good, bad orindifferent — from the Minister for theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Governmentabout how to deal with electronic voting.

Mr. Kehoe: Did he tell the Deputy to say thatas well?

Mr. S. Power: I ask the Deputy to listen.Deputies make all sorts of wild allegations, but Iam trying to put the truth on the record.

Mr. Ring: Did the Deputy receive any texttoday?

Mr. S. Power: An allegation has been madeabout the role the Minister played in the work ofa committee. As the Chairman of the committeein question, I can say that I received noinstructions from the Minister or anyone elseabout how we should deal with the subject. If oneis to make a credible contribution, it is importantthat one can substantiate one’s remarks. There isno basis — good, bad or indifferent — for whatwas said a moment ago. I realise that DeputyMcCormack was excited by the way the Ministerdealt with him and some of the replies he gave.It is obvious that he is not too happy with the waythe Minister has handled the matter.


Mr. Kehoe: The programme manager told theDeputy to say that.

Mr. S. Power: We are in a privileged positionhere, so it is important that people do not abusethat privilege.

Mr. McCormack: It is not as if the Minister didnot interrupt.

Mr. Ring: Deputy Power should not lecture us.Fianna Fail Members were well able to throwrubbish when they were over here.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Ring will havean opportunity to make a contribution shortly.

Mr. Ring: I am looking forward to it.

An Ceann Comhairle: I hope the Deputy willbe accorded the courtesy of making hiscontribution without interruption.

Mr. Ring: I will keep quiet.

An Ceann Comhairle: I ask him to afford thatcourtesy to Deputy Power now.

Mr. S. Power: Given that Deputy Ring was soreluctant to accept the verdict of the courts, it isunderstandable that he is reluctant to accept theviews of those on this side of the House.

Mr. Ring: What did the Deputy say? I ask himto repeat his remarks.

Mr. S. Power: It has been a busy week for theMinister, Deputy Cullen. The Green Partydecided to table a motion of no confidence inhim, on which we will vote later tonight. TheMinister commenced the Second Stage debate onthe Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2004 earliertoday. The Bill will make provisions in primarylegislation for the conduct of future elections andreferenda, using voting machines and electronicvote counting. It seeks to establish anindependent commission to report on the secrecyand accuracy of the arrangements proposed forelectronic voting. The one certainty in respect ofelections is that they seem to bring out the worstin politicians. It is certain that politicians seem tolose the run of themselves in the run-up toelections, when common sense goes out thewindow. I have listened to some of the totallyinappropriate contributions that have been madetoday. I refer in particular to the attacks on theMinister, Deputy Cullen, who has been describedas arrogant.

Mr. McCormack: Why did he not keep quietwhen I was talking?

Mr. S. Power: For far too long, we havecriticised Ministers from all parties for not beingdecisive and not taking action when it wasrequired. Since the appointment of Deputy

Cullen as Minister for the Environment, Heritageand Local Government, he has been decisive, ontop of his brief and busy. I commend him on thepolicies he has pursued and his work so far in hiscapacity as Minister. The view that he has beengood for the environment is shared throughoutthe country, generally speaking. I ask thoseMembers who have spoken about arrogance toclarify their view of arrogance. If one is arrogantbecause one is sure of the policies one wants toimplement and one is decisive in theirimplementation, then the Minister is arrogant. Ifthat is his only sin, I hope he remains that way.

Having listened to some of the previousspeakers, one might believe that the Minister istrying to force on the Irish electorate a newsystem that has not been heard of or used in anyother quarter. Nothing could be further from thetruth. The Dail and the Seanad approved theintroduction of electronic voting when theElectoral (Amendment) Act 2001 was passed.Electronic voting was consequently introduced ona trial basis in three constituencies at the lastgeneral election. If I recall correctly, the onlycriticism that was made of the system at the timerelated to the manner in which the formerDeputy, Nora Owen, was told that she had losther seat. During a Private Members’ debate inthe House on 18 February last, Deputy Glennonexplained to us that the returning officer askedthe candidates if they wished to be informed ofthe result of the election privately or publicly.The candidates agreed that the announcementwould be made publicly so that they could allhear the news at the same time. We have learneda great deal from that incident. Regardless ofone’s political allegiances, one could not fail tofeel genuine sympathy for Nora Owen on thatoccasion.

Following the success of the experiment in the2002 general election, the electronic votingsystem was used in seven other constituencies inthe second Nice referendum later that year. Inthe run-up to the 2002 general election, manypeople expressed concern about how olderpeople would use the electronic voting system.They wondered if it was asking too much of olderpeople to use such a system and speculated thatit might cause them to stay away from pollingstations. Surveys that were conducted after theelection indicated that the new system was thesubject of widespread approval following its trialrun. The Government decided to proceed withthe introduction of electronic voting for futureelections and referenda as a consequence of itssuccess at the 2002 polls.

I was surprised when Opposition Membersexpressed concern about the Government’sproposed introduction of electronic voting at theEuropean and local elections. The JointCommittee on the Environment and LocalGovernment decided to deal with the matter insome detail. We were fortunate to hearpresentations from experts, including people withgeneral expertise in the IT area and people


[Mr. S. Power.]experienced in dealing with elections. Thisopened our eyes to what we were lettingourselves in for with the new system. However,there is one certainty, regardless of what systemwe introduce — there is no such thing as a perfectsystem. Every system requires a certain amountof trust. The Minister explained earlier about thedifficulties that previously existed, some of whichwere quite simple — if a presiding officer failedto stamp a ballot paper, for example, it could notbe counted. We have seen this happen onumpteen occasions, resulting in Members on allsides losing out narrowly. If presiding officers didtheir jobs — if human error had not occurred —the results might have been different.

5 o’clock

During our deliberations in committee Ilistened to all the contributions and I amconvinced that some people have genuine

concerns about the introduction ofelectronic voting. I am alsoconvinced that some people will

never be satisfied no matter what safeguards areintroduced. It is important, however, that whenwe introduce a new system it is not good enoughfor Members of this House, even a majority ofMembers, to have faith in it. It is vital that theelectorate has the utmost confidence in thesystem and that we encourage its members touse it.

Mr. McCormack: Hear, hear.

Mr. S. Power: A number of presentations tothe committee were made by independentpeople, while others admitted they had politicalaffiliations. I do not see any difficulty with this. Ifpeople come in and show their hand, we knowwhere they are coming from. In general, thecontributions were very professional and helpful.We probably would have liked a little longer todiscuss the matter, but that did not happen.

The role of an Opposition party, particularlyfrom a legislative point of view, is to scrutiniselegislation when it is introduced and proposeappropriate amendments if it sees fit. However,some of the contributions to this debate havebeen incredible. If some of the Members were tolook back at the contributions they and theircolleagues made in 2001, they would beembarrassed.

Deputy McCormack said that people on theground do not trust Fianna Fail to run theelection or do this, that or the other.

Mr. McCormack: It is a fact.

Mr. S. Power: I am honoured to be a memberof Fianna Fail and it is a great honour andprivilege for me to represent Fianna Fail and theconstituency of Kildare in the House. However,it is not Fianna Fail that runs elections.

Mr. Ring: It will be now.

Mr. S. Power: As the Minister pointed out thismorning, the people who ran the last generalelection will run the next election.

Mr. Ring: The former director of elections forFianna Fail will be running the election, not theDepartment.

Mr. N. Ahern: The Deputy should come off it.

Mr. S. Power: We fight elections and we willbe fighting the next election. We can be proud ofour record. We must have a very stupid andfoolish electorate if they return us as the numberone party in the country election after election.

Mr. McCormack: Has the Deputy seen what isgoing on in the tribunals? The people know whatis going on. They know what Fianna Fail hasdone. They have no trust in any politician.

Mr. S. Power: I do see what is going on. Likeother Members, I have read and listenedattentively to the proceedings of the tribunals. Itgives me no pleasure, but I will not do penancefor the sins of former Members of the House. Iam convinced that the vast majority of those whocome into the House come with the bestintentions.

Mr. McCormack: I agree with the Deputy, butthat is not what the people think. I know whatthey are telling me.

Mr. S. Power: The Deputy seems to know whatthey are thinking all the time. Unfortunately, I donot have that gift, but we will wait till the nextelection. It serves us to do our best while we arehere and refrain from pointing the finger atcertain former Members.

Mr. McCormack: Like the Minister, who waspointing the finger at us.

Mr. S. Power: We will leave that to thetribunals and let them get on with their work.

It has been mentioned that Fianna Fail cannotbe trusted to count the votes. We will not becounting the votes — we will win the votes. Thatis our job, to fight elections.

Mr. Ring: It will be setting the machines. Is thatnot enough?

Mr. S. Power: It is a pity that people cannotbe more constructive. We could accept Deputies’contributions in a more meaningful way if theywould stick to saying things with some basis intruth and not engage in this rubbish. It is hard tolisten to people when they cannot speak senseand cannot resist the opportunity to have apolitical dig.

The cost of the introduction of electronicvoting has been mentioned a number of times. Itis important to look back at previous elections inthis regard. I tabled some questions to the


Minister for Finance recently about the cost ofholding general elections. The reply stated:

While the definitive cost of the last generalelection, held in May 2002, has not yet beenfinalised, the provisional estimate of cost is \20million approximately. Of this, postal expensescost almost \8 million, purchase of electronicvoting machines for the three constituencieswhere they were used cost \3.3 million, whilethe balance was for other returning officers’expenses, for example, fees for staff.

I asked a similar question about referenda andthe reply stated:

It has not been possible in the time availableto provide the information sought by theDeputy in respect of the last five referenda. Assoon as my officials have collated the data, Iwill supply the Deputy with the informationsought. In the meantime, for the Deputy’sinformation, the provisional estimate of costsof the last two referenda is: Treaty of Nicereferendum in October 2002 — \10.9 millionand referendum on the protection of humanlife in pregnancy in March 2002 — \7.2 million.

This shows that regardless of the system in place,elections are not cheap. They are a necessary partof any democracy. Most people are keen for us tointroduce a more modern type of voting system.However, it is important that they have faith inwhatever system we decide to introduce.

The Minister established an independentcommission some weeks ago to examine the issueof electronic voting. He has indicated that shouldthe commission raise serious concerns or evensuggest that electronic voting should not be usedin the forthcoming election, it will not be used. Itdoes not serve any great purpose for people tocast aspersions on the members of thatcommission or question their independence. Weare fortunate to have people who were preparedat very short notice to serve on the commission.They will do the country a great service. Wecould all rattle off the names of people we wouldlike to see on the commission — people of greatintegrity — but it does not serve any purpose. Weshould be helpful to members of the commissionrather than wondering why other people are noton it.

I congratulate the Minister for introducing thislegislation, as he promised when discussing thismatter during Private Members’ business someweeks ago. The Minister and the Governmenthave no intention of bringing in a system thatwould give an unfair advantage to any party, andI do not think people believe in their hearts thatthis is the case. The system has been used andtested. There is no such thing as a perfect system,but there will not be many discrepancies becausethe machines are so difficult to interfere with.

Over the years we have seen a significantincrease in the number of spoiled votes. TheMinister and his officials have examined thismatter in some detail and they are convinced that

many votes are spoiled unintentionally. Iindicated during the Private Members’ discussionthat I had purposely spoiled my vote in a previousreferendum. I would like to think that we wouldstill have that facility for people. There areoccasions, particularly in referenda, where peoplewho have not made up their minds may not wishto vote either “Yes” or “No”, although they maywish to fulfil their duty to vote. If the opportunityis not there for them to spoil their vote, it couldlead to a smaller voter turnover, and will reducethe choice that people currently have. Everyeffort should be made to encourage people totake part in the democratic system.Unfortunately, we have seen dwindling numbersparticipating in elections and referenda, so thatmatter should be rectified because we would allbenefit. Regardless of how people vote, we wantto see people voting in greater numbers.

I commend the Bill to the House and thankthe Minister for the Environment, Heritage andLocal Government for his decisive role. If we hadmore people like him, the country would be in abetter position.

Mr. Ring: Deputy Sean Power is Chairman ofthe Select Committee on the Environment andLocal Government so I want to remind him ofthe day on which the committee debated this Bill.On that occasion, a famous IndependentMember, Deputy Jackie Healy-Rae, spoke forabout three hours in opposition to the Bill andsaid how he would stop the legislation. When thevote was called in the afternoon, however, theDeputy was missing but he sent his good friend,Deputy Fox, in to vote for the Government.

When Fine Gael tabled a motion on thesmoking ban to allow people to vote on it as theywished, Deputy Healy-Rae voted with theGovernment not to allow such a debate.

As regards this Bill, I am totally opposed toelectronic voting. The people do not want it anddid not ask for it. This is another attack on ruralIreland because of the costs involved. I want theMinister of State to deal with this point in hisreply. The Mayo County Registrar has said thatif we have electronic voting in June, half thecounty’s pooling booths will be closed down,particularly in rural parts of the county. That is adisgrace and it is anti-democratic. It is wrong toclose down rural polling booths simply because ofthe cost factor and the fact that insufficientnumbers of people have been trained to staffthem.

Mr. N. Ahern: As a councillor, did the Deputyagree to a revision of the polling scheme?

Mr. Ring: No, I did not. It has not yet comebefore the council but when it does I will reject it.

Mr. N. Ahern: I wonder. I bet the two thingsare not connected at all.


Mr. Ring: I suppose the Fianna Fail hypocriteswill vote it through but I will oppose it in thecouncil and here. The people have no confidencein electronic voting. I remind the Minister ofState and his Department about what happenedin America which, we are told, is the greatestcountry in the world. A presidential election washeld there in November 2000 and another onewill be held this November. The current USPresident was not properly elected, however,because in Florida the polling machines collapsedand the votes were falsified. There was uproar asa result because the Democratic candidate, Mr.Al Gore, was deprived of the presidency. That iswhat happened when Gore’s supporters wantedto cast their votes for him.

Mr. N. Ahern: It is more like a lotto machinein America — it is an entirely different system.

Mr. Ring: Will the Minister of State be quiet?

Mr. N. Ahern: The Deputy should know hisfacts.

Mr. Ring: Will the Minister of State be quietand listen to me for a few minutes?

Mr. N. Ahern: It is an entirely different system.

Mr. Ring: We are sick and tired of listening tothe anti-democrats on the Government benches.I have the floor and all I have is a few minutes inwhich to contribute to the debate.

Mr. N. Ahern: The Deputy should talk sense.

Mr. Ring: The Americans put people on themoon and they are now talking about going toMars. They claimed to be able to bomb buildingswithout killing people. It is a great country butthey could not run their presidential election in2000. They made a mess of it with electronicvoting. People here do not want electronic votingfor a number of reasons. People tell me they willnot vote in the local elections because they do nottrust electronic voting.

At the moment, we cannot deal with theInternet due to the rubbish and filth that featureson various websites. When Deputies go throughtheir e-mails every morning, we have to makejudgments as to which ones we will open becauseif we open the wrong one a virus may destroythe system.

Mr. Kelleher: The system is not connected tothe Internet.

Mr. Ring: The Deputy should shut up becausehe will get his opportunity to speak in a fewminutes. The mouthpiece for Fianna Fail shouldbe quiet.

Mr. Kelleher: I just want to educate theDeputy.

Mr. Ring: People cannot do their business onthe Internet.

Mr. Howlin: You should protect Deputy Ring,a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Mr. Ring: I thank Deputy Howlin very much.The Chair is quick enough to write to me but itnever protects me. I do not want protection,however, I want to be able to fight my corner.

Mr. N. Ahern: Deputy Ring is talking aboutsystems that are different from ours. Our systemis not on line, that is nonsense.

Mr. Ring: The Minister of State should sitdown.

Mr. N. Ahern: The Deputy should talk aboutthe real issue.

Mr. Ring: Does the Minister of State smoke?

Mr. N. Ahern: No, I do not.

Mr. Ring: The Government Members aresuffering from the effects of the smoking ban thisweek. They should sit down and be quiet. If theywant to go out for a fag, I will wait a few minutesuntil they come back. I do not mind if the Deputysmokes up in the gallery. I do not have a problemif he wants to have a fag but he should be quiet.They are all getting impatient this week, whateveris wrong with them.

We cannot control e-mails. Last week, I read anewspaper report that banks are losing \30,000 amonth from fraudulent use of cash machines, sohow can we trust electronic voting? How can wetrust that voting system when it will not becontrolled by the Department of theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government?An outside agency is dealing with this and theMinister of State might as well accept that aformer Fianna Fail secretary is in that company.I do not wish to be disrespectful to anybody, andI will not name anyone, but I do not think that isright. As bad as the electronic system is, I wouldnot have a problem if the Department of theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Governmentand the Electoral Commission were dealing withit. However, it is not right for an outside agencyto have control and to set up the programmes.

Mr. N. Ahern: That is only a PR company, it isnot the bloody system.

Mr. Ring: That is what will happen — we willhave a situation where somebody will determinewho is in this House. It is all right for the Ministerof State to shout at me because he is in FiannaFail and since Fianna Fail is in this company, hewill be safe. It is we in opposition who have toworry, but the Government Members do not haveto worry because they will have as many seatsas possible.


I do not support electronic voting because I donot think it is right. The public does not want iteither. Some \40 million has been spent on theintroduction of electronic voting. Big money hasbeen paid out to companies, yet we will have nocontrol, no say and do not even hold the key tothe system — the company holds the key.

Mr. McCormack: A foreign company.

Mr. Ring: It is not right, and it is a foreigncompany at that. Eamon de Valera would turn inhis grave if he knew Fianna Fail was allowing aforeign company to run our elections. MichaelCollins and others who died for the State foughtto get rid of them, yet the Government is bringingthem back to control who will be in this House.What has gone wrong with Fianna Fail, for God’ssake? It is no wonder it is dropping the term“republican party” from its logo. I do not knowwhat it will call itself now.

Mr. McCormack: The e-voting party.

Mr. Ring: That is right. Nobody wantselectronic voting. The Government has made amistake. It is time we realised that people arehappy with the way elections have been run. Iam disappointed the media are not taking a moreactive role in this debate, although much of themedia did not agree with my campaign in favourof retaining the dual mandate. A few years ago,when the Government was talking about banningopinion polls a week before an election, there wasa big outcry from the media and theirrepresentatives in this House and the UpperHouse. The media fought against that ideabecause they felt it was interfering with their rightto decide what they wanted to say, and they havea lot to say at election time. I have no problemwith what they have to say, but I have a problemwith the fact that they did not do more to takeup the issue of electronic voting. The people likeelections and the day of the count. The Ministerof State, his Department and all political partieshave been encouraging people to vote and to getinvolved in the political process no matter whichparty they support. Prior to the last election,posters were banned outside polling stations andparty activists were not allowed to stand outside.What is wrong with us? Are we gone mad? Atleast on election day there used to be a littleexcitement outside the polling stations and thepublic and the media waited in anticipation onthe day of the count while the tallymen had theirday. Why take that out of politics? It is part ofIrish life. Why do we want to take it away? Wewant to show that Ireland is a wonderful,sophisticated country and that we can use e-mailand electronic voting. However, we are takingfrom the people’s interest in voting and gettinginvolved in the political process.

Reference was made to what happened toformer Deputy, Nora Owen. I am surprised thatthe people who lost their seats in the

constituencies where the electronic voting trialwas conducted did not take a case to the courts.If the Government is serious about electronicvoting, I challenge it and the Department to useboth systems on 11 June. Let us use the oldsystem and the new system to see how both workout. What is wrong with that? Let us have a trialof ordinary voting and electronic voting on theone day, particularly where there are close countsto compare the results from the machines and theordinary count. If the Government and theMinister of State are prepared to do that, theywill go a long way to reassuring people they areserious about electronic voting and taking theirconcerns on board.

However, they are not prepared to do that.They are prepared to bully this legislationthrough the Oireachtas and put it before thepeople who do not want it. They will not providethe paper trail whereby people will know forcertain their vote will be for the person they wantand will not be programmed into a machine by aperson in Holland, Germany or a political officein Ireland. That doubt should not be there.

That is a fair challenge. It is a compromise ifthe Government is serious. It will give people anopportunity to at least compare electronic votingand ordinary voting. If the Government does thisand deals with the paper trail, it will go a longway to satisfying people. There should be a check.Under the old system, the officials at the pollingbooth noted the number of votes cast and, whenthe ballot box was emptied on the day of thecount, the presiding officer could check thenumber to see if they matched. There will be nomatching under the electronic voting systembecause there is no paper trail and that is a majorconcern. The Government was asked to addressthis previously and did not do so. It should bedealt with now.

Why is the Government taking away theenjoyment of elections for people, particularly onthe day of the count? The Government is pushingthe legislation through with haste. Why is theresuch a hurry? There is a presidential election thisyear. Could the Government not have used thatelection to run a trial since there will only bethree or four candidates? The Government hastaken a big decision because there will be localauthority, town council and European Parliamentelections on the same day. If the Government’sprogramme managers are to be believed givenwhat they have been spelling out to the media,there could even be a referendum on the sameday.

There is nothing wrong with the old systemand I ask the Minister of State to give myproposal a trial because it is a reasonable request.I am worried about this issue. I attended threeAGMs the other night.

I was relieved roads, health and agricultureissues were not debated but electronic voting wasthe issue people asked me about and debated allnight. The Minister of State should not cod


[Mr. Ring.]himself and think the people are not concernedor clued in. They know what is going on and——

Mr. Kelleher: The other problems must havebeen solved.

Mr. Ring: Deputy Dennehy will follow me andhe will be his usual self. He always waits for meto go first and then he follows me but I amwaiting for him and I will get him the next time.

Mr. Dennehy: I said nothing.

Mr. Ring: Fine Gael, the other Oppositionparties and the people do not like this legislation.This is a serious situation. We heard aboutcorruption in politics for 20 years. I am only aMember for a short time but we were abused onthis side of the House for running a decent manout of politics. There was a great deal of concernin the past about what was happening in politicsand the tribunals are bearing that out. There isconcern about electronic voting. I do not want towait five or ten years to find there was a fault inthe system and find myself on the streets eventhough the people voted for me to be here butsome guy with a machine decided otherwise. Thatshould not be allowed.

We fought hard for our independence, ourParliament and to make sure the country was runby Irish people. I oppose electronic voting. TheMinister of State and the Government should pullback. If they want, they can have a go with bothsystems on the same day. What they are doing iswrong. In all my time in politics, I never met amore arrogant Minister than Deputy Cullen. Hemight be arrogant in the House but, when thepeople get the opportunity, they will be arrogantwith the Government. They will be waiting forthe Government on 11 June. The Governmentparties should not spoil their opportunity to dealwith them. The people should be given theopportunity to vote the ordinary way because wewill never believe the result if they go throughwith electronic voting. The people will not acceptwhatever decision is made.

I ask the Minister of State to pull back on theissue of electronic voting. The ProgressiveDemocrats are concerned but we are sick andtired of their concern. If they are concerned, theywill vote with us against the legislation. TheMinister for the Environment, Heritage andLocal Government was aggressive towards FineGael in his contribution. How dare he? We areMembers, democratically elected by the people,and we have a right to say, as a party, what wewant in the House. We will take no guff fromhim and his programme managers who write hiscontributions. I will deal with him on another day.I would like to say a great deal more but mythroat is gone so I will leave it at that.

Mr. Dennehy: I promise I will make only threereferences to Deputy Ring. First, I compliment

the Minister for the Environment, Heritage andthe Local Government on making the Deputyspeechless for the first time ever. Second, havingsolved all the other problems at the meetings theDeputy attended, there is serious trouble in theFine Gael camp. Deputy Ring is saying he willnot support electronic voting under anycircumstances, yet earlier his party spokesmanstated electronic voting is good. There is a splitin the camp.

Mr. Kehoe: There is a split in the Fianna Failcamp. Its backbenchers do not want electronicvoting.

Mr. Dennehy: Deputy Ring referred to thereplication of voting systems. We could usepigeons and mail coaches because An Post is onstrike. However, we must move on and make alittle progress.

I too welcome the opportunity to participate inthis debate as I have an interest in voting andeverything relating to it. The first of the fourprimary objectives in the Bill is to enableelectronic voting in non-Dail elections. It isdifficult for some Members to understand why weneed this Bill when one considers that DailEireann had already agreed to carry out pilotprojects at general elections in which one votesto elect the Government of the day. I understandthe Minister’s concern at the Mulcreevyjudgment. It is of concern that we mustcopperfasten legislation when the clearly statedintentions of the Oireachtas have beenenunciated and laid out in legislation. Iappreciate that the Minister recognised thecritical importance of the voting process andwants to ensure there is no legal impediment tothat process. This issue will have to be revisitedto allow a discussion on the enactment oflegislation and its potential interpretation outsidethe Oireachtas. The Minister is ensuring that thelegal avenues are well covered.

The second priority is to establish anindependent electoral commission that will reporton the secrecy and accuracy of the arrangementsfor electronic voting. The members of thiscommission comprise ex officio and appointedmembers who are willing to serve in the publicinterest. This is the most cost-effective methodavailable to the State. Members will have servedon a boundary commission and, until now, I havenever heard a member who was willing to serveon such a commission being publicly vilified. Itis regrettable that members of this commission,especially non-party political members with aparticular expertise who serve in the publicinterest, were insulted and humiliated.

Deputy Allen described them as “highlyesteemed members of the commission” but thatsmacks of Fine Gael playing “bad cop, good cop”when one considers what happened a month ago.It is important to point out that, because of theoffice they hold, these same officials would beappointed regardless of who formed the


Government. The ex officio members are willingto serve and they should not be lambasted orhumiliated. It does no credit to those whodescend to that level of political negativity and,more importantly, we could lose the benefit ofhaving such expertise available to the State whichinevitably will lead to the State having to usehighly paid experts. From my experience on theCommittee of Public Accounts I am aware of howmuch it could cost to do this type of work. I amsure that those indulging in such behaviour nowwill raise their heads over the parapet tocomplain about the use of consultants.

Deputy Allen stated that it was becoming acontroversial issue. I agree that it has becomecontroversial but that did not happen by accident.What were the motives of those who made thisissue such? The public may not be aware that theDail had agreed to conduct trials in threeconstituencies and had discussed the question ofhaving electronic voting for local and Europeanelections as far back as 1999. One must questionwhy it has suddenly become a controversial issuenow and who has worked to make itcontroversial. We can follow that paper trailrelatively easily.

Mr. Howlin: That is because there is a papertrail.

Mr. Dennehy: The answer to both thosequestions is fairly obvious. It is controversialbecause Members who did not offer very muchon the issue when it was discussed now see anopportunity to add to the confusion that comeswith change. It is always highlighted in trainingthat change can lead to insecurity and peopleneed to be reassured. Deputy Sean Power statedthat, when one compares what was said someyears ago with what Members are saying now, itis hard to credit that Members are making thecomment. Everybody is entitled to change his orher view on an issue if more information becomesavailable, but this is a case of the direct opposite.As more changes are made to facilitate andimprove the Bill, complaints are added and createconfusion. The Opposition have so few policyproposals to offer it is willing to make this acontroversial issue. None could have put it betterthan Deputy Ring who stated that, at the threeimportant party meetings he attended in the pastday or so, only electronic voting was raised andissues such as health, employment, farming andso on were not mentioned.

Mr. Ring: That is because the Government hasmade a mess of it.

Mr. Dennehy: That is probably the bestcompliment that could be paid to theGovernment -that at three Opposition partymeetings, the members did not have a singlecomplaint.

Mr. Ring: It shows the level of distrust.

Mr. Dennehy: That is a great achievement. Weshould reflect in the glory of it. I am happy thatthey feel that way in the west. I hope those in therest of the country have as few problems.

Mr. Ring: The Deputy should wait until 11June and he will know all about it.

Mr. Dennehy: I believe electronic voting willbe a long-term improvement. The process shouldhave the support of all democratic partiesinvolved in politics.

Mr. Ring: Does the Deputy remember whathappened the last time?

Mr. Dennehy: Deputy Allen pointed out thatelectronic voting is a good idea, but Deputy Ringwould not have it under any circumstances.

Mr. Ring: The Deputy should know.

Mr. Dennehy: It is legitimate to ask why Iconsider electronic voting to be good. We couldanalyse it on two fronts. First, what effect will thisBill have on the forthcoming local and Europeanelections? How can electronic voting be modifiedonce it is accepted into use? One must walkbefore one can run. I will comment on potentialimprovements.

The first and most important issue is to avoidspoilt votes as such votes may have an importantbearing on the result of any election. FewDeputies will have more experience than I of tiedvotes at general elections. As well as facing arecount in the 2002 general election, I was closelyinvolved in the 1982 general election when two ofmy colleagues, Deputy Dan Wallace and the thenDeputy Sean French were separated by five or sixvotes. It was in that context that 1.1% of all thevotes cast were spoilt. While I do not know howthe figure was arrived at, it seems that 95% ofthose votes were inadvertently spoiled. Therewere 46,000 votes spoiled at the previousEuropean election. At the 1982 recount for myseat, less than ten votes were involved, as was thecase for former Deputies Ben Briscoe and EricByrne. More than 20,000 votes were spoiled. Iwould have expected Members to say thatelectronic voting was great and would at leasthelp to reduce that problem. I do not suggest wecan eliminate the problem by 100% but, if we canremove 95% of spoiled votes, we will do a greatdeal of good for all candidates. There are manyexamples, especially in local elections. Membersfrom other constituencies could quote instancesof tight counts.

The fun and excitement of the count, which canlast for a week as it has in my case, is great forthe hangers on, but no matter how much DeputyRing enjoys it, it is not good for the candidate.

Mr. Ring: It is good for politics.

Mr. Dennehy: It is great to go to a pub andhave a few drinks if one is a tallyman or a hanger


[Mr. Dennehy.]on who is up in the middle of the night. However,it is not good for people who have to stand forelection to add a week of counting and recountingto the process. That is not part of Irish life.People should not have to wait around.

Mr. Ring: Deputy Dennehy does not believethat.

Mr. Howlin: Elections are not for candidates.

Mr. Ring: Fianna Fail has plenty of hangers on.

Mr. Dennehy: We have usually won electionsat the end of the day, but we will take our beatingif we must. Some of us have managed to returnto the House having taken a beating, which saysa great deal about our ability to continue and winback the public.

Given the facts I have quoted, we must lookfor a more efficient counting method. If this Billwere not before us, we should nonetheless becalling for a method. In referring to the electronicsystem’s potential, I have in mind the blind andpoorly sighted who could use voice and othertechnology. The issue of a full count was raised,although the system to be introduced will takeonly a random sampling. I would like to see a full,clear count to the last vote with 100% of transfersintegrated. That can be achieved, although it willnot happen in the forthcoming elections as thelegislation is in place to limit it. We shouldconsider full counting immediately after the localelections to ensure a proper count of the public’svotes rather than depend on a random sample.

There are several other areas in whichimprovements could be made. In that context, itis the basic agreement to use modern technologywhich is needed now. If we agree to that, we canmove past the Luddite approach — a phrase Ihate to use — referred to by others. We mustmove on with the rest of the world.

Some concerns about the system have beenraised. People have referred to the wish to spoilone’s vote. I am not terribly concerned about thatissue in the case of people who can walk to orfrom the polling station. I am more concernedabout those who do not get to exercise theirfranchise. A total of 46,000 people weredisenfranchised in the European elections Ireferred to earlier, as were a further 20,000 in thegeneral election due to bureaucracy or poormethods. There are many others who aredisenfranchised including maternity and urgentmedical cases. They could be facilitated bytechnology. There should be a method forenfranchising them and we will have to moveforward to ensure they are facilitated. A greatdeal of rubbish is spoken about fining people whodo not vote and lowering the age requirementwhen we should be facilitating 100% of those whoare trying to vote.

I received a postal voting form during the weekfrom the British union, Amicus. It is very simple

in Britain where anyone can apply for a postalvote without having to give a reason. If onecannot get to a polling station for any reason orsimply does not wish to go there, one applies forand receives a ballot paper. That is an exampleof the facilitation of the public. If I were tosuggest the same system here, I would hearwarnings that the system would be abused.

Mr. Kehoe: It was tried.

Mr. Howlin: Postal voting was tried but it hadto be abandoned because of abuse by Fianna Failin hospitals etc.

Mr. Dennehy: It shows the difference inthinking when it comes to facilitating people. Inour case, we refuse to use a new machine in caseall the votes are properly counted. Let us moveforward. We should not be afraid of technology.

Replication was raised. It is like sayingeverybody who sends out an e-mail must alsosend a hard copy. The reason the electronicmethod is used is cost. We know what the costsinvolved are as Deputy Sean Power recordedthem in the House. I love to see people doingwell and to see a man earning double and trebletime. I have been a trade unionist since I was 16.However, if we can use technology, we shouldmodernise things. Modern technology is capableof facilitating people through postal votes andother means. There are people who findthemselves, through work or 101 othercircumstances, far from their constituencies onpolling day. For example, their car might breakdown. They should be facilitated and they can bewith modern technology. They cannot befacilitated through the old-fashioned system ofusing a paper ballot and a metal box.

I saw a garda closing the door of a pollingstation in Glasheen national school in the face ofa man who had driven from north Galway. Thegarda closed the door on the stroke of 9 p.m. notknowing the man or for whom he intended tovote. He was a committed democrat to havedriven all that way.

Mr. Ring: Would electronic voting have helpedhim if his car had broken down?

Mr. Dennehy: That sort of thing should nothappen. If the man was elsewhere, he should havebeen able to vote. I received the majority of thevotes from that polling station and odds were hewould have been voting Dennehy.

We love to speak about how sacred the vote isand how long we fought for the right, but that isold cant. We should take action and moveforward in a meaningful manner. Let us usemodern technology to ensure that, when a vote iscast, it counts. We must use it to facilitate asmany people as possible to vote in privacy.

Deputy Morgan had concerns about the role ofthe Minister, Deputy Cullen, as Fianna Faildirector of elections and Minister with


responsibility for electronic voting. There is anold saying which covers Deputy Morgan’sattitude very well. If one had said that to oldpeople 50 or 60 years ago, they would have saidthat evil haunts the guilty mind. I will say no moreon that. Deputy McCormack said the Ministerappeared to be under pressure, whichdemonstrates how deceiving appearances can be.The Deputy made the important point that therewas nothing wrong with the machines. It is animportant point for people like Deputy Ring tonote. They have a fear of technology.

Mr. Ring: My fear is of Fianna Fail and I willhave it until the day I die. I trust machines.

Mr. Dennehy: The Deputy should be givenprivate instruction. I am sure we could converthim. As we know, he is a committed democratand, given the right circumstances andopportunity, he could be brought around.

Mr. Ring: There was a time in Mayo when theballots were found in toilets.

Mr. Dennehy: For public consumption andnewer Members, electronic voting has beenreferred to in two Acts already. The electronicsystem was demonstrated to all political partiesprior to 2002, yet they are suddenly saying theycannot find the right button to press.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputyshould conclude.

Mr. Howlin: Yes, he should.

Mr. Ring: He has to cast his vote.

Mr. Dennehy: Under the new system, a personcan spoil his or her vote. That is catered for underobjective three. Electronic voting is beingintroduced to get rid of the waste of 1.1% of thepublic’s votes. A published audit trail will beavailable to those who, like some of us in the past,must have resort to the courts. It will be possibleto print the full poll, the results of which will notsimply disappear into cyberspace. I welcome theBill and discussion on it which I hope will serveto enlighten Members and enable us to encouragethe 20% to 30% who have not been able to voteto come to polling stations or vote from home bymechanical means.

Mr. Howlin: In introducing this Bill, theMinister for the Environment, Heritage andLocal Government said that the Oppositionmight well take a constructive approach thatwould be reasoned and temperate. I will try totake this approach as I believe the issuedemands it.

Given that he invited me not to interrupt himas he intended paying attention to what I haveto say, I am sorry that Deputy Dennehy is notremaining in the Chamber to hear mycontribution. No doubt he will have a chance to

study my contribution in due course. I wasastounded by Deputy Dennehy’s characterisationof Opposition contributions as “old cant”.Opposition Deputies spoke about democracy asa cornerstone of our nation and on the right tovote. That Deputy Dennehy characterised this asold cant tells us an awful lot.

Democracy is a fragile enough flower. It hasnot been in existence for a long time and manypeople say it is a continuing experiment.Throughout all the ages of man, universalsuffrage has been in place for less than 100 yearsand huge swathes of the globe have yet toexperience democracy. It is only a matter ofdecades since women were given the right to voteand the right to vote was given without propertyqualification. While we constantly try to improvethe system and put checks and balances into it,our system of government, prosperity, well-beingand liberty hinge on the knowledge andconfidence that the citizenry of this Statedetermine their own rulers. In his famousGettysburg address, Abraham Lincoln spoke ofgovernment of the people, by the people, for thepeople. This is not old cant and, if we considerthis to be so, we miss the fundamental point of aBill like this.

Anything that addresses the issue of voting andapproaches the fundamental element of ourdemocracy must be handled with care, cautionand sensitivity. I draw on personal experiencewhen I say this. I had the privilege of introducingthe Electoral Act 1997 to this House. That Act ismuch greater in scope than the Bill now beforeus. It dealt with electoral spending limits,donation declarations and prohibition on thereceipt of donations above fixed thresholds. Italso dealt with ancillary matters that reformedthe electoral process. I believe that I handled thatAct with the required degree of care, caution andsensitivity. The proof of this is it took almost ayear to pass through these Houses. There wasopen-ended debate, especially on CommitteeStage. As we were dealing with the electoralprocess, the views of all Members were critical.

The Minister of State, Deputy Tim O’Malleywas not a Member at that time. The attitude ofthe Progressive Democrats to the Act wasinteresting. The current Minister for Justice,Equality and Law Reform held his party’senvironment portfolio at that time. He describedthe Bill as being so bad that it could not bereformed. He was implacably opposed toelectoral spending limits and fought tooth andnail against every line of the Bill. He said it wasan outrageous assault on liberty to preventparties collecting any amount of money from anybusiness to run its political machine. He also feltit was an outrageous assault on democracy that aparty could not spend whatever amount of moneyit wanted on an electoral campaign. While he putforward a coherent argument along these lines fornearly a year, I was not convinced by it. Thedemocratic process in this House allowed him thetime and space to do this.


[Mr. Howlin.]Why are we in such a rush with this Bill? With

a few exceptions the history of electoral law hassought to broaden and deepen participation inthe electoral process and make the process fairer.That was the intention of the Electoral Act Iintroduced. I did not want wealth to become acorrupting influence in fighting an electoralcampaign. I wanted parties and candidates tofight on a level playing pitch where one could notbuy votes, as can be done other jurisdictions, byflooding an area with advertising.

I can recall two exceptions. Fianna Fail madetwo attempts at changing our electoral systemfrom one based on the single transferable voteto one based on a straight vote. Remarkably, thepeople rejected this twice in referenda. On oneoccasion the referendum was held on the sameday that a most popular Fianna Fail President waselected. The electorate was discerning enough tovote for Fianna Fail’s presidential candidate andreject the Fianna Fail proposal to abandon thesingle transferable vote system. People areattracted to our system of voting and regard itas precious.

Given the choice, the people have rejectedtinkering with this without good reason. AnAmerican adage says, “if it ain’t broke don’t fixit”. What is broken in our electoral system thatrequires such a radical change? Many speakershave referred to modernism and said thatopposition to electronic voting is Luddite innature. Similar arguments were propoundedabout architecture in the 1960s. The bulldozing ofGeorgian Dublin was facilitated by modernism.Modern, bold, brash and confident Ireland feltthe need to gut Georgian Dublin and erectconcrete buildings in its stead. I do not think wewould now regard that level of modernism assomething of which to be proud.

The argument that ICT-focused Irelanddemands electronic voting and that to question itis to be a Luddite, as Deputy Dennehy suggested,smacks of an extraordinary inferiority complex.We must have such if we feel that we must be atthe cutting edge of this to show that Ireland is asprogressive as it likes to see itself. I do not believethis for one second. Some things are better donein the old ways.

Mr. Ring: There is nothing wrong with thecurrent system.

Mr. Howlin: Not everything that is donespeedily is the best. I wonder if the Minister ofState prefers a home-cooked, carefully preparedmeal or a ready to microwave meal from hisfreezer. I do not think there is any choice in thesematters. Let us not swap insults across the floor ofthe House. This matter is one of how the people’sdecisions are recorded and how we facilitatepeople’s participation in the democratic process.It is as fundamental as that. To ensure weunderstand the public’s view we must travel verycarefully.

6 o’clock

The Bill makes a proposal that is clearlydivisive as it has divided the House and it iscontemptuous of the House. To my knowledge

no electoral Act was ever guillotinedduring its passage through thisHouse. We always had open-ended

debates on these matters in the past and failureto do so now shows contempt. The rush itselfadds to people’s concerns. The Minister has pre-empted the legislative process, buying themachines and starting the information campaignbefore the House’s will has been determined. Iknow the Executive often regards this place as arubber stamp One day the Assembly of thepeople, Dail Eireann, will reject the view of theExecutive and will require it to regard thisLegislature as a force to be respected and heard,not simply as a cipher that rubber-stampsdecisions taken elsewhere. However, that is notthe attitude of the Executive, which has alreadypre-empted the decisions of this House. Themachines are bought and paid for, theinformation campaign is under way and we havebeen told electronic voting will be introduced.Making a decision and enacting legislation afterthe event diminishes the democratic standing ofthis House.

My colleague, the Labour Party spokespersonon the environment, Deputy Gilmore, gave anextraordinarily effective critique of this measure.We asked some of our experts, Mr. Shane Hoganand Mr. Robert Cochran, to carry out anindependent evaluation, which we publishedsome time ago. Their analysis gave rise to ourinitial concerns about this matter because of theabsence of something that can be put right: thevoter verifiable audit trail. The Government hasasked the people to have blind trust that thebutton they pressed will accurately record andproduce a result without a mechanism foranybody to ever know whether that is correct.

The beauty of the existing system is that therecorded decision of the people exists in blackand white for everybody to see. Individual ballotpapers, each handled by a voter, exist and can beseen. Had the last general election been entirelyelectronic, significant queries would have beenraised over the accuracy of the result. Peoplewould not have believed that so many Fine Gaelfrontbenchers would have lost their seats. Thatquery would have cast doubt over the legitimacyof the Dail. However, there was no argumentabout the result, as the black and white votesexisted for the people to see. However, they willnot exist in the future.

We should always have belt and braces whendealing with matters such as this. Frominternational experience we know how votingsystems have been interfered with. The absenceof formal control processes give rise to genuinequestions that need to be addressed and notdismissed by a Government regardless of how theMinister might assert that he is right, that this willhappen and so be it. This cannot be. We do nothave clear assurance that interference with


machines in the voting and count centres isbeyond possibility.

The Bill gives remarkable powers to theMinister for the Environment, Heritage andLocal Government including: critical powers todecide how the election is to be conducted; thepower to determine by regulation whether e-voting is to be used and to what extent; the powerto amend the form of the ballot by regulation;and the most overarching of all, the power tomake regulations amending electoral law. WhenI was Minister for the Environment, officialsadvised why an emergency power to address anemergency situation was necessary. If a pollingstation was destroyed by a fire, if a riot took placeor if somebody clearly obstructed the ballot, theMinister needed to have powers to take action toensure the ballot took place and the people’s willwas fully determined.

However many enactments in the past decadehave given a blanket open-ended power toMinisters. Civil servants now appear to insert acatch-all phrase to the effect that the Ministershould have the power to do anything else helikes and which they have not yet thought of. Thelong title should be: “We will not bother comingback to the House to get the power to do thesethings — we will just give a catch-all power to theMinister.” After the decision in the Carrickminescase, it is clear that that sort of overarching poweris constitutionally infirm. It is not good enough togive such blanket powers without reference backto the Oireachtas. Under the Constitution, thepower to make laws resides with the Oireachtas.

These are just some of the infirmities we haveidentified with the Bill. The net issue is why theBill is being rushed now. Although the money hasbeen spent, there has been pre-emption and wehave embarked on the information campaign, itwould be a great service to democracy if theMinister were to confirm that he heard all ourconcerns and was willing to address them andtease them out. He could say that while themachines might need to be amended it would notbe done for this election, but would be done intime for the following election so that it will bepossible to bring everybody with us. What wouldbe so terribly wrong in giving the space to allaypeople’s fears and ensure they have confidence inthe voting system?

Those on the Government side have said lovelythings how about opinion polls and exit polls afterthe previous trials show confidence. I agree withDeputy Ring in this regard. While I have not yetstarted campaigning in the local elections, I havebeen on the hustings with our candidate, PeterCassells in what used to be called the Leinsterconstituency and is now Ireland East. It isremarkable that the issue of electronic votingcontinually recurs. People say they do not trustthe Government in this regard. Unfortunatelyindividuals are also claiming they will not vote asa result.

Mr. Deasy: That is right.

Mr. Howlin: This is not in our interests. I agreewith the Minister in saying this issue should notbe divisive and should not divide this House as Ibelieve we all have the same objective, which isto determine the will of the people as accurately,fairly and comprehensively as we can. However,if that is the Minister’s wish, he should not haveused the intemperate language he used in hisintroduction speech today. I started by saying mycomments would be balanced and reasonable soI will not rise to his intemperate comments duringwhich he referred to “another outbreak ofRabbitte disease”. This is no way to buildconsensus or deal with an issue of importancethat goes to the core of our well-being as ademocracy. The Minister should act on his ownadvice and deal with this matter in a balancedway. Notwithstanding the arrogance shown todate by the Minister for the Environment,Heritage and Local Government, I hope he willstep back from this and show himself to berespectful of the House. He should give us spaceand the time to deal with this measure in orderthat we might build the confidence required bythe public in our electoral systems.

Mr. Kelleher: I have listened to thecontributions of spokespersons on all sides of theHouse on the Bill. I had initial concerns andexpressed some reservations about aspects of thecounting systems employed, but I welcome theadvent of electronic voting. My concerns cameabout on foot of an election in Dublin Northwhere the final count came about too suddenlyand was badly handled. However, that teethingproblem has since been addressed by the Ministerby means of counts being produced on a count bycount basis. It will no longer be the case that finalresults will be announced without any warning orwithout acknowledgement of the type of votescast and the way they have been transferred. Thatis a positive step and I will refer to it later.

As a member of the Joint Committee onEnvironment and Local Government, I satthrough many debates on this issue and I suggestthat we should not use intemperate or emotivelanguage. Deputy Howlin accused the Minister ofusing such language. However, I was present inthe House when aspersions were cast on thecharacter and credibility of the people who runelections in this country. Let us be under noillusions; it is not Fianna Fail which runs electionsin this country. It is the Department of theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Governmentwhich is charged with the responsibility ofrunning elections and it is city and county councilofficials who handle such elections. I accept thatthe impartiality, honesty and integrity of thesepeople was not brought directly into question, butthere was an insinuation that the Governmentwas going to run the forthcoming election.Everyone in the House accepts that, even atdifficult and turbulent times in our history,elections in this country have been run in a fairand honest manner.


Mr. Deasy: Let us keep it that way. Whychange it?

Mr. Kelleher: It is being kept that way.Regardless of the system we introduce, theelections will be dealt with by the Department ofthe Environment, Heritage and LocalGovernment and officials from local authoritiesthroughout the State.

An open tendering process was put in place inrespect of the electronic voting system. TheGovernment invited tenders from differentcompanies that have been involved in developingdifferent types of electronic voting systems and itdecided to take on board the Powervote-Nedapsystem. The reason it decided to do so is becauseit is the most effective and accurate system andhas a good track record in the countries in whichit has been tested and used. I refer, in particular,to the Netherlands, where it has been in use formany years, and Germany, where it was recentlyused in municipal elections. The system has alsobeen tested in France and elsewhere. It willcontinue to be used in the future and thecountries to which I refer have not encountereddifficulties with it. Unfortunately, however, thereis a great deal of confusion among Membersabout this system.

I am not saying that people are beingmischievous in their objections. People wereconcerned about electronic voting because theybelieved that the system would be connected tothe Internet, e-mail and outside systems and, as aresult, could be tampered with. Experts camebefore the committee and stated that it could betampered with or hacked into from outside. Thisis a stand-alone system. Every ballot module is ofthe stand-alone variety. All we are doing,therefore, is replacing ballot boxes with electronicmodules which are not connected to any outsidesystems. That is an important fact. Followingmonths of discussion at committee level and thesystem going on display throughout the country,Members still stated today that it could betampered with via the Internet or e-mail. Suchcomments are grossly irresponsible.

If we are genuinely serious about encouragingpeople to partake in the democratic system bycasting their votes at polling systems, we shouldat least acknowledge what is or is not fact.Comments to the effect that the system can behacked into by outside sources are not factual andare highly irresponsible. Regardless of whetherDeputies agree with the system of electronicvoting, they should at least state the facts as theyexist. Perhaps those making the comments towhich I refer should carry out further researchinto the system or visit one of the display centresat which electronic voting is explained tomembers of the public and they are shown whatthe display looks like, how one casts one’s voteand how that vote is counted. If Deputiesinvestigated the system, they would be informedenough to realise that it cannot be tampered withby outside sources. The Opposition should inform

people that, regardless whatever other difficultiesthey have with electronic voting, the systemcannot be tampered with from outside.

Electronic voting is not just about our modernsociety embracing technology. There are goodreasons for bringing forward electronic voting.The first of these is that most votes that arespoiled are not spoiled intentionally. Anyone whohas experience of a recount — I was involved inone in 1992 — will be aware that most spoiledvotes are accidental. Either they are not stampedor the person’s preference is not marked clearlyenough. When the Department of theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Governmentstudied and analysed spoiled votes, it discoveredthat 98% of the votes that were spoiled wereunintentionally spoiled. When people attend theirpolling station, we must have in place a systemwhich makes it as easy as possible for them tocast their vote in the way they intend. When cast,their votes will be stored and counted in anefficient manner at a count centre. That is all weseek.

I stated earlier that I did not believe thatOpposition Members were being mischievous.However, I am inclined to believe that becausethere were so few issues on which the Oppositioncould challenge the Government in recent times.Some of the spokespersons on the other side ofthe House became edgy and thought this wouldbe a good matter to pursue.

Mr. Gormley: There are many such matters; forexample, hospitals, education, etc.

Mr. Deasy: Our strategy has worked out quitewell so far.

Mr. Kelleher: They have done a greatdisservice to our electoral system. If we look backat how people initially received electronic voting,there was no discussion about it after the generalelection of 2002 or the Nice treaty referendum.People embraced the system and stated that itwas successful. Recently, however, allegationshave been made and aspersions have been castto the effect that Fianna Fail is interfering in theelectoral system, that said system has beenundermined and that my party is to blame. Suchallegations are highly irresponsible.

Let us return to the 1992 general election. Atthat time, existing legislation allowed us to takeballot papers to use for test purposes. It has,therefore, been signalled for many years that theGovernment was intent on trying to proceed withelectronic voting. It is not as if a Minister justcame up with the idea one day; electronic votinghas been planned for some time. Legislation wasput in place to ensure that we would have theopportunity to take counted ballot papers fromprevious elections and feed them into whatevertype of electronic voting machine we chose to seeif the results would be accurate and fair. It is notas if we only decided recently that electronic


voting would be introduced because the Ministerthought it would be a good idea.

A substantial number of Deputies have alreadybeen elected by means of electronic voting. In myopinion, every Member would state that he or shehas confidence in the system. Former Deputieswho are now serving in the Upper House camebefore the committee and pleaded with us tointroduce electronic voting. They did so becausethey had lost their Dail seats following extremelytight counts. Some of them lost out by fewer votesthan the number of spoiled votes in their counts.We owe it to members of the electorate that,when casting their votes, they will be able to seethat their intention is expressed before they pressthe “cast vote” button. They will then beconfident that their vote will be recorded in theballot module and will be transferred to acounting machine at a count centre.

It has been suggested that the modules can betampered with in transit. Every system involvesan element of trust. Somebody must transfer theballot boxes to the count centres. We trust thatperson and do not check to see if the ballots weretampered with. There is a seal on the box and weassume, when it arrives at the count centre, thatit has not been tampered with. Likewise with aballot module. Insinuations are continually madethat somehow somebody could undermine thesystem by tampering with it.

Witnesses before the Joint Committee on theEnvironment and Local Government suggestedthat while it may not be possible to tamper withthe system by way of Internet, e-mail or throughan outside system and if we trust the individualshandling the modules, it might be possible totamper with the module at production level. Theysuggested an individual could have the foresightto obtain employment in the company involvedin the production of the module and could inserta virus in the ballot modules to undermine thesystem. Conspiracy theories can only go so far. Isuggest people would want to be a little moreresponsible.

Some people are implacably opposed toe-voting for whatever reason. However, thoseexpounding the view that the system can betampered with are undermining public confidenceand are doing a great disservice to those involvedin trying to encourage more people to cast theirvotes in a democratic manner.

America is often mentioned when discussingthis issue. I find that despicable because this is anemotive issue. Allegations have been made thatthe current President of the United States is nota bona fide president because of chads in Florida.Even if there were difficulties with the manner inwhich the presidential election in America wasconducted, that is not even close to the systembeing proposed by Government for use in theupcoming elections. They use mechanical votingmachines which knock chads out of pieces ofpaper. We must be conscious of what we say. Ifpeople wish to put forward a constructiveargument against the introduction of the system,

they should do so based on solid foundations asopposed to scaremongering and underminingwhat is an important issue, the confidence thatone can cast one’s vote knowing it will berecorded as one wished.

In the Nice referendum there was electronicvoting in seven constituencies. People ask why weare moving ahead so rapidly. How much moretime will it take for people to gain confidence inthe system? Many people are opposing thissystem for the sake of it. I accept the Oppositionhas a fundamental duty to highlight flaws and toput forward policies and constructive views. It isscurrilous to come in here to oppose whatDeputies genuinely believe cannot be tamperedwith by using scaremongering tactics andinsinuations that Fianna Fail is introducing thissystem because it will benefit from it. Deputiesmaking that allegation would not do so out onthe plinth. To say that Fianna Fail is running theelections is a fundamental slander and libel.Those suggesting Fianna Fail is running theelection are questioning the integrity of theofficials in the Department of the Environment,Heritage and Local Government and otherofficials involved. The Opposition parties shouldbe conscious of that when making suchoutlandish statements.

When I referred to the count system in anarticle many people said I was opposed toelectronic voting. I highlighted issues with regardto the count and believe that people are entitledto know not only the result but the transferpatterns. The transfer patterns in our system ofsingle transferable voting is an important factorbecause it allows one to analyse not only the finalresult but the trend of how the public think whencasting their votes. If we had a system similar tothe one used in 1992 which published only resultsof the election, we would not know how peopletransferred votes between parties and candidates.That is important in terms of trying to form aGovernment and in trying to understand how thepublic were thinking in casting their votes.

I welcome the proposed count by count systemwith the first count being published followed byan intermission and a second count published andso on. That will be done every ten or 15 minutes.That is a positive step which will allow people toanalyse the transfer of surpluses and so on and toabsorb how the public thought when casting theirvotes. There is also a human aspect to this. Manypeople spend weeks canvassing for theirpreferred candidate or party. Many familymembers are emotionally involved in this process.Operating a hard guillotine whereby the finalresult only is announced is unfair to defeatedcandidates. In a count by count system, theybecome aware of their fate as the count goes on.That allows people to prepare themselves or theirfamilies for bad news or for jubilation. It alsoallows a successful candidate to gather his or hersupporters and celebrate an electoral victory.From those points of view I welcome the changesin that area.


[Mr. Kelleher.]We can have confidence in the proposed

Nedap-Powervote system. It has been tried andtrusted in countries such as Holland andGermany. If we take the Opposition’s argumenton board, we are saying we have to question theintegrity the government elected in theNetherlands. If we are saying this system couldbe flawed or could be tampered with then we aresaying elections in Holland are not bona fide andcould have been undermined by outsideinfluences. I do not accept that and I am quitesure the people of Holland would not accept it.They would not have anything to do with asystem that could be undermined in such a way.

I welcome this legislation introduced on thebackdrop of an amended motion before thisHouse. Following High Court challenges withregard to Carrickmines and elsewhere, it has beennecessary to introduce primary legislation. Iwelcome the opportunity to debate this importantissue — how we elect government, local authoritymembers, the president and how we amend ourConstitution. It also provides those who have sofar undermined the system with outlandishallegations of interference by hackers anywherein the Universe, an opportunity to reflect on suchsmears. It provides them with an opportunity toreflect on allegations that officials and membersof local authorities responsible for the running ofelections in a fair and free manner are under thethumb of a particular party. It was irresponsibleof Deputies and party Leaders to make suchremarks.

Let us be under no illusion, the only fearpeople have is that they might not like the resultof the election. Deputy Howlin made the validpoint that there is no doubt but that many peoplewould have questioned the accuracy of theelectronic system had it been used in the lastgeneral election given the loss of votes to FineGael. The percentage loss of first preferencevotes and the volume of seats lost was not on apro rata basis because of the quirks of thetransfer system. The percentage drop in FineGael first preference votes and the number ofseats lost would have raised queries in the eyesof the public, discerning politicians, tally men andpundits. I have no doubt in that regard and thosevotes were counted manually. I am confident, inthe event of a similar quirk in the next election,that there will be no challenges.

This facility also allows for a print-out on footof a challenge in the High Court to a generalelection result or in the Circuit Court to a localelection result. If there is a problem in an areawith concerns on some issue and the High Courtdeems it necessary to have a manual count, thatcan be done with this system. However, we donot need anything like a verifiable paper audittrail to instil confidence in the system. Instead weneed a responsible Opposition to stand up andstate quite clearly why it is opposing the issue onbasic facts rather than innuendo, scaremongeringand undermining a very fine system that has been

tried, tested and used by tens of millions ofpeople throughout Holland, Germany and nowFrance. It has also been tested in the UnitedKingdom. Let us embrace this and not be afraidof change or technology. If there is a confidenceissue, it will fall on the Opposition’s heads whenthe public go to the polls.

Mr. Healy: I wish to share time with DeputyGormley and Deputy O Caolain.

Acting Chairman (Mr. McGinley): Is thatagreed? Agreed.

Mr. Healy: I am opposed to the introduction ofelectronic voting on the basis that there is noneed for it. Our current system is good. It iscompletely open and transparent, trusted by thepublic and politicians, understood and cost-effective. There is no doubt that people arecomfortable with the existing system. Ultimatelywe are talking about the democratic system andthe manner in which people are elected to thisHouse and various local authorities throughoutthe country. The public must have confidencethat their votes are being counted properly andtheir wishes properly taken into account in theelection of candidates for whatever area or body.On that basis, the system is not broken, so whyfix it?

The significant moneys being spent — we haveheard the figure of \45 million or \50 million —represent a waste of public money. The costs ofthis system are being significantly underestimated. In particular, we have not examinedthe cost of storing such machines at all, which willbe significant. I cannot understand why we musthave this system when there are other situationson which this money could be much better spent.In the past two days, I raised two issues in thisHouse. One was the question of a primary schoolat Newtown Upper in Carrick-on-Suir which hasoutdoor toilets. Pupils and teachers must crossthe yard in all sorts of weather to toilets that havebeen condemned by the Health and SafetyAuthority. We want to spend our money onintroducing an electronic voting system; yet thesituation in Newtown Upper is more like in thedark ages than in the third millennium. Last nightI raised the fact that a superb modern healthfacility in Clonmel has stood vacant for the past12 months while we waited for the Governmentto fund the equipping and opening of somethingthat would provide modern health care, generalsurgical day care and accident and emergencyfacilities for the people of South Tipperary. Insuch circumstances, it is outrageous to talk aboutspending such sums on an electronic votingsystem with which no one except the Governmentis happy and which we do not need.

If an electronic voting system were introduced,certain parameters would have to be respected.As I said, this is all about democracy, confidenceand trust in the system. Surely it would have tobe introduced by an independent commission in


which the public had trust and confidence andwhich could assure them that their fundamentalright to vote would be protected. In thatcircumstance, we should have full cross-party andindependent support in the House for any changein the system. The unseemly rush to introduceelectronic voting certainly undermines confidenceamong the public and inside this House.

I echo the calls made here today and amongthe general public for postponement of theintroduction of electronic voting to provide anopportunity to ensure confidence in andagreement with the system to be introduced andthat it does not undermine our democratic systemand process. It is most unfair to the panel set upthat it must report by 1 May on the basis of termsof reference which are completely restrictive. Itwas set up excluding who should be a naturalmember, namely, the Ombudsman. That iswrong, and it should, even at this late stage, bechanged.

Mr. Gormley: I support the introduction ofelectronic voting, but I am opposed to thislegislation. I was one of the first people in thisHouse to call for the introduction of electronicvoting. I did so in the aftermath of my famouscount in 1997 when I defeated the presentMinister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform,Deputy McDowell, by 27 votes. When werecounted, we found that the margin was actually35 votes, but we will leave that for the moment.That votes can fluctuate to such an extent whenwe deal with paper ballots emphasises the needfor electronic voting.

Some mentioned the famous “sudden death”count in Dublin North, where Nora Owen wasseen to suffer as the announcement was made.Sudden death is far preferable to the Chinesetorture of endless counts lasting more than aweek, going over ballots, using magnifying glassesto examine the perforations over and over again,and getting the lawyers in to examine the spoiltballots. We should leave that behind us veryquickly, because it is simply not humane for thosevictims who must suffer it. It was one of the fewoccasions where I sympathised with myconstituency colleague. My sympathy is normallylimited, particularly regarding his policies.However, on that occasion it was wrong that aperson should leave a count believing he hadbeen elected. I went to bed thinking I had lostand got a call half an hour later saying that thingshad changed. Having to endure the count for aweek then was completely wrong.

My point, which is essentially what theOpposition is saying, is that there are many onthis side of the House who would welcomeelectronic voting. However, we want a system inwhich we can all have confidence. It may notnecessarily be a paper audit trail, but it has to bea system that is verifiable. It is possible to reachconsensus on this in the same way I believe it ispossible to get consensus on the whole issue ofcitizenship. It is not impossible, yet people are

anxious to press ahead. It is wrong that they arenow pressing ahead in this instance with theadvertising of electronic voting before it has beenagreed by this House. Electronic voting offersmany opportunities, as regards providing thepurest form of proportional representation, forexample, something that has always been aproblem. We have this anomaly regarding thearbitrary nature of dealing with a surplus whichhas never been satisfactory. It offers theopportunity to deal satisfactorily with the wholequestion of spoiled votes. All of these things areto be welcomed. However, when a voter casts hisor her vote at a certain time and place, thereneeds to be a mechanism in place to check itafterwards. Independent checkers may go in atintervals to cast the ballot in a certain way — andthis should be part of this legislation — to test thereliability of the system. Computers can do thisbut they can also make mistakes. We all know ofthe software problems experienced in this House.We know the system here failed on one occasion.These things happen, so we need a system thatwe all can have total confidence in. It is possibleto do, if the Minister would only listen.

Deputy Kelleher says that people are trying toscaremonger. That is not the case. We havelegitimate concerns. We know what we aretalking about. We have many people with thetechnological expertise in our parties who haveexpressed these legitimate concerns, which havenot been dealt with by the Minister. If it does gowrong who is responsible? It can and on occasionit will go wrong. We have seen that things gowrong with paper ballots. In this case, with a virusor any other difficulty with the software, it is clearsomething could go wrong. I am not trying to castaspersions on those people who run the elections,as has been suggested by Deputy Kelleher. Myexperience has been that these people have beenscrupulously fair and that they have behavedresponsibly.

When we talk about the experience in theUnited States, what we are saying is that onoccasion people can behave in an unscrupulousway. We saw that in Florida. That can be done.We need the independent commission to look atthis and to have verifiable checkers so that ifpeople believe something is awry, it can bechecked. There is no possibility of a recheckunder the legislation as proposed. We have it interms of examinations and in a whole list of areaswhere people may seek and obtain a recheck.That does not exist here and that is a problem.

When Deputy Kelleher talks about peoplehaving too many suspicions about Fianna Fail,the reality is that it tried to change the electoralsystem on two occasions to benefit itself.Suspicions may not be justified in this instanceand it may not be the case that Fianna Fail isswitching to electronic voting for its own benefit,but it must be understood that many people maybelieve this is the position. A system must be fairand must be seen to be fair. There will only beone outcome as regards the panel charged with


[Mr. Gormley.]looking at this. It will find in favour, let us beclear on this. I wish it could be otherwise and thatthe Government had sought a consensus. The factit has not is not acceptable.

Caoimhghın O Caolain: A fundamental changein the way in which elections are conductedshould only be undertaken with consensussupport across the political spectrum and fromamong the general public. Electronic voting, asprovided for in this Bill, does not enjoy suchsupport. Therefore, this Bill should be withdrawnand the Government should not proceed withelectronic voting in the manner proposed in theEuropean and local elections on 11 June. Thebottom line is that a verifiable paper trail isneeded. The Government has attempted toportray criticism of the proposed system asOpposition play acting. In his opening speechtoday the Minister spoke of conspiracy theories.I have not heard any such theories either in thecontributions on Second Stage so far or precedingthe debate. However, what I have heard are thereal concerns of people with technical expertisein this area. They should be listened to.

The Government itself carried out pilotprojects of electronic voting in the last generalelection. The purpose of those projects was to testthe system in the field. An intense debateresulted that began on the merits and demerits ofthe system. Initially this focused, in a rather facilemanner, on the ham-fisted way in which theresults were announced in the count centres. Thelast Deputy referred to this. Far more serious andfundamental concerns quickly emerged. Thesecentred chiefly on the design and security of thesystem itself. Sinn Fein spokespeople were amongthe first to raise these concerns and to call fortransparency in the design of the system and apaper trail to verify the voter’s choice. It was theGovernment itself which decided to test thesystem in a real election. That was fair enough.However, the Government then has no right tocomplain if people raise legitimate concernsbased on experience of the system as it workedhere and more importantly, perhaps, on the widerexperience we can call on from other countries.

What heightened concern and justifiedeverything that was said about the system was themanner in which the Government responded. Formonths it refused to clarify the legal basis onwhich the system would be introduced. It claimedthat legislation such as that now being discussedin this Bill, was not necessary and proposed tointroduce electronic voting by ministerial order,leaving the elections open — as we contended —to legal challenge. After repeated questioningand probing inside and outside this House by allof the Opposition voices, including my colleague,Deputy Morgan, the Government finallyacknowledged the need for legislation. With lessthan 12 weeks to go before the elections, we havebeen presented with this Bill. It is a debacle andall too sadly typical of this Government.

This Bill is designed to give legal cover to theelectronic system itself and to give political coverto the Government by the establishment of acommission on electronic voting with extremelynarrow terms of reference. I have no difficultywith electronic voting in principle. I have noobjection to that at all. However, on this issuepractical outworking is everything. There arefundamental problems and this must beacknowledged. It is quite extraordinary that theGovernment has championed this system with theargument that it will provide greater accuracy.Let us examine that for a moment. The proposedelectronic method will not be a counting of allpreference votes as it could be — beingcomputerised — but will be programmed to counta random selection, as is done under the manualsystem. There is no new thinking there, noadvantage or greater accuracy. It is a slight on theservice and hard, dedicated work of people whohave staffed count centres throughout thecountry for decades to suggest that this system ismore accurate than their exercise and ourcollective scrutiny. There is no change in that. Interms of reflecting the voters’ preferences moreaccurately, this will not be the case.

Another issue is the effect of electronic votingon the political system. As Deputy Cassidy wouldconfirm, the traditional election count provided asense of occasion, Hundreds of people wereinvolved in each count centre. Each ballot paperwas there to be seen and its importance to theoverall result was obvious. Media reflection of theexcitement of election counts as we have knownthem must also have encouraged interest inpolitics in general. This will also be lost. I sharethe concern of many that the new system willrepresent perhaps a diminution of politics, andcould well increase voter apathy and cynicism.We must all be concerned about that.

Last week I tabled a question to the Ministeron the staffing implications of electronic votingfor polling stations. Concerns have been raisedthat not enough staff will be trained and recruitedin time for polling stations to operate as normal.This is not a scare story. People directlyconcerned with the electoral system have raisedthe issue. They fear that some polling stationsmay not have adequate trained staff and mayhave to amalgamate with others, thus causingmore confusion. The Minister’s reply to myquestion in the Dail was inadequate and shouldbe looked at by all Deputies. He referred only tothe role of his Department in arranging for theInstitute of Public Administration to train staff,and failed to address the adequacy of staffingnumbers, passing the buck to the returningofficers at local level. That is not good enough.

This is an issue of trust which we all need tohave. I appeal to the Government parties torecognise that such trust does not exist.Accordingly, this Bill should not be proceededwith. Much more needs to be done in thepreparation of a Bill which we can all support andin which the public can have confidence.

141 Confidence in the Minister for the Environment, 31 March 2004. Heritage and Local Government: Motion 142

Mr. Cassidy: I welcome the Bill and, being onthe Government side, I obviously support it. It isa step in the right direction. We are in the 21stcentury, which is one of efficiency and hightechnology. Ireland is a country admired for itsachievements over the past 15 years in particularand which wants to make the day of the ballotmore relevant. As Deputy Gormley said, anyonewho has experienced a recount willwholeheartedly welcome the Bill.

The Minister gave us the background to thearrival of the legislation. He noted that theproject of electronic voting had been in the publicdomain since 1999, when it first featured in twopieces of legislation. It also featured in manyAdjournment debates. The system has regularlybeen debated on radio and television in recentyears. Its successful use in three constituencies inthe previous general election was widely covered.My neighbouring constituents in Meath nearwhere I live in Castlepollard all votedelectronically. I had reservations at first thatsenior citizens, with whom I work so closely,might not vote. I worked hard for many years inthe North Westmeath area, and the experience inMeath, reflected in feedback on the night of thegeneral election, was the simplicity of the system.People asked why we did not have it years ago.At that time I had never seen electronic voting inaction. After going to the county hall in Mullingara few weeks ago and seeing clearly the names onthe ballot papers, the logos of the political partiesand the photographs of the candidates, I couldforesee no other method of voting in the future.Television has 70% penetration and the Ministerfor the Environment, Heritage and LocalGovernment should, following the passage of thislegislation through Parliament, immediatelyinitiate a television campaign to show people howto vote electronically. They will be pleased to seehow simple it is.

Fianna Fail came within 5,000 votes of anoverall majority in the previous general election.We are told that, for one reason or another, atthe last local elections, 24,000 votes were lost. Inone area, 40 councillors won their seats by fewerthan 50 votes. There was a tied vote in the Borris-in-Ossory area where I knew the two candidatesinvolved. In the Ferbane area, just across theborder from Moate, more than 300 votes weredisallowed because the presiding officer failed tostamp the ballot papers. I am in Dail Eireanntoday because of about 248 votes swinging theright way. If an incident such as that one inFerbane had affected one of the boxes in myhome town of Castlepollard, I would not havehad the privilege or the honour of being aMember of Dail Eireann. That would not be thewish of the people of my parish, but it could easilyhave happened that the face of the stamp,through no fault of the presiding officer, mightnot have penetrated the paper.

It is an honour and a privilege to serve in theDail. One comes here with one’s integrity. Mylate father told me on my first night home in

Castlepollard after being elected that it was agreat honour and privilege for the family and thatI had done the parish proud. He said that, if I hadthat honour when I left Parliament, I would havedone a good day’s work for everyone. To beelected by one’s own people is a great vote ofconfidence and a great motivating factor. Onecomes to Parliament in an effort to improve thelot of the people, community, parish and themany families relying on all of us, in Oppositionand Government. The latter changes from timeto time. The wheel always turns.

7 o’clock

I have been a Member of either the Dail orSeanad for seven Parliaments, and I am certainthe voting method proposed is a step forward.

Who would enjoy the experienceundergone by Deputy Gormley andthe Minister for Justice, Equality and

Law Reform, Deputy McDowell? I experienceda recount in a local election in 1979 in which Iwas being beaten by 12 votes until 22 postal voteswere found. I received a telephone call atCrookedwood House, which Deputy O Caolainknows well. I asked the position and was told arecount would take place in the morning. I andthe 400 or 500 people who were disappointed thatI might not be elected built up our hopes on thatFriday night. The next morning, ironically, onlyfour members of my family, along with two otherfriends and Mr. Paddy Hill, who has replaced meas councillor due to the dual mandate, attendedthe recount. To attempt to get votes back in arecount is a most difficult exercise.

Debate adjourned.

Message from Select Committee.

Acting Chairman: The Select Committee onTransport has completed its consideration of theAir Navigation and Transport (InternationalConventions) Bill 2004, and has made noamendments thereto.

Private Members’ Business.

Confidence in the Minister for the Environment,Heritage and Local Government: Motion

(Resumed).

The following motion was moved by DeputySargent on Tuesday, 30 March 2004:

That Dail Eireann resolves that it no longerhas confidence in the Minister for theEnvironment, Heritage and LocalGovernment, Deputy Cullen, in view of theincompetent manner in which he has failed tointroduce and implement policies that properlyfulfil the functions of his Department, includingmeasures to:

— encourage public support of the electoralprocess;


— construct and allocate social housing tothe 50,000 applicants on local authoritywaiting lists;

— restrict the creation of unnecessary waste,resource the collection, reuse andrecycling of waste materials, and theeffective and safe disposal ofunrecoverable waste, through fundingmethods that have the widest publicacceptance;

— implement a national spatial strategy thatproperly distributes services, facilities andopportunities throughout the country;

— comply with international obligations thatthis country limit its increase ofgreenhouse gas emissions;

— responsibly protect national heritage; and

— enhance the quality of and access tolocal democracy.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after “Dail Eireann” andsubstitute the following:

“affirms its confidence in the Minister forthe Environment, Heritage and LocalGovernment and commends the actionstaken by the Minister to:

— improve, and promote confidence in,the electoral process;

— support sustainable developmentincluding the protection of the highquality of our natural and builtenvironment;

— accelerate the provision of social andeconomic infrastructure and protectiveservices (including record levels ofhousing output);

— implement policies to advance balancedregional development and socialinclusion;

— promote and support effective localgovernment;

and, in particular, welcomes and endorses:

— in relation to the electoral process:

— improvement of the electoral system bythe introduction, on a national basis, ofmore accurate and more secureelectoral procedures;

— the establishment of the independentCommission on Electronic Voting toreport on the secrecy and accuracy ofthe proposed voting system;

— in relation to housing:

— the 9th successive year of recordhousing supply involving the additionof 68,819 new houses in Ireland;

— establishment of a strong social andaffordable housing programmeinvolving investment of some \1.8billion in 2004;

— in relation to waste management:

— the major progress achieved in themodernisation of waste management,including major increases in recyclingof wastes and significant advances inthe development of our wasteinfrastructure and services;

— in relation to the national spatialstrategy:

— the comprehensive range of measureswhich have been put in place atnational, regional and local levels tosupport the continuing implementationof the National Spatial Strategy 2002 —2020, in achieving its objectives relatedto more balanced regionaldevelopment;

— in relation to greenhouse gas emissions:

— the active implementation of theGovernment’s national climate changestrategy, including the recent approvalby Government of a nationalallocations plan for emissions trading;

— in relation to the protection ofnational heritage:

— the reorganisation of heritagefunctions at central government levelto ensure optimum alignment andintegration with his environmentalprotection responsibilities; and

— in relation to the enhancement of,and the quality of access to, localdemocracy:

— the continuing reforms of the localgovernment system, including thegreater focusing of the role of thelocal representative and theintroduction of service indicators toensure the delivery of value to localcommunities.”

—(Minister for the Environment, Heritage andLocal Government)

Minister for Community, Rural and GaeltachtAffairs (Eamon O Cuıv): Ba mhaith liom mochuid ama a roinnt leis na Teachtaı Fleming,Glennon, Curran, Andrews agus Peter Power.

Acting Chairman: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Eamon O Cuıv: Ta athas orm labhairt ar an runos comhair an Tı anocht. Mar gheall ar ceall ama,nı bheidh deis agam ach dıriu ar roinnt de nahabhair ata sa run ata curtha sıos ag angComhaontas Glas.


I want to concentrate on the issue of thenational spatial strategy and balanced regionaldevelopment. It appears that either the GreenParty has not read the spatial strategy or itsMembers simply do not understand it.

Mr. Boyle: The Government is making it up asit goes along.

Eamon O Cuıv: The purpose of the spatialstrategy is to create balanced regionaldevelopment through hubs and gateways. Theseare not to become “mini Dublins” in the regionsbut to help to stimulate growth throughout.Under the decentralisation programme, not alldecentralised jobs will be based in the hubs andgateways——

Mr. Boyle: No, just in the spokes.

Eamon O Cuıv: ——but rather spreadthroughout the regions. As the purpose of thestrategy, that is a coherent and logical process. Icannot understand how the Green Partyconcludes that, by providing 10,000 jobs overthree years to all the regions, the Governmenthas failed in its duty to implement a nationalspatial strategy, properly distributing services,facilities and opportunities throughout thecountry.

Recently, I have noticed a new syndrome thathas infected the Opposition. It calls for spatialdevelopment, decentralisation and ruraldevelopment. However, as soon as these issuesare addressed, the process is delayed by calls formore consultation and advice to the Governmentnot to do anything. The Green Party is full of therhetoric of small being beautiful. However, try toprotect the small parishes of Ireland and thepopulation therein and it immediately complainsabout the building of houses.

Mr. Sargent: That is not true.

Eamon O Cuıv: The Government acts in acoherent fashion. The Minister for theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government’snational spatial strategy and the rural housingguidelines are the two major policy initiatives forbalanced spatial development to be adopted. AsMinister for Community Rural and GaeltachtAffairs, I welcome both these initiatives. If theGreen Party were really concerned aboutpeople——

Mr. Boyle: Of course it is not.

Eamon O Cuıv: There are times its Membersgive me the impression of being more concernedabout flora and fauna.

Mr. Boyle: And trees. We are not from somesmall rural parishes. The Minister should stoptalking nonsense. We do not care about hisimpressions. We would prefer if he spoke thetruth.

Eamon O Cuıv: That is what I am doing. Bıonnan fhırinne searbh ach is an fhırinne ı. If theGreen Party was concerned about people, itwould focus its attentions on the effects of rapidagglomeration. In our major cities, particularlyDublin, this is the root cause of social deprivationin some areas. One of the most frighteningmanifestations of this is the combination of highdrug and crime rates and low educationexpectations for our youth. It is time theOpposition spelt out exactly its vision for Ireland.Will it confirm that it is one where thecountryside would be denuded of most of itspopulation with rapidly growing towns full ofsocial exclusion?

Mr. Sargent: That is what Fianna Fail has done.

Eamon O Cuıv: Fianna Fail wants balancedgrowth of our towns and cities, matched bygrowth in the countryside. Development shouldbe spatially balanced because there are noadvantages, both financially and socially, inconcentrating all growth within a small numberof areas. We are working towards the goal of abalanced spatial spread and regionaldevelopment in real and tangible ways. We comeup with fresh, new and innovative ways of dealingwith these issues in an Irish context. The peopleare not being fooled. Green Party policy will leadto more social deprivation in our towns andcities——

Mr. Boyle: I suppose that is our fault.

Mr. Sargent: Rubbish.

Eamon O Cuıv: ——and a countryside of oldpeople separated from their families becauseGreen Party members believe that the motor caris a rural phenomenon to be eradicated alongwith the rural population.

Mr. Boyle: We propose nothing of the sort.

Eamon O Cuıv: Ta athas orm go raibh deisagam labhairt ar an abhar seo agus is trua e nachbhfuil nıos mo ama agam. Ta a fhios agam gobhfuil go leor Teachtaı ar thaobh an Rialtais agiarraidh labhairt ar an run seo agus taispeaint antseafoid ata ar bun ag an gComhaontas Glas nachbhfuil de pholasaı acu ach cosaint a thabhairt dobhlathanna agus ainmhithe seachas daoine.

Mr. Boyle: The Minister cannot have it bothways.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Members shouldcease interrupting.

Mr. P. Power: I thank my colleagues forsharing their time with me. Before dealing withthe record of the Minister for the Environment,Heritage and Local Government——

Mr. Gilmore: That will not take too long.


Mr. P. Power: ——I wish to address aninherent and fundamental flaw in the GreenParty’s motion. The wording of the motion ispredicated on the accusation of incompetence onthe Minister’s part and that he has failed toimplement policies. If both these accusationscould be demonstrated to be true, then it wouldclearly be a matter for a motion of no confidence.

Mr. Boyle: He is incompetent in implementingpolicies.

Mr. P. Power: However, the Green Party hassingularly failed to demonstrate how the Ministeris incompetent. On the contrary, I suspect that itis complaining about his competence in bringingin the policies which he believes are right for thecountry. As a Minister, he has shown the politicalskill to bring these to fruition. It is a skill that islacking on the Opposition benches. The GreenParty may vehemently disagree with his policies.However, it should not accuse him ofincompetence in introducing them. He has doneso in record time and proved himself a radicaland dynamic Minister.

The motion accuses the Minister for failure tointroduce and implement policies. Accuse him ofanything, but not of failure to implement policies.If there is anything that he has done since takingoffice, it is that.

Mr. Boyle: They are all negative policies.

Mr. P. Power: Those on the Oppositionbenches failed to demonstrate this last night. TheGreen Party only demonstrated its unwillingnessto listen to any other viewpoint that might differfrom its.

Mr. Boyle: That is the Minister’s problem.

Mr. Sargent: We were listening with greatinterest.

Mr. P. Power: That was the singular thing thatthe Green Party demonstrated last night. Itsmotion has failed to get off the ground for thetwo reasons I have mentioned. It hardly merits asubstantive debate.

I would like to address an issue that wasdiscussed at length last night. The Green Partyalleged that the Minister’s dynamic actions,contrary to what the motion says, have failed toencourage public support for the electoralprocess. An important distinction must be madebetween the Minister’s reforms, with which onemay not agree, and public confidence in thesystem. I will explain why it is regrettable thatthe Green Party introduced that element into itsmotion last night. Vastly differing views wereexpressed during last night’s debate which waswon by the Government side. When one talksabout an issue of confidence, it should beunderstood that the Green Party is reintroducingthis issue after the House has decided on it for asingle simple reason. The Green Party wishes to

undermine the electorate’s confidence in thissystem.

Mr. Gilmore: The Government introduced theBill.

Mr. P. Power: I find it hard to take lecturesfrom the Labour Party because its leader said inthis House last month that he opposes electronicvoting because “when it comes to counting thevotes, I do not trust Fianna Fail”.

Mr. Durkan: He is not the only one.

Mr. Gilmore: He was on a winner when hesaid that.

Mr. P. Power: It was one of the most ludicrousstatements I have heard since I was elected tothe House.

Mr. Durkan: He echoed the sentiments ofmany people.

Mr. P. Power: The Labour Party Deputies willforgive me if I do not accept their arguments.There is one question that needs to be answeredby the Government and the country as a whole.Is the Minister, Deputy Cullen, entitled to rely onthe advice of internationally recognised expertson electronic voting? I believe that he is entitledto do so, just as we are entitled to hold that view,regardless of whether others agree with it. I havehighlighted one of the five issues that were raisedin the Green Party’s motion. It is my firm beliefthat the Green Party has not demonstrated thatthe Minister is incompetent or that he has failedto act.

Mr. McCormack: He did that himself.

Mr. P. Power: The contributions of all of theGreen Party’s Deputies have underlined the factthat the Minister is dynamic.

Mr. Sargent: Hitler was fairly dynamic.

Mr. P. Power: The Minister has acted.

Mr. McCormack: He is certainly an actor.

Mr. P. Power: The Green Party is afraid toadmit that he is extremely competent.

Mr. Glennon: I am delighted to support theMinister’s amendment to the Green Party’smotion. Far from lacking confidence in theMinister, Deputy Cullen, I am delighted andpleased to assert my confidence in him.

Mr. Durkan: The Progressive Democrats didthat too.

Mr. McCormack: Deputy Glennon missed theball in that line-out.


Mr. Glennon: I am happy to confine myargument to three issues that are of particularrelevance to my constituency of Dublin North.Draft sustainable rural housing guidelines forplanning authorities were published recently.

Mr. McCormack: They are a sham.

Mr. Glennon: Some people might ask why ruralhousing is relevant to a Dublin constituency but,as Deputy Sargent is well aware, Dublin North isunique among the Dublin constituencies in that ithas a significant rural population. It is importantthat an appropriate balance is struck betweenurban and rural development as the north Dublinarea is being developed. That has not been thecase in recent times, however. I have encounteredhundreds of cases of planning permission notbeing made available to the sons and daughtersof farmers who have lived in the area forgenerations. Some 50% of the nation’s annualhorticultural output is produced in the region.

Mr. McCormack: Will the new guidelines solvethe problem?

Mr. Glennon: Many people must live in urbanareas away from the farms and communities inwhich they were reared. The Minister’s recentannouncement in this regard is a huge plus.

Mr. Durkan: It will do nothing.

Mr. Glennon: It has been welcomed across thenorth Dublin area.

Mr. Gilmore: It has given Fingal CountyCouncil a problem.

Mr. Durkan: When will it happen?

Mr. Glennon: It will be a major boost to——

Mr. McCormack: It is a fake to get over theelections.

Mr. Glennon: ——the sustainability andvibrancy of the villages of north Dublin.

Mr. McCormack: If it is true.

Mr. Glennon: I suspect that some of theMembers opposite have not visited this uniquearea; they may be ignorant of it.

Mr. Sargent: The Minister, Deputy Cullen,does not seem to know about it.

Mr. Glennon: I say that on the basis of someof their comments.

Mr. Durkan: The Deputy’s presumption ofignorance on the part of the Opposition issomewhat exaggerated.

Mr. Glennon: I do not think it is exaggerated.

Mr. Durkan: It is not all over here.

Mr. Glennon: I think the assumption ofignorance is entirely justified based on the levelof performance from the other side, but that isanother issue.

Mr. Durkan: When the Government starts todeliver, we will believe it.

Mr. Glennon: It is appropriate, bearing in mindthe abuse that is coming across the floor, that thesecond issue I wish to raise is refuse charges. It isironic that Fingal was the scene of most of themajor battles during the recent refuse chargescampaign as it was generally accepted thatFingal’s method of charging for refuse collection— the pay-by-use system — was the fairest in thecountry as it rewarded careful people andpenalised polluters. The Minister, Deputy Cullen,has set next January as the deadline for theintroduction on a nationwide basis of a systembased on this basic principle. Almost 100% of theresidents of Fingal are happy to avail of this goodand fair system because they see the benefits thataccrue from it. I welcome the Minister’s plans tointroduce the system on a national basis.

Mr. Sargent: We gave him the idea.

Mr. Glennon: It is equitable for thehouseholder and incentivises efficient wastemanagement, which is good for everybody and isthe sole purpose of the system, in my view. It isa win-win situation. I congratulate the Ministeron his ambitious timescale for the introduction ofthe system nationwide.

Mr. Boyle: He is leading from behind again.

Mr. Glennon: I was lucky enough to have beenelected to this House at the 2002 general electionto represent one of the pilot electronic votingconstituencies.

Mr. Durkan: Do not go there.

Ms O. Mitchell: Start the recount.

Mr. Glennon: I am happy and honoured tohave been elected in such a way, just like myOpposition colleague, Deputy Sargent.

Mr. Sargent: It was a system of shock and awe.

Mr. Glennon: We subjected ourselves to thesystem voluntarily. We were the winners, butthere many losers. The system being proposed is99% identical to that by which Deputy Sargentand I were elected.

Mr. McCormack: We cannot trust it.

Mr. Glennon: He did not complain then, nordid any of his colleagues.


Mr. Sargent: I did not have to.

Mr. Glennon: None of the many losers in thethree constituencies has complained since then.

Ms O. Mitchell: There are no records.

Mr. Sargent: They are in shock.

Mr. Glennon: Their parties are making a songand dance of it and hyping up the issue.

Ms O. Mitchell: There are no hanging chadsto examine.

Mr. Glennon: If there were any genuinegrounds for objection or any apparent flaw in thesystem, we would have heard about it by now inthe Four Courts.

Ms O. Mitchell: They could not get a trail.

Mr. Glennon: That has not happened.

Deputies: Hear, hear.

Mr. Gilmore: There are no tracks.

Mr. Glennon: What is going on at present is apuff of smoke. I respectfully suggest that it willgo the same way as other great puffs of smoke inrecent years, such as Y2K, the euro changeoverand the smoking ban. I am delighted to supportthe Minister, Deputy Cullen, and his amendment.

Mr. McCormack: He has gone out for a fag.

Mr. Sargent: The Minister, Deputy Cullen,opposed the smoking ban.

Mr. Curran: I welcome the opportunity tospeak on this motion this evening. I stronglyoppose the Green Party’s motion of noconfidence in the Minister for the Environment,Heritage and Local Government and support theGovernment’s amendment.

In his contribution, the Minister outlined hispolicies on a wide range of issues and explainedhow the Government has been implementingthem. I do not have enough time to go throughall of the policies, but I would like to refer to oneor two of them, in particular.

A short time ago, the Minister indicated thatwaste management charges would be determinedby volume or weight. South Dublin CountyCouncil was probably one of the last localauthorities to introduce a waste managementcharge. It did not introduce the concept ofpayment by volume until this year. That measurehas led to a significant reduction in the amountof waste going to landfill. I look forward to theimplementation of such a system on a nationwidebasis from next year. The Dublin local authoritiesare operating a green bin recycling service tocomplement the new system. That is what makes

the system work. The initiative must be rolled outthroughout the country.

Many speakers, including Deputy Boyle, havemade the point that they are not interested in thenational figures cited by the Minister. They areinterested in what is happening on the ground.Last night it was stated that the Minister wouldsay he built 70,000 houses——

Mr. Boyle: There are 50,000 people on thehousing waiting list.

Mr. Curran: ——and that the Green Party wasnot particularly interested in that aspect of it.

Mr. Boyle: It is the people that matter, notthe houses.

Mr. Curran: This Government has presidedover a period in which we have seen massivegrowth in housing.

Mr. Boyle: And more homelessness.

Mr. Curran: Over nine consecutive years thehousing output has grown to almost 70,000. Thatis three times the EU average and five times theUK average.

Mr. Durkan: Yes, but who bought thosehouses? They were bought by investors.

Mr. Curran: It does not matter who boughtthem; there are people living in all of them.

Mr. Boyle: That is not true. A quarter of thosenew houses are second homes.

Mr. Curran: That was the output last year.There are people living in those houses in allcircumstances. To follow on from Deputy Boyle’spoint, I will talk about what these figures meanlocally. I was a member of South Dublin CountyCouncil, which has a housing plan of more than1,400 houses in a three or four year period.Affordable housing is being built in the area.More than 1,500 houses are being bought underthe shared ownership scheme. Many strides havebeen made.

The Minister puts forward various policies andmakes finance available. South Dublin CountyCouncil had \50 million for its housingprogramme last year. It is important to rememberthat there is an onus on local authorities — onwhich Green Party members have also sat — toimplement these plans. When have Green Partymembers supported them?

Mr. Sargent: Every time.

Mr. Curran: When have they supported theadoption of estimates? When have theysupported any of these schemes? The GreenParty Deputies stand on that side of the Houseand say the Minister has not implemented variouspolicies. The reality is that when it comes to social


and affordable housing, it is local authorities whoimplement those programmes.

Mr. Boyle: Not one house has been built. Therehave been no planning applications.

Mr. Curran: On the local authority on which Isat, when did Green Party members supportthose policies?

Mr. Sargent: We supported them many times.

Mr. Andrews: I am surprised the Green Partyhas chosen to put this motion before the House.A motion of no confidence is the most negativeprocedure available to the House. It is the mostnegative way of trying to put a point across, yetthe Green Party calls itself the party ofconstructive opposition. The last time it had amotion on Private Members’ business itsmembers trumpeted the wonderful fact that ithad introduced four Bills in such a short time.They announced this with a fanfare and heraldedthe Green Party as the great new wave in politics.Yet this is what they are reduced to this evening.It is pathetic and negative and they should beashamed of themselves.

Mr. Sargent: We are always positive.

Mr. Andrews: There is no issue whatsoever.The text of the motion is so broad that it ismeaningless. There is nothing in it that wouldwarrant a motion of no confidence.

I agree with Deputy Curran’s point. In myexperience in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown CountyCouncil the Green Party members have donenothing but speak out of both sides of theirmouths at the same time. In regard to housing,the Green Party has been the most vociferousvoice in preventing the rezoning of 70 acres in themiddle of Dun Laoghaire.

Mr. Sargent: There is plenty of rezoning.

Mr. Andrews: The plans for those 70 acres area perfect example of sustainable development.

Mr. Boyle: Who owns the land?

Mr. Andrews: It is close to transport nodes andschools. It will involve 20 acres of land for publicaccess in an area in which none is available atpresent.

Mr. Gilmore: It is not available until 2008.

Mr. Andrews: That is what sustainabledevelopment is, and that is what the GreenParty opposes.

Mr. Sargent: There is enough rezoned land inthe area to last until 2010.

Mr. Andrews: I put it to the House that theGreen Party is indulging in bare-faced hypocrisy.

Furthermore, it has opposed the “polluter pays”principle. It indulges in the view that it is all verywell in practice, but the theory is a differentmatter. Somebody must have the courage tomake difficult decisions. Its members state in theHouse that they support the principle, but whenit comes to the nuts and bolts of the issue, asDeputy Curran said, they show no courage. Theypander to the lobbyists and the voices they hearin their constituencies.

What we are dealing with here is an exampleof total opposition. The Green Party Deputies areagainst everything and propose very little, apartfrom some crackpot ideas that are sometimes putforward for our amusement. They proposed thatDublin Airport be closed down and they areseeking an economic recession so they can stoproad building.

Mr. Boyle: If we propose something we arecrackpots and if we oppose it we are alsocrackpots. The Deputy should be consistent.

Mr. Andrews: I wonder if any of this is serious.Is tonight’s motion an example of begrudgery?

The Minister is doing a fantastic job. He ismaking great progress on making the polluterpay. The people I represent in Dun Laoghaire arepleased with the improvements being made. Apilot scheme is already in place and we arelooking forward to 1 January 2005 — a greatreforming date — when the pay-per-weightsystem will be introduced. I oppose the GreenParty motion.

Mr. Fleming: I welcome the opportunity to saya few words in this debate. I thank the GreenParty for allowing us the use of its PrivateMembers’ time to confirm our confidence in theMinister for the Environment, Heritage andLocal Government and the actions he has takenin various areas. I agree with Deputy Andrewswhen he says the motion put down by the GreenParty is highly negative. However, it has been atremendous opportunity for GovernmentDeputies to outline the Government’s proposals.

Mr. Sargent: The pleasure is ours.

Mr. Fleming: I hope the Green Party will useits time similarly in the future.

Mr. Sargent: There will be an election first.

Mr. Fleming: Without going into the details,the Minister has a record of success in the naturaland built environment. He has been successful inthe areas of housing, waste management——

Mr. Boyle: Has he? We are creating morewaste than ever — 700 kg. per person.

Mr. Fleming: ——greenhouse gas emissionsand our natural heritage. The only thing I can sayabout the Green Party when it comes to theMinister’s success is that it is green with envy.


Deputies: That is original.

Mr. Fleming: I am confused because I do notknow which of the 40 shades of green I am talkingabout. When I look at the three Deputiesopposite, I do not think any of them would agreeon this.

Mr. Sargent: Deputy Fleming is the JohnnyCash version.

Mr. Fleming: I want to talk about practicalissues in which the Green Party ought to beinterested. I thought they would have supportedthe initiatives on the ground and supportedcitizens at a local level, but it seems they aremuch happier to condemn the Minister and sayhe should be fired. I am talking about wastemanagement, prevention, re-use and recycling.Around the country in the past two years I haveseen an explosion in the number of bring centres,bottle banks, aluminium banks and so on.

Mr. Boyle: It matches the explosion in waste.

Mr. Fleming: This is to be welcomed. For thefirst time citizens are recycling waste on a regularbasis in every town and village — waste whichused to be disposed of in landfills. The Ministeris bringing about a cultural change in our society.This follows from the earlier introduction of theplastic bag tax.

Mr. Sargent: That was a Green Party idea.

Mr. Fleming: This was seen as a crackpot idea,but within an hour of its introduction it was clearfrom every retailer in the country that peoplethought it was an excellent idea.

Mr. Sargent: The Deputy is welcome.

Mr. Fleming: Now they bring canvas bags tothe shops on an ongoing basis and are continuingto re-use existing bags as we used to do in theold days.

I mention recycling because even in small ruralvillages the recycling bins are collected one weekwhile the regular bins are collected the next. Thevolume of material in the non-recycling bin,which is going to landfill, has reduceddramatically. I look forward to 1 January 2005,when people will start paying by weight. In myclinics in recent weeks I have been surprised bythe number of people, sometimes elderly, whohave come to me complaining that they must paythe full price for a wheelie bin while the bighousehold next door which fills its bin to the brimpays the same amount.

Mr. Boyle: Is it not Government policy tocharge a flat rate?

Mr. Fleming: We have now succeeded, throughour recycling process, in ensuring that peopleadjust to the new arrangements.

Mr. Boyle: We have a recycling rate of 10%.

Mr. Fleming: From my experience in LaoisCounty Council, I can say that the volume ofrecycling has increased enormously. If it is nothappening in other Deputies’ local authorities,they should be addressing the matter locally. Isuspect they are creating a negative image forrecycling which is not warranted. Recycling isgoing well and pay-by-use will be the wayforward. People will not want to createunnecessary waste and will be happy to pay byweight because they will see that they are gettingvalue for money.

The Minister should introduce a tax onchewing gum which is a big cause of litter on ourstreets. It destroys the general appearance ofstreets, so I hope such a tax can be imposed inthe near future.

Mr. Durkan: There will be little left to taxshortly.

Mr. Fleming: Given the Deputy’s comment, Itake it that he opposes the principle of taxingthose who destroy the environment. I amdelighted to be on the opposite side of thatdebate.

Mr. Durkan: There has been a rise in car taxand all sorts of other taxes.

Mr. Fleming: There is a difference of opinionbut it is clear that, in Deputy Durkan’s opinion,people should be free to pollute and litter ourstreets.

Mr. Durkan: I am surprised when I hear abouta new tax.

Mr. Fleming: He should support such taxeswhich, like the smoking ban and the plastic baglevy, will force people to reconsider their actions.

Mr. Durkan: I should not be surprised becausethere is a new tax every week.

Mr. Fleming: I thank the Green Party for theopportunity to highlight some of the Minister’ssuccesses. I ask its Members to use their PrivateMembers’ time in such a manner in futurebecause it gives us an opportunity to outlineGovernment policy.

Mr. Gilmore: The Labour Party supports themotion tabled by the Green Party, not becausewe doubt the Minister’s ability or even hiscompetence but because of his record and thatof the Government in the areas for which he isresponsible. We need go no further than theMinister’s contribution to the debate to find thesummary of his record. He said: “In my time inthis Department I have worked to ensure thatIreland has the highest rate of home building inEurope”. That is true. We have the highest rateof home building in Europe but we also have the


worst housing crisis for at least half a century. Wehave some of the highest house prices in Europeand a housing list which has more than doubledsince the Fianna Fail-Progressive DemocratsGovernment took office in 1997. Approximatelyone third of newly formed households can nolonger afford to provide a home of their own.

The Minister said he has worked to produceIreland’s first ever spatial strategy. That is true,although the spatial strategy came belatedly,several years after the announcement of thenational development plan, and it has now beenthrown out the window as a result of thedecentralisation plan announced by the Ministerfor Finance.

Eamon O Cuıv: Not at all.

Mr. Gilmore: The Minister, Deputy Cullen,said he has worked to make local democracymore transparent and accountable. Nothing couldbe further from the truth. We have the weakestsystem of local government in Europe and, in thehistory of this State, no Minister in charge of theCustom House has taken more powers fromlocal authorities.

The Minister said he has worked to increasedramatically recycling facilities, yet this week wehave read stories in our newspapers aboutdumping and trading in waste that is taking place,legally and illegally, as a result of the Minister’sactions in commercialising the wastemanagement system.

The Minister said he has worked to take thefight against Sellafield to the next level. That isone area for which I will give him credit. To befair, he has built on the work which was initiatedby me, my colleagues, Deputies Stagg andHowlin, and others when we were last inGovernment.

The Minister said waste management has beenhis highest priority since coming into office, butwaste management is a mess. I heard DeputyFleming speak of the outbreak of recycling tanksthat we can find in shopping centre car parksthroughout the country. That is true, but wherewill the material be recycled? The Minister hasfailed to build a recycling infrastructure and theresult is that much of what is collected forrecycling is exported. We have paper going toChina, Tetrapak cartons to Scotland, and glass,which can no longer be recycled here, goingacross the Border. The reality, as people know, isthat much of the material collected for recyclingends up in landfill because there are norecycling facilities.

The Minister acknowledged in his contributionthat his solution to the waste managementproblem is not to recycle waste but to burn it.Later on in his contribution he spoke aboutrecovering energy from waste through the use ofthermal treatment technologies. As the Ministerhas admitted on a number of occasions in theHouse, he is an avowed supporter of incineration.It is not the strategy of the current Minister to

have a worthwhile recycling system in thiscountry. His strategy is to bury or burn waste.

One of the by-products of this strategy,whereby the Minister has shifted the area ofwaste management from a public servicedelivered through local authorities to acommercial service for which people must pay, isthat we now have the legal and illegalcommercialisation of waste management. Wehave seen numerous incidents of illegal dumpingin many parts of the country. We have seen wastebeing traded across the Border and we have seenthe development of a waste industry which islargely unregulated and out of control.

The Minister said that 1 January 2005 has beenset as the date for completion of the changeoverto pay-by-use waste systems. The Minister has notissued a regulation making it obligatory for localauthorities to change over on 1 January 2005. Hehas simply announced his intention of setting thatdate. I agree with the pay-by-use system which isin line with the polluter pays principle. However,to introduce pay-by-use without addressingability to pay or the levels to which wasteoperators can increase their charges will leavehouseholders open to greatly increased costs.

I will provide an example. Last year, SouthDublin County Council had a flat annual wastecollection charge of \160. It decided to move overto a pay-by-use system under which people nowpay \6 per collection. For a householderpresenting waste once a week, that represents asignificant increase in the waste bill toapproximately \300. The Minister is already onrecord as indicating his wish that local authoritiesand waste service providers should charge the fulleconomic cost of the service. The idea of pay-by-use, dressed up as the polluter pays principle, is aTrojan horse for increasing the level of chargesand not taking sufficient account of ability to pay.

In his speech, the Minister also spoke about thenational spatial strategy and said: “There is astrong focus on promoting the scale and criticalmass at strategic regional locations — gatewaysand hubs — to lead and drive regionalcompetitiveness”. Why, however, did theGovernment decide in its decentralisationstrategy to ignore most of the gateways and hubsit had identified in the national spatial strategy?The reality is that the national spatial strategy isa dead duck. It was published because thecountry is required under EU regulations to havesuch a strategy but there is no intention to stickto it or do anything about it. It is now well andtruly dead and buried.

The Minister also spoke about the draftguidelines on sustainable rural housing, a subjectwhich was referred to again by the Minister,Deputy O Cuıv. The draft guidelines onsustainable rural housing are a con. The Ministerunfairly last night accused the planners of ClareCounty Council of misleading local authoritymembers. He said the guidelines were notadopted in Clare because the members misreadthem and they were misled by the planner who


[Mr. Gilmore.]gave an outline at a meeting. The Minister andthe Government are misleading the public on theguidelines because they are only guidelines. TheMinister had two other options. First, he couldhave issued a direction to local authorities undersection 29 of the Planning and Development Act2000 but he chose not to and, second, he couldhave made regulations under section 262 of theAct, which he also declined to do. He publisheddraft guidelines under section 28 and, followingthe court case relating to the Meath countydevelopment plan, such guidelines have no forceof law. A planning authority only needs to haveread the guidelines and it does not have tocomply with them.

The draft guidelines have been published toenable the Minister and the Government to givethe impression to people applying for planningpermission in rural areas that they are on theirside against the planners. However, the Ministerfor Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs iswell aware the guidelines have no force of lawand can be ignored.

Eamon O Cuıv: There is a misunderstanding.The guidelines are in place and it is up to eachlocal authority to draw up a plan.

Mr. Healy: And they will be even morerestrictive than the existing plans.

Mr. Gilmore: I am glad the Minister intervenedbecause it has been helpful. His party colleaguescomplain that people in rural areas cannot obtainplanning permission. Their complaint is theydraw up the county development plan, whichallows for one scenario, but the planners will notcomply with it. However, the Government’s draftguidelines do nothing to improve that scenario.

Eamon O Cuıv: The Deputy is missing thepoint. That was not the problem. When the localauthority drafted its plans, it was told ad nauseamby planners that it could not do what it wanted inits county plans because it was contrary toGovernment policy. The guidelines clarify thatissue.

Mr. Gogarty: The issue is Government policy.

Mr. Gilmore: When Meath County Councildrafted its county development plan, a case wastaken to the courts on the basis that the localauthority had not complied with regionalplanning guidelines. The court’s decision was thecouncil did not have to comply with them, as aplanning authority is only obliged to have readthem.

Eamon O Cuıv: The Deputy is missing thepoint. He should ask Deputy McHugh.

Mr. Gilmore: When an individual planningapplication is made to a local authority——

Eamon O Cuıv: The Deputy should askDeputy McHugh.

Acting Chairman (Mr. McCormack): Order,please.

Mr. Gilmore: The Minister thinks the problemsof social disorder are the product of rapidagglomeration.

Eamon O Cuıv: That is largely the case.

Mr. Gilmore: The Minister is engaging in rapidagglomeration and I would like to conclude mycontribution. When an individual planningapplication is submitted to a planning authority,the authority is restricted under section 34 of thePlanning and Development Act 2000 regardingthe matters it can take into account and, aspeople will find out in time, the draft guidelineson rural housing are not worth the paper onwhich they are written. They are designed only toget Fianna Fail beyond the local and Europeanelections on 11 June because planning is an issuein many areas.

The Minister for the Environment, Heritageand Local Government also referred to Ireland’sobligations regarding greenhouse gas emissions.He said he had submitted a national allocationplan for emissions trading to the EuropeanCommission. It is unfortunate that he is claiminga proud record in this area because he rolled overand lost the battle with the Minister forEnterprise, Trade and Employment in theinterest of competitiveness. The nationalallocation plan was published by theEnvironmental Protection Agency on the basis ofa formula designed by the Minister and hisDepartment. If its purpose is to reduce emissions,how does he justify the plan’s allocation of evenhigher levels of emissions to the greatestpolluters, energy generation and cementproduction, than the emissions they currentlyproduce?

The national allocation plan, for which theMinister claims credit, is a sell out of theenvironment to major polluting industries and heought to be ashamed of it as he ought to beashamed of his contribution on heritage, forwhich he also claims credit. He abolished Duchasand has sent out a signal that heritage is not tobe considered a priority any more. A major issueis looming and it will make the Carrickminesdispute look like a piece of cake. I refer to theproposal to develop a motorway through the Hillof Tara and Skryne, about which archaeologistsand historians have become increasinglyconcerned.

The only interesting statement the Minstermade in regard to heritage was that the firstvolume of a national shipwreck survey will becompleted this year. The first entry ought to bethe shipwreck of the Government’s environmentpolicies, for which the Minister has been thecaptain standing on the bridge.


Mr. Allen: The Progressive Democrats havejumped ship this evening.

Mr. Gilmore: The Minister praised himself lastnight regarding local government. I am delightedhe has returned to the House because I hatepraising him in his absence. Instead of providingfor greater transparency and giving greaterpowers and so on to local authorities, no Ministerwho has held the office has done more to removepower from local government and undermine it.He reversed the decision to have directly electedmayors and he removed the power from localauthorities to draft their own waste managementplans. He is the first Minister to interfere withthe autonomy local authorities had regarding theadoption of their annual estimates by givingpower to county managers to set charges. He isalso the first Minister to direct a local authorityregarding what it should include in its countydevelopment plan. I represent the DunLaoighaire constituency and the Minister’sdirection to Dun Laoighaire-Rathdown CountyCouncil in respect of what it should have includedin its county development plan was disgraceful,unwarranted and went beyond his authority. Hemay yet have to answer for this decision inanother forum.

Mr. Cullen: The council left me with no choice.It was in contravention of its own plan, not myplan.

Mr. Gilmore: The Minister colluded with themanagement of the county council to subvert thewill of the elected members of the council——

Mr. Cullen: I exercised my responsibility underthe law.

Mr. Gilmore: ——and to browbeat them intobending to his will or the manager’s will or acombination of both.

Mr. Cullen: I want to provide houses forpeople, unlike the Deputy. Housing is the issue.

Mr. Gormley: That is simplistic.

Mr. Sargent: There is plenty of land in DunLaoighaire.

Mr. Gilmore: That is interesting. The issue isnot the number of houses but the affordability ofhouses, as is the case in many other parts of theState. I have told colleagues on the council thatincreasing the number of houses being built inthat area where house prices are particularly highand in other areas without addressing thequestion of affordability will simply mean thatmore houses will be built for people with deeppockets and large bank balances who can affordto buy them and the sons and daughters of localpeople will have to move to Arklow, Gorey,Athy and——

A Deputy: Maybe even Waterford.

Mr. Gilmore: ——30 or 40 miles away beforethey can afford to buy a home. The worst aspectof the Government stewardship on environmentissues is its lamentable record on housing.Currently one third of young families nationallycannot afford to buy a home, rising to 40% inurban areas and more than 50% in the greaterDublin area. The Minister has talked a great talkabout housing for a long time. We werepromised——

Mr. Cullen: Seventy thousand houses.

Mr. Gilmore: Seventy thousand houses is nouse to somebody——

Mr. Cullen: It seems to be of use.

Mr. Boyle: To those who have second homes.

Mr. Gilmore: It is no comfort to the familywhich cannot afford to buy or to those who havebeen waiting for up to ten years to get a localauthority house and may have to wait longerunder the Minister’s stewardship or to those whothought that affordable houses would come underthe national pay agreement, which the Ministerhas welched on.

Mr. Cullen: The Deputy should talk to thesocial partners

Mr. Gilmore: It is no wonder they are stayingaway from the talks

Mr. Cullen: They have discussed the issue ofaffordable houses with me.

Mr. Healy: With the permission of the House,I wish to share my time with Deputies McHugh,Twomey and Ferris.

Acting Chairman: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Healy: I support the Green Party motionand, in the time available, I will address twoissues.

We are experiencing the worst housing crisis inliving memory. The local authority housingwaiting list is double what it was when FiannaFail and the Progressive Democrat Party tookoffice in 1997. At present 50,000 families are onthe waiting list, which represents in the region of120,000 to 130,000 individuals.

Mr. Cullen: That is incorrect.

Mr. Healy: The number of homeless people hasincreased dramatically, especially in Dublin. Theserious increase in the numbers on the localauthority housing waiting list has beenexacerbated to a considerable extent by the factthat many young couples, both with good jobs,are not able to afford the cost of private houses.


[Mr. Healy.]People who would have bought or built privatehouses and not been a burden on local authoritiesare not now in a position to buy or build thosehouses and find themselves languishing on localauthority house waiting lists. We were promised10,000 affordable houses, but I have seen veryfew of them, if any. The Minister has effectivelygiven carte blanche to developers and builders tomake serious profits by building private houses.The Minister stated that 70,000 houses werecompleted last year.

Mr. Cullen: Of which 75% are going to first-time buyers.

Mr. Healy: How many were purchased assecond homes? It is certainly a significantnumber. It is 25% if not more, and may well benear to 33% to 40%. This is while 50,000 familiesremain on local authority housing lists.

The Minister has undermined local democracyand local government over a period. He has takenfrom local authority elected members the right tomake waste management plans and the right tolevy refuse charges.

Mr. Cullen: It might put a bit of backboneinto councillors.

Mr. Healy: The Minister has withdrawn theright to directly elect a mayor which hasundermined local public elected representatives.

The guidelines for once-off rural housing are athree card trick and a typical stroke by the FiannaFail Party. As Members have outlined, theMinister had a number of ways in which he couldhave dealt with the matter, by direction or byregulation, and both of these would have had tohave been implemented by local authorities.Instead, he chose a different way which has noforce of law.

Mr. Cullen: What is the Deputy talking about?

Mr. Healy: The fact is that the guidelines whichthe Minister has issued are worse that the existingprovisions of most county development plans. Iwas travelling through Waterford recently andheard local authority officials confirm on WLRthat the ministerial guidelines mean nothing inthat county, south Tipperary or other counties.This is simply a European and local electionsstroke by Fianna Fail,

Mr. Cullen: Has the Deputy read theproposals?

Mr. Healy: I have read them in detail.

Mr. McHugh: The use of the confidencemotion is a serious sanction, should not be usedlightly and should only be used as a last resort.

Mr. Cullen: Hear, hear.

Mr. McHugh: Common and routine use of theconfidence motion has the effect of underminingits effectiveness. The use of such motions shouldbe retained for serious breaches of responsibilityby Government or Ministers or for situationswhere Ministers are in serious dereliction of duty.One of the strongest weapons available to theOpposition is to table a vote of no confidenceand, for such a motion to retain its sense ofseriousness in the public mind, it needs to beretained as a weapon of last resort. It is for thereasons stated that I am unable to support themotion before the House as it is presentlyconstituted. However, I agree with most of thecriticisms of the Minister and Government in theGreen Party motion.

In the Planning and Development(Amendment) Act, the Minister for theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government,Deputy Cullen, at the stroke of a pen underminedand set at nought the work and progress achievedby his courageous predecessor, Deputy NoelDempsey, on the integration of the variousstrands of housing — social, affordable andprivate. In so doing, he capitulated to the mightof property developers whom his predecessor hadthe courage to take on. The provisions in the Acthad nothing to do with proper planning anddevelopment but with collapsing in front of themarch of major developers.

The Government talks the talk about thenational spatial strategy but it will not walk thewalk when it comes to underpinning it withcoherent policies that will give confidence toother development agencies and Stateorganisations on the way forward so that they, inturn, will have regard to the national spatialstrategy and tailor their policies accordingly. TheGovernment has not shown the leadership and,with the programme of decentralisation recentlyannounced, has shown that nothing has changedin Government policy towards achievingbalanced regional development. It is the same oldstory for rural Ireland — talk and no real action.The Minister, Deputy Cullen, rolled out thenational spatial strategy, but it is freewheelingsince with no Government direction and nocoherent follow up.

The Minister issued guidelines on planning forhouses in the countryside. As far as CountyGalway is concerned, those guidelines will makeno difference to the people seeking planningpermission and who have difficulty in acquiringsame. They give false hope to those experiencingthose difficulties and that is unfair. It is quiteobvious that the guidelines are being peddlednow to get over the threat that this issue holdsfor the local elections. It is disgraceful that,because of this electioneering prank, decentpeople will have their hopes raised before thelocal elections and subsequently dashed.

The Government talks the talk aboutenhancing local government, but it refuses towalk the walk when it comes to bringing aboutreal reform to provide genuine power to local


councillors. Instead, the Government engaged inthe charade of abolishing the dual mandate whichchanges nothing. It means only that a Deputycannot take part in local authority meetings. Thework of a Deputy is the same as it was beforethe abolition of the dual mandate. Rather than toenhance local government, the effect of theGovernment’s actions has been only toundermine local authorities and sideline theirmembers.

The removal of decision making powers fromcouncillors in the context of waste managementplans was the clearest example of the way inwhich local authority members have beensidelined by the Government.

Mr. Cullen: They are all thanking me. They donot have to make the hard decision on thermaltreatment. I will make it for them.

Mr. McHugh: A further example ofundermining of local government came oncompletion of passage of the EnvironmentalProtection Act 2003 when the Minister inserted aprovision which gave it precedence over countydevelopment plans. That was done for the singlereason that members of Galway County Councilhad included provision on landfills in their countydevelopment plan, which the Minister did notlike.

Mr. Cullen: Correct.

Mr. McHugh: So much for local democracy andso much for enhancing the role of councillors.

Mr. Cullen: They would not want to comecrying to me from the west when they have nojobs and no way of dealing with wastemanagement. That will be the next cry. I shouldnot be blamed.

Acting Chairman: The Minister should allowthe next Deputy to speak.

Mr. Allen: He is being disorderly.

Dr. Twomey: While the motion of noconfidence will not have much effect on theMinister, it would be nice if we could get somestraightforward answers from him given hismood.

Mr. Cullen: The smoking ban has affected mebadly.

Mr. Boyle: The Minister was always that way.

Mr. Cullen: I was not. I have always retained asense of humour.

Acting Chairman: There is only a short amountof time left.

Dr. Twomey: We are always looking foranswers on incineration in the south east. The

issue has been ongoing since long before theelection but no Minister has been able to tell uswhether incineration will be introduced. TheMinister has responsibility for incineration andhinted strongly in his speech last night that it ison the way. By any measure, recycling and re-useof waste has failed. The input it needed tosucceed was not forthcoming. I would appreciateit if the Minister would tell the House this closeto the local elections whether incineration is onthe way. I read between the lines that it is, thoughmany Government backbenchers are of the viewthat the Minister continues to sit on the issue. Inreply to a priority question last November, theMinister said the issue was due to be discussed atCabinet. I presume it is being discussed.

Mr. Cullen: There should be no doubt thatthermal treatment is on the way all over thecountry.

Dr. Twomey: Very good.

Mr. Cullen: Absolutely. It is in all the regionalplans. The Deputy should read them. He does notneed me to tell him. They are a matter of publicrecord.

Mr. Boyle: Incineration is not in the Cork plan.

Mr. Cullen: It is a matter of public record.

Dr. Twomey: It is constantly being denied atlocal level within the regions. At least theMinister is clearing the issue up for us.

Mr. Cullen: I will publish an overview nextweek in which Deputies will see the picture forthe entire country.

Dr. Twomey: That is what we want.

Mr. Cullen: There is no ducking and divingfrom me. There never has been.

Acting Chairman: The Minister should allowDeputy Twomey to continue.

Mr. Cullen: He asked me a question and heappreciates that I have given him a direct answer.

Dr. Twomey: I do, actually. On heritage, amajor infrastructural project which would havebenefited hard-pressed commuters and theeconomy of Dublin has been held up for yearsbecause of a castle nobody seems to have given adamn about before the M50 was due to go over it.

Mr. Cullen: Hear, hear. There is no castle thereby the way.

Dr. Twomey: Whether this was due to adeliberate or an unintentional cock-up in theplanning of our infrastructure, millions of eurosin taxpayers money has been wasted.


Mr. Gilmore: Where is the Bill?

Mr. Cullen: A sum of \10 million is providedfor archaeological research.

Dr. Twomey: The Minister seems to have setout to deliberately destroy our heritage which hehas been given the responsibility for protecting.He has allowed planning guidelines to beoverridden which in one case has permitted ahotel to be built in front of a castle. There havebeen other planning issues. As stringent as ourplanning laws supposedly are, they appear to beoverridden by the Department of theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Governmentespecially when heritage issues are involved. TheMinister stands accused of giving commercialinterests a much higher priority than our heritage.

Mr. Gilmore: The Minister will duck and divefor them all right.

Mr. Cullen: Deputies will see when UNESCO’sreport is published how well I am doing. Will theyaccept UNESCO’s judgment?

Dr. Twomey: I am more interested in when thenational infrastructural Bill will be published.

Mr. Cullen: We will see what UNESCO has tosay about my stewardship of the environment.

Dr. Twomey: If the Minister does not mind, Iwould like to continue.

Acting Chairman: The Minister will have anopportunity to speak.

Dr. Twomey: If the Minister’s current attitudeto his heritage brief is typical, things will only getworse if the national infrastructure Bill allows fasttracking of planning.

While I agree that the dual mandate shouldhave been abolished, reform of and quality ofaccess to local government constitute a significantelement of what we are discussing. The Floodtribunal had its genesis very much in thecorruption of elected representatives andunelected public servants at local governmentlevel. Has there ever been discussion of this bythe Minister’s Department or plans put in motionto find out if an environment of corruptioncontinues to exist in the local authority planningdepartments which helped certain individuals tomake substantial sums of money? The tribunalhas been used to ignore the issues involved withthe excuse that they are under discussion. If wewait for it to make conclusions before doinganything, we will have to start all over again todeal with any corruption which is occurringcurrently.

To mention that 69,000 new houses were builtin the past year is to produce a red herring.

Mr. Cullen: The people who occupy themwould not see them as a red herring.

Dr. Twomey: The Minister’s Department isresponsible only for local authority housing.

Mr. Ferris: Whatever about the Ministersurviving a vote of confidence, there is no doubtthat he has lost the confidence of many, includingpeople in his own constituency. During the lastelection, the Minister said he would stake hispolitical reputation on securing a radiotherapyunit for Waterford hospital. He has not done soand his failure, which is also the failure of theGovernment, has been greeted with massivedisappointment in Waterford. Waterford CityCouncil has voted unanimously to condemn thefailure of the Government to deliver aradiotherapy unit.

Mr. Cullen: Did David Cullinane give DeputyFerris the speech?

Mr. Ferris: The council has the support ofFianna Fail councillors. So annoyed were thesecouncillors that they took the unusual step ofjoining a picket outside the gate of LeinsterHouse to protest at the Government’s failure tofulfil Deputy Cullen’s promises.

Mr. Cullen: It is called democracy. A memberof Sinn Fein would not be used to it.

Mr. Gilmore: He is not the only one in theroom.

Mr. Ferris: They may have felt as I do alongwith many ordinary people and Fianna Failmembers, that the agenda of the Government isbased on the right-wing economics of theProgressive Democrats. Perhaps, the councillorsin question feel the Minister for the Environment,Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen,is closer in his thinking to that party than someof his colleagues.

Mr. Cullen: They do not feel that.

Mr. Ferris: Something similar surfaced in myconstituency when Fianna Fail councillors inTralee voiced their disappointment at the failureof the Tanaiste to meet the local council todiscuss the jobs crisis in the town. The Tanaisterefused to meet the democratic members of thecouncil. They felt she was being dismissivebecause her party did not have a single electedrepresentative in County Kerry. She is consideredto have felt it was unnecessary to treat the matterwith the urgency it deserved. There is widespreadconcern among Fianna Fail grassroots thatmembers will have to pay the price for the right-wing policies they believe originate with theProgressive Democrats. I do not know if that iscorrect or whether some Fianna Fail Ministersfavour such policies themselves. While I suspectsome do, including Deputy Cullen I am awarethat there are members of the party, includingelected representatives and perhaps, some in


Government, who are instinctively opposed tothe direction in which policy is being driven.

It is sometimes said with justification thatFianna Fail has played a role in the State similarto that played by the Labour Party in Britain andsome European social democratic parties. FiannaFail is the party people associated in the past withpublic housing, education, the health services andthe development of State enterprises. Thatexplains the level of support the party enjoysamong the types of people who in other countrieswould vote for parties of the left. Fianna Fail isin danger of losing that association and support ifit continues to adhere to the right-wing policiesadvocated by the Progressive Democrats.

What would former Fianna Fail members likeTodd Andrews think of being in power with aparty the leader of which has stated that the issueshe considers most important — and one thatmight force her to pull out of Government —involves the sale of State enterprises. Surely, menlike Mr. Andrews did not believe when they weredevoting themselves to building up CIE and Bordna Mona that Fianna Fail would some day bepersuaded by its junior coalition partner to sellthem off after decades of public investment andservice. The Taoiseach told the House yesterdaythat there is no agenda for privatisation. Whilethis may be true on his part and on the part ofhis party, it is clearly not the case with theProgressive Democrats. The Minister, DeputyCullen, has helped further this agenda byencouraging local authorities to privatise localservices, including waste management. Therationale for this was nothing other thanproviding lucrative earnings for people who liketo term themselves “entrepreneurs”. In my book,an entrepreneur is a person who comes up withan original idea and sets up a business. It is notsomeone who persuades his or her friends inpower to let them take over a well-run andefficient public service.

If private enterprise was so efficient in all theareas on which it has now set its greedy eyes, whydid it not establish businesses in them in the firstplace? Anyone familiar with the history of stateenterprise in this State will know that thebusinesses were not established owing toideological motivations. Those with wealth whoresided in this State in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940swere not prepared to invest this wealthproductively. Now that these State enterpriseshave been run successfully for many decades,they are trying to persuade the State to sell themoff. They are not so much entrepreneurs asbuccaneers.

The Minister is one of the foremost advocatesof this right wing agenda in the Cabinet. This isreflected in the area for which he is responsible.My party fully supports this motion of noconfidence.

Minister of State at the Department of theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government(Mr. N. Ahern): I found it difficult to take some

of the sanctimonious drivel dished out last nightby the Green Party.

Mr. Gormley: The Minister of State should saywhat he has to say. He should not hold back.

Mr. N. Ahern: In one respect I am tempted toignore these comments. However, I must tell theGreen Party that it is about time it grew up. Realpolicies are the only ones that work in the realworld. Real problems require real solutions. TheGreen Party should realise that politics is the artof the possible, not the impossible. Those whopeddle fantasies such as those peddled by theGreen Party last night are only foolingthemselves.

The Government was elected to provideleadership and we are doing this competently andcourageously, and will continue to do so. TheMinister for the Environment, Heritage andLocal Government has done a good job inprotecting the environment while carryingforward a range of economic and socialinfrastructure projects.

Mr. Eamon Ryan: The Government is lookingafter developers.

Mr. Allen: How many social or affordablehouses have been built?

Mr. N. Ahern: Last night, Deputy Boyle spokeabout the Cork Simon Community not getting itsmoney and having its funds reduced. Theorganisation received \861,000 from theDepartment last year——

Mr. Boyle: The homelessness plan is \6million short.

Mr. N. Ahern: The Deputy should listen for achange, he might learn something if he did. Hecomes into the House with a bully boy attitude.In the previous year, the organisation receivedless than \700,000. While the organisation may belooking for a couple of million euro, theGovernment looks after taxpayers’ money andmust ensure that service providers prove tous——

Mr. Allen: What about the homeless?

Mr. N. Ahern: A number of Deputies criticisedour performance on housing and, as this is myarea of responsibility, I want to deal specificallywith it.

Mr. Allen: Not one of the 10,000 promisedsocial and affordable houses has been built.

Mr. N. Ahern: While it is the Opposition’s rightto oppose and to slag off the Government, itshould pick its ground more carefully. Last year,70,000 houses were built in this country. It is anenormous figure. To put this in context, 22,000houses were built in 1993. There have been nine


[Mr. N. Ahern.]years of record production. How could anyonecriticise this?

Mr. Durkan: The Minister of State ishallucinating.

Mr. N. Ahern: The Planning and Development(Amendment) Act provides the necessaryflexibility on Part V.

Mr. Gilmore: It provides flexibility fordevelopers.

Mr. N. Ahern: This will be meaningful and willprovide significant numbers of social andaffordable houses in the future. This year, theDepartment will invest \1.8 billion in social andaffordable housing. It is an enormous sum ofmoney. In each of the past two years more than12,500 families have had their housing needs met.

Mr. Durkan: There are more than 130,000 onthe list.

Mr. N. Ahern: This is making a serious dent inthe numbers on the list. I could go on if the Chairallows me.

Acting Chairman: The Minister of State hasonly seconds remaining.

Mr. N. Ahern: The Chair should give me injurytime. The Opposition has had three hours todebate this motion and bullies us when we try toget a word in.

Acting Chairman: The interruptions werespread equally across both sides.

Mr. N. Ahern: The Minister and I will continueto implement the Government’s policies toprotect and enhance the quality of ourenvironment while simultaneously progressing awide range of economic and social projects.

Mr. Durkan: The Minister of State ishallucinating.

Mr. N. Ahern: If those who tabled this motiondo not want to end up on their own compostheap, they should stop tabling motions that areoff the wall and factually incorrect.

Mr. Gogarty: I wish to share time withDeputies Gormley and Sargent.

So far in this debate, neither the Minister norhis Fianna Fail and Progressive Democratscolleagues has done anything to instil confidencein his Ministry or the Government as a whole. Itis like a big ostrich with its head stuck in the sand.If the ostrich were to look up it would receive aloud and clear message. We are destroying ourenvironment. Our dependency on fossil fuelscontributes to global warming and at the sametime, worldwide oil production is about to peak.

Contrary to what the Taoiseach believes, Russiadoes not have infinite gas reserves. Energy priceswill rise and our unsustainable way of life willcrash to earth with a bang.

Last night, my colleagues launched a sustainedattack on the abysmal record of the Minister andwe will do it again tonight. While they raisedserious issues that were strong on facts andstatistics, they got no serious rebuttal. Instead,there was mud throwing and cliches about theGreen Party that might have been relevant in a1970s hippy commune but hold no water with aparty that pushes the boundaries for a sustainableIreland and proposes 21st century solutions.While the Green Party has moved on, theMinister, Deputy Cullen, has not.

In last night’s debate, my colleagueshighlighted the deterioration of the natural andbuilt environment. Ireland has the worst recordin the EU for non-compliance with the Kyotolimits for greenhouse gases and has the worstcompliance with EU laws on water quality. Mycolleagues spoke of the Minister’s failure toprotect biodiversity, criticised his increase in thecap on political donations and refuted his madmarch towards the easy and destructive option ofincineration. If incineration is to produce energywith toxic fly ash, it will have to be fed withmaterial that would otherwise be recycled.

My colleagues spoke of the flawed emissionstrading Bill that gives power companies a licenceto pollute rather than incentives for goodenvironmental management. They pointed to thestupidity of the cock-eyed and deeply cynicaldecentralisation programme and the partialimplementation of a half-baked national spatialstrategy. This is not to mention the castratedsystem of local government. While the end of thedual mandate is to be welcomed, it was taintedby a financial sweetener that some of us see asa bribe.

I want to focus on what the Minister and hisFianna Fail and Progressive Democratscolleagues have done in my home county ofDublin. What happened in Dublin is a primeexample of what is happening in urban centresnationwide. Dublin is an unsustainable, car-baseddoughnut. It stretches out much more than othercities with comparable populations. Thepopulation density in the inner city is too low andthere has been too much development around thering. Speculators have gobbled land up while theMinister allows this ring to grow in Kildare,Meath, Wicklow and Louth. It is turning thewhole area into an unsustainable gooey mess.One need only witness the traffic congestion onthe N4 that has been caused by bad planning.There is no public transport infrastructure.Housing policy has gone mad and forces youngcouples to commute an irrational number of mileseach year as they can only afford homes distantfrom the city. One also witnesses struggle forschool places and other community facilities.

This is obviously the fault not only of theMinister, it has been going on for years but it has


deteriorated on his watch. Inside the Dublin ringthere has been decades of house building butlittle development of communities. There is noinfrastructure and no facilities. This has happenedin Adamstown, Clondalkin and Lucan and wasexacerbated by the activities of corrupt scumbags.A weakened and watered down planning anddevelopment Act has seriously undermined thebusiness plans. Why are developers not forced toprovide infrastructure when planning permissionis granted? Why should the Department ofEducation and Science have to purchase or leaseland from a developer? Why can this not beprovided as part of the infrastructure? Is itbecause developers would no longer make asmany donations?

I want to point out some positive greensolutions the Minister could have adopted. Therecould be a zero waste strategy, increased finesand prosecutions for illegal littering and dumpingor the introduction of a system of money backbottles and cans that would halve the litterproblem overnight.

Mr. Cullen: It has not worked in Germany andthe EU has blocked it. We cannot do this underEU law. The cans are back on the shelves inDenmark.

Mr. Gogarty: There could be progressive taxand funding policies to discourage energywastage and pollution and encourage jobcreation. An end should be brought to thepractice of land hoarding and paper profits fordeveloper friends. If the Minister cares to readour policy document he will see that we haveplenty of positive solutions for the 21st century.The Minister could even read the newspaperreports from our Ard-Fheis.

For years now we have made constructivesuggestions to enable Ireland to develop in asustainable manner, to preserve our environmentand ecosystem and move forward with renewablealternatives to the destructive energy guzzlingpolicies that are currently followed. TheGovernment does not have a plan B — theMinister does not even have a plan A. Ourpositive message has fallen on deaf ears. This iswhy my party has no confidence in the Minister.Confidence must be earned and, politicallyspeaking, the Minister has not earned a cent.

Mr. Cullen: I thank the Deputy. His commentsare much appreciated.

Mr. Gormley: It is with regret that I mustinform the Minister for the Environment,Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen,that he fails to measure up to the high standardsthe Green Party expects of a Minister withresponsibility for the environment. Even byaverage standards, his tenure has been anabysmal failure.

Mr. Cullen: I take that as a compliment comingfrom the Green Party.

Acting Chairman: The Minister shouldrestrain himself.

Mr. Cullen: I am trying to liven it up for them.

Mr. Gormley: His contribution to this debateshowed he knows even less about the GreenParty than he knows about the environment. Thisis a shocking level of ignorance. I will give theMinister and his colleague, the Minister of State,Deputy Noel Ahern, a crash course inenvironmentalism and Green Party politics.

Mr. Cullen: I have met Green Party Ministersat the European Council and know what realGreen Party ministers do and say. They are notidealists who talk off the top of their heads.

Mr. Gormley: The Green Party was the firstparty to object to nuclear power and call for theclosure of Sellafield when the Minister’s partycolleagues wanted to build a nuclear power plantat Carnsore Point.

Mr. Cullen: The Green Party in Europe isembarrassed by the Green Party in Ireland.

Mr. Sargent: We are embarrassed by theMinister.

Mr. Gormley: The Green Party was the firstparty to call for a tax on plastic bags when theMinister’s colleagues said it would cost jobs.

Mr. Cullen: The Green Party now wants tosnatch the plastic bags initiatives from the formerMinister for the Environment and LocalGovernment, Deputy Noel Dempsey.

Acting Chairman: The Minister should allowthe Deputy to speak without interruption.

Mr. Gormley: Ours was the first party to callfor the introduction of pay by weight for wastemanagement. Ours was the first party to speakabout ozone depletion and global warming and,unlike the Minister, we knew the differencebetween them. The Green Party spoke of“reduce, reduce and recycle” in the 1980s whenthe concept was alien to Fianna Fail. The GreenParty has always been to the fore and ahead ofthe posse while Fianna Fail has had difficultykeeping up. Perhaps we should be flattered thatthe Minister now seeks to imitate us and borrowour clothes. However, we are not flatteredbecause we know the Minister takes a cherry-picking window-dressing approach toenvironmentalism. As Jonathon Porritt said thisis a case of: “Having your cake and greening it”.

Mr. Cullen: The Deputy must have spentseveral nights working out his script.


Mr. Gormley: It is about spin doctors,consultants and photo opportunities —sometimes with glamorous models to spice it allup. That is all the Minister has to offer.

Mr. Cullen: Once in 15 years I had myphotograph taken with a model and noweverybody thinks I do it every day.

Mr. Gormley: It lacks substance, particularlywhen it comes to waste management.

Mr. Cullen: Now they all want to bephotographed with me and be on the front pagesof magazines.

Mr. Gormley: The Minister’s policies are basedon knee-jerk, end-of-pipe, redundant ideas. Anumber of months ago, students in the politicsdepartment of Trinity College under the directionof Professor Michael Laver had the innovativeidea of holding a citizens’ jury in a hotel inDublin. They invited 80 members of the public,who had been scientifically chosen, to debate theissue of incineration. The Minister was invited butrefused to attend.

Mr. Cullen: That is not true.

Mr. Gormley: Yes, it is. The Minister refusedbecause he knew would be exposed. His hollowarguments and soundbite politics would crumbleunder cross-examination.

Mr. Cullen: I have no difficulty with the issue.Unlike the Deputy, I do not have time to wasteby talking nonsense.

Mr. Gormley: It is all about bluster and he iscontinuing with it this evening. When he does nothave the facts he continually interrupts as he isdoing now.

Mr. Cullen: It is pathetic to watch them.

Acting Chairman: Deputy Gormley is entitledto his time.

Mr. Gormley: I thank you, a Chathaoirligh.You might consider throwing the Minister out atthis stage. He does not want to know and doesnot want to engage in argument. The audiencedecided unanimously in our favour because, withregard to the Ringsend incinerator, totalhousehold waste for the four Dublin areasaccording to the latest Environmental ProtectionAgency figures comes to 441,000 tonnes. Theresidual fraction is 22%. Household residualwaste is therefore 97,000 tonnes.

Mr. Cullen: The Deputy is inaccurate as usual.

Mr. Gormley: The Minister wanted tointroduce a 750,000 tonne incinerator to burn97,000 tonnes of household waste.

Mr. Cullen: The Deputy is being disingenuousas usual. I would not expect anything else fromhim.

Mr. Gormley: These are the facts.

Mr. Cullen: The Deputy has the wrong factsand has pulled figures from the back of his head.

Mr. Gormley: These are the EPA figures.

Mr. Cullen: The Deputy must lay awake atnight dreaming these matters up.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Minister shouldallow Deputy Gormley to conclude.

Mr. Cullen: I would hate him to put incorrectfacts on the record.

Mr. Gormley: The Minister comes along withhis facts indicating dioxins are caused by smoking.Perhaps he is a major contributor to dioxinsbecause of his smoking habit. He has told us thatdioxins are formed by people burning rubbish intheir back gardens. The Minister frequently holdsup Denmark as an example. However, themajority of airborne dioxins in Denmark arecaused by municipal incinerators. These are thefacts the Minister chooses to ignore.

Mr. Cullen: Unfortunately I do not.

Mr. Gormley: Unfortunately the truth hurts.The Minister was appointed to his portfolio, notbecause he knows much about the environment,but because he does not care about theenvironment and does not like environmentalists.He was brought in as the Government’s hardman, the “Chopper” Harris or Norman Hunter ofthe Government to take the legs from under theenvironmental movement, and he has succeededin a very short time. For the sake of theenvironment and sustainability, and for the sakeof ordinary people, the Minister should resign.

Mr. Sargent: Ar son an Chomhaontais Ghlais,the Green Party, gabhaim buıochas le Fine Gael,Pairti an Lucht Oibre, Sinn Fein, leis an PhairtıSoisialach agus le Teachtaı Neamhspleacha athug tacaıocht don run easpa muinıne seo sanAire Comhshaoil, Oidhreachta agus RialtaisAitiuil. Clearly the Progressive DemocratsMembers do not give a damn for the environmentas they have not shown up to speak in this debate.

We thank the Minister and other Members fortheir acknowledgement of the merits of Greenpolicies. The Minister referred to his support forthe plastic bag levy. I was the first Deputy topropose such a levy in 1994. He also recognisedthe merits of the pay-by-weight or volume systemfor waste collections, again a crude version of along-standing Green policy. He tried to claimcredit for ending the dual mandate, but thenacknowledged the Green Party implemented thispolicy as far back as 1993.

Mr. Gogarty: Without the sweetener.

(Interruptions).

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Sargent shouldbe allowed to speak without interruption.


Mr. Sargent: In recognising the merits of GreenParty policy, the Minister exposes the hollownessof his own knee-jerk tirade. However, theMinister did nothing convincing to defend hisrecord other than delude himself that his failureto tackle climate change is acceptable. It is not.Ireland is the worst performing country in the EUin its compliance with the Kyoto Protocol. Hebelieves that it is acceptable for Ireland togenerate three times as much waste per capita asthe Netherlands. It is not.

Mr. Cullen: The economy in Europe meansnothing to the Green Party. We have the lowestunemployment.

Mr. Boyle: The Minister should becomeMinister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy shouldallow his colleague to continue withoutinterruption.

Mr. Sargent: The Minister believes that thefailure to commence even one of the 10,000affordable houses promised in the partnershipagreement is acceptable. It is not. Is the Ministersaying it is acceptable that the Dublinhomelessness action plan has been under-fundedby \6 million, according the Simon Community?We say it is not. Is he saying that spending \50million on electronic voting, which is lessverifiable than the existing system, is acceptable?It is not.

Mr. Cullen: That is rubbish.

Mr. Sargent: It is not verifiable. Does theMinister believe dropping the 20% rule for theprovision of local authority housing isacceptable? This too is unacceptable. Does hebelieve the national spatial strategy without thewestern rail corridor is either workable oracceptable? It is neither. Is the Minister sayingthat damaging production of safe food andpreventing waste minimisation measures bypushing incineration is acceptable? We say it isnot. Is he saying that reducing the autonomy oflocal authorities is acceptable? We say it is not.Disbanding Duchas and watering down specialareas of conservation are not acceptable. Is theMinister suggesting that the failure to releasefunds this year for the environmental non-governmental organisations is acceptable?Certainly it is not.

Mr. Cullen: I increased the fundingsubstantially.

An Ceann Comhairle: Allow Deputy Sargentto continue.

Mr. Sargent: The Minister has not givenanything out yet. Perhaps the cheque is in thepost. Is the Minister saying that needless bloodsport cruelty such as terrorising tame deer, haresand foxes is acceptable? We say it is not. TheMinister, by dragging his heels on the nitrates,birds and habitats directives, is costing Ireland

dearly and ruining her clean and green marketingimage. These actions are not just unacceptable,but illegal. By acting beyond his powers andbreaking the law by frustrating the protection ofnational heritage, this Minister is as bad a holderof this office as one can imagine. His behaviouris not acceptable to this House, the High Courtor the European Court of Justice.

As has already been said, the Minister may begreen in one way. He is green with envy at thestrong international movement of which theGreens in Ireland form a part. The Green Partyis delivering in government elsewhere andproviding valuable lessons on what works to bringabout a sustainable, healthy and equitablecommunities empowered to enrich both culturaldiversity and biodiversity. The Minister said headmired the Green ministers.

Mr. Cullen: While I agree I said that, it hasnothing to do with the Irish Green Party. Theytold me they regard the Green Party in Irelandas a joke.

Mr. Sargent: While the Minister, DeputyCullen, derided the sunflower, the symbol of theinternational Green movement, one wonderswhat symbol Fianna Fail would have waved at itsArd-Fheis——

Mr. Gogarty: The envelope.

Mr. Sargent: ——to celebrate its involvementwith the post-fascist elements in the EuropeanParliament. Would it be the swastika, a brownpaper bag or a bit of both?

This motion is not about Fianna Fail, it is abouta Minister who had at this disposal enormouspublic goodwill as well as record revenue to allowhim to embrace waste minimisation measures.Thanks, however, to his jackboot arrogance inforcing incineration on local communities, thisgoodwill has effectively gone up in smoke.

Mr. Cullen: The only thing going up in smokeis the Deputy’s motion.

Mr. Sargent: On the other hand, the wasteminimisation powers available to the Minister inthe Waste Management Act 1996 remain largelyunused. That is the truth.

This is a Minister who has squanderedopportunities. He has had access tounprecedented resources to end homelessness, toensure effective regional development to stemthe sprawl of Dublin——

Mr. Cullen: The Deputy should sit down beforehe embarrasses himself.

Mr. Sargent: ——to counteract the worst cardependency in the world and to implementenvironmental directives. If he was interested, hewould save our country a fortune in the future bytackling climate change effectively. The bottomline is that the Minister does not care; he wantsto be leader of Fianna Fail.

Mr. Gilmore: God help us.


Mr. Sargent: He is a creature of smoke filledrooms and the Custom House is merely a rung onhis rickety ladder of blind ambition. Theenvironment needs better, politics deserves betterand Ireland demands better. The Minister,Deputy Cullen, must go.


Ta

Ahern, Noel.Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Sean.Aylward, Liam.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Browne, John.Callanan, Joe.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Carty, John.Cassidy, Donie.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Cregan, John.Cullen, Martin.Curran, John.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Sıle.Dempsey, Tony.Dennehy, John.Devins, Jimmy.Ellis, John.Finneran, Michael.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Fleming, Sean.Glennon, Jim.Grealish, Noel.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Sean.Hoctor, Maire.

Nıl

Allen, Bernard.Boyle, Dan.Breen, Pat.Broughan, Thomas P.Bruton, Richard.Burton, Joan.Connaughton, Paul.Costello, Joe.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Cuffe, Ciaran.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard J.Enright, Olwyn.Ferris, Martin.Gilmore, Eamon.Gogarty, Paul.Gormley, John.Hayes, Tom.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Michael D.Howlin, Brendan.Kehoe, Paul.Lynch, Kathleen.McCormack, Padraic.

Tellers: Ta, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Nıl, Deputies Boyle and Durkan.

I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Gilmore: Will the Minister resign beforehe is voted out?

Amendment put.

Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kelly, Peter.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Seamus.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McDowell, Michael.McEllistrim, Thomas.McGuinness, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Mulcahy, Michael.O Cuıv, Eamon.O Fearghaıl, Sean.O’Connor, Charlie.O’Donovan, Denis.O’Malley, Fiona.O’Malley, Tim.Power, Peter.Power, Sean.Sexton, Mae.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Wilkinson, Ollie.Woods, Michael.

McGrath, Finian.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Olivia.Morgan, Arthur.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.O Caolain, Caoimhghın.O Snodaigh, Aengus.O’Sullivan, Jan.Pattison, Seamus.Penrose, Willie.Perry, John.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Eamon.Ryan, Sean.Sargent, Trevor.Sherlock, Joe.Shortall, Roisın.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Twomey, Liam.Upton, Mary.


Amendment declared carried.


Ta

Ahern, Noel.Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Sean.Aylward, Liam.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Browne, John.Callanan, Joe.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Carty, John.Cassidy, Donie.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Cregan, John.Cullen, Martin.Curran, John.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Sıle.Dempsey, Tony.Dennehy, John.Devins, Jimmy.Ellis, John.Finneran, Michael.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Fleming, Sean.Glennon, Jim.Grealish, Noel.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Sean.Hoctor, Maire.

Nıl

Allen, Bernard.Boyle, Dan.Breen, Pat.Broughan, Thomas P.Bruton, Richard.Burton, Joan.Connaughton, Paul.Costello, Joe.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Cuffe, Ciaran.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard J.Enright, Olwyn.Ferris, Martin.Gilmore, Eamon.Gogarty, Paul.Gormley, John.Hayes, Tom.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Michael D.Howlin, Brendan.Kehoe, Paul.Lynch, Kathleen.McCormack, Padraic.

Tellers: Ta, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Nıl, Deputies Boyle and Durkan.

Question declared carried.



Question put: “That the motion, as amended,be agreed to.”

Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kelly, Peter.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Seamus.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McDowell, Michael.McEllistrim, Thomas.McGuinness, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Mulcahy, Michael.O Cuıv, Eamon.O Fearghaıl, Sean.O’Connor, Charlie.O’Donovan, Denis.O’Malley, Fiona.O’Malley, Tim.Power, Peter.Power, Sean.Sexton, Mae.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Wilkinson, Ollie.Woods, Michael.

McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Finian.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Morgan, Arthur.Murphy, Gerard.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.O Caolain, Caoimhghın.O Snodaigh, Aengus.O’Sullivan, Jan.Pattison, Seamus.Penrose, Willie.Perry, John.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Eamon.Ryan, Sean.Sargent, Trevor.Sherlock, Joe.Shortall, Roisın.Stagg, Emmet.Twomey, Liam.Upton, Mary.

Mr. Cassidy: I was welcoming the Bill onelectronic voting and saying how it is a great stepforward that, in the 21st century, Ireland is anation admired for its advancement in technologyand a shining example of what EU membership


[Mr. Cassidy.]can do. It has achieved much over the past 15years. I also welcomed the fact that, untilrecently, such voting was in operation in theMeath constituency, that next to my own. Welisten to senior citizens in particular, who cameback to us and said that it should have beenintroduced many years ago. Thousands of votesare cast by people who really care, going to thebother of arranging travel and everything else todo with one casting one’s vote, only for their wishto be deemed ineligible for counting because ofvarious little difficulties, perhaps to do witheyesight or breaching the line of the box in whichthey want to indicate their preference for acandidate.

If one considers the number of votes cast in thelast general election and the small number ofvotes that caused Fianna Fail narrowly to missout on an overall majority, one sees that therewere six or seven times more not included. I amconvinced that we could have had an overallmajority. However, be that as it may, and nowthat the opportunity is before us here today——

Mr. Penrose: The Deputy should dream on.

Mr. Cassidy: It is nice to see Deputies McGrathand Penrose coming into the House as they areconstituency colleagues. Having said that, thepeople of Westmeath have spoken.

It is nice to be here after 20 years standing forelection before the people of County Westmeathand to be given an opportunity to address theHouse on this extremely important issue. Assomeone defeated in a recount, I would not wishit on my worst enemy. Deputy Gormley spokeearlier, and we can all recall the difficult countthat he had to go through with the presentMinister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform,Deputy McDowell. Doing things electronically iscertainly a much more efficient and effective wayof tabulating votes. I recall going home on aFriday evening in 1979 and being defeated by 12or 14 votes, then coming back for a recount onthe Saturday. When one comes back for arecount, naturally enough, the great excitementand large attendance of the previous day are nolonger there. Most important of all, one raises thehopes of so many of one’s supporters and thosewho cast their first-preference votes for one, thelocal parish, one’s family and neighbouringparishes. Then the inevitable happens. Ninety percent of the time the result announced on the dayof the count stands. The electronic voting systemwill eliminate all those difficulties.

It will also be far more accurate. As I said,imagine the people of Ferbane who went out andcast their votes — all 300 of them. Not one ofthem was included at the last local elections. Iknow that was human error, but with the newelectronic system before us for consideration, thatwill not be the case in future. As I said, 40councillors in the last local elections were electedby a majority of fewer than 50 votes over their

nearest rival. In Borris-in-Ossory two colleagueswhom I knew fairly well from having been in theSeanad for so long finished on an equal numberof votes. One can imagine the understandabletrauma which candidates can suffer. That can allbe eliminated if we complete our business thisevening.

I do not wish to be long-winded, since I knowthat very many colleagues wish to make acontribution. I spoke before Private Members’business. However, I fully support the proposalbefore the House. As I said, it is a great stepforward and something that the Minister shouldadvertise heavily on television, which has 70%penetration, to show the people of Ireland thenew system and how it operates. Those who havethe pleasure and opportunity of exercising theirdemocratic right will be very gratified when theyrealise how the new system works. Those in theMeath constituency were really pleased anddelighted. As I said, as senior citizens, they couldnot understand why it had not been brought inmany years ago.

Confidentiality of the vote is essential, and it isonly right that it be the order of the day.However, I know an individual not too far fromme in my own county who used to have a quietword with some people so he would know whovoted for him. This new formula will allay thatfear on the part of the voter. No one will everhave any chance of knowing who cast theirpreferences or in what order under the newsystem.

A very important part of the whole democraticsystem is the build-up to the election day and thevote count. The whole theatre of the count shouldbe retained and I congratulate the Minister foradding this provision, since it was not the caseduring the 2002 three-constituency generalelection trial. The theatre of the count must beretained, since that is where all our organisationscan look back and play a part. It is also veryimportant, regarding the counting of votes cast,that we will be able to check the result throughour own tally systems ten or 14 days after it hasbeen declared. We go out and work as hard as wecan for the people of all parishes. It is nice andcomforting to note that one got support in theareas for which one worked hardest.

I happen to be a good friend of a member ofthe Opposition on the Independent benches whoworked extremely hard. I know, because myoffice was next door to his for quite a number ofyears. In one area not even 20% of the turnouthad cast their votes for him. He got about 57%of the vote, but someone who works so hard forhis constituents deserves better. Everyone comesin here with his or her credibility and integrityand has one thing in mind. He or she wants to beable to do something for the constituency.

Party politics are played across the House forone reason or another. That is understandableand is the order of the day. However, the bottomline is that the 166 Members in the House areelected to Dail Eireann by the people to help


make the areas they represent into better placesand provide a better future for their constituents.I wish the Bill a happy passage through theHouse and have great pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. P. Breen: The Electoral Amendment (No.2) Bill 2004 has caused much controversy and isof great importance. Much has been said alreadyin the many hours of debate and questions onelectronic voting in the Seanad and the Dail. TheGovernment will hear many of the same concernsraised again until the debate finishes. It isimportant for democracy that the debatecontinues and that the Government listens to ourconcerns. Up to now it has not been listening. OnLeaders’ Questions, my party leader, DeputyKenny, Deputy Rabbitte and Deputy Sargenthave raised the issue on many occasions and havesucceeded somewhat in getting the Governmentto move. If we have to debate this matter forweeks to get the Government to listen, we will doso. The issue of electronic voting strikes at theheart of our democratic system. That said, Ireiterate a comment made some time ago by myparty’s spokesman on the environment, DeputyAllen, when he said the Bill flew in the face ofdemocracy.

9 o’clock

Our democracy is based on the ability of votersto choose whom they want to represent them,with the confidence their votes will be counted in

the way they want. Polling daybelongs to the people. It is their dayout. It is a day when every citizen

over the age of 18 has his or her say. It isimportant that we listen to what they are saying.After all, they elect us and give us the privilegeof sitting in Dail or Seanad Eireann. The newsystem does not have the backing of a majorityof the people. That is evident from a recentopinion poll carried out by a Sunday newspaperwhich showed that 58% of the people want to seethe system scrapped and 41% are concerned theirvotes will be tampered with. The latter is close tohalf, a large percentage, showing that the peopledo not trust what is being proposed by theGovernment. The current Bill does not includethe required assurances. Fine Gael and otherparties and individuals in the House, along withthe public, have asked for openness andtransparency over and over again and are fed upwith the Government’s arrogance andstubbornness in forging ahead with this venturewithout adequately addressing the concernsraised.

While sections 8 to 11 outline some of thesecurity measures that will be included to protectthe integrity of the votes, the Bill still ignores thecentral concerns, namely the need for a papertrail and the availability of the source code forindependent scrutiny. I know the source code willbe held in Holland, but if there is some problemin the courts, it may not be capable of properassessment for this reason.

With the number of reports produced over thepast year that have raised concerns over the

security of an electronic voting system, it isbaffling why the Government will not addressthese issues. To date it has brushed aside reportsfiled during the trial use of electronic voting inthe 2002 general election. A report by twoleading computer scientists based at the NationalUniversity of Ireland, Maynooth, suggested thatelectronic voting is potentially open to abuse andcould threaten the integrity of democracy. Areport in The Economist on the problems withelectronic voting in the United States concludedthat even sophisticated systems would notimprove the reliability of the American electionsif the other problems were not fixed as well. On10 December last the Joint Committee on theEnvironment and Local Government heard anumber of experts raise serious concerns aboutthe Nedap-Powervote system. I have to commendthe work done by the committee. It hashighlighted the problems with electronic voting. Iam not a member of the committee, but I wasdisappointed that the external group of witnesseswas not able to raise its concerns because theGovernment parties cut short the debate at thecommittee and forced a vote which prevented theissues from being dealt with adequately. Crossparty agreement on the issue of electronic votingwas spurned. It is important that there should becross party agreement, particularly if there is tobe trust.

The appointment of the Minister for theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government,Deputy Cullen, as Fianna Fail’s director ofelections, again fuels suspicion on this issue. Thata PR company with a close political adviser onthe panel was hired for the campaign as it wasbeing launched in the Mansion House, at a costof \4.5 million, did not help matters either. Thatthe Government refused to answer some 41questions on the electronic voting systems showsthere are problems. The same individuals tell usthe system is safe and that a paper trail is notneeded; neither is there a need for a source codeto be made available for independent scrutiny.How can the public trust a system whosepromoters cannot sufficiently answer thequestions raised by this independent group.

Deputies Allen and McCormack have donemuch work on the Joint Committee on theEnvironment and Local Government andcontinue to highlight the concerns the public andthe Opposition parties have as regards theproposed system. Trust is at stake including thatof the voting public. Without public confidence inthe election system, democracy will fail. That isworrying. In addition, \45 million is a great dealof money for an unreliable system that willreplace something that generations of voters havecome to know and trust. The Minister refers tothis as an investment that will save money overthe next 20 years. However, with the rapid rateat which computer software becomes outdated, Ido not understand how the Minister can be surethe system will not prove expensive fordemocracy and for the taxpayer. Systems change


[Mr. P. Breen.]quickly and computers are out of date virtuallywithin a year of being sold. All IT and computerproducts quickly become outdated. In five yearsand at the next general election, that system maynot be suitable and will probably need to beupgraded.

Why do we go down this road so hastily on theassumption that the system will be safer, cheaperand more efficient, when we find that this is notalways the case? The old style of counting workedwell in the past and is trusted by most people.Deputy Cassidy referred to an incident in 1979when there were seven votes in the difference,and he was recalled, after which 22 postal papervotes which had not been counted were found.Those paper votes were at least there and werefound. In the electronic system, 22 such votescould be lost. Paper provides accountability.

Many people enjoyed the suspense of thetallies. In my own area in County Clare, tallieswere always an exciting element of general andlocal elections. This was a time when Fianna Failand Fine Gael united, providing joint teams togive accurate tallies of the election. This went onfor days, with great excitement. Tallies were anindicator for future elections of how peoplevoted. I am not sure how far down the electronicvoting road the Minister proposes to go. Will thesystem be used in small polling stations wherethere might be only 100 people voting?

Fewer Irish people vote in elections in recenttimes. In the 1987 general election there was a73.33% turnout. In the 1997 general election theturnout was 65.92%, and in the 2002 generalelection it was 62.57%. Young people aredistrustful of Government, politicians and theelectoral processes. Not addressing the electronicvoting concerns will merely alienate those peoplecurrently most engaged by the electoral process,and will further diminish the numbers votingbecause of those concerns. A Sunday newspaperpoll showed that 41% of people are concernedwith the issue and fewer people will vote if thesystem is not seen as trustworthy.

Like so many of the Government’s proposalsthis year, the proposal on electronic voting is anattempt to re-invent the wheel and show thatIreland is a modern nation on the cutting edge oflegislation and technology. Why did theGovernment feel the need to demonstrate this bymeans of electronic voting? There is a laundry listof other more important issues which theGovernment could address to show that Irelandis among the top nations of the world. There is ashortage of hospital beds. In County Clare, oneof the Hanly report proposals is to close the 24-hour accident and emergency service. Moneycould be spent on upgrading our health servicesrather than on electronic voting.

Last week the Dail debated the cutbacks insocial welfare entitlements for widows whichwere introduced to gain a mere \5 million. Weare spending \40 million on electronic votingmachines and \5 million on publicity promoting

electronic voting. Many elderly people who comeunder the housing aid for the elderly scheme areawaiting house improvements. We also need toupgrade our roads and transportation systems. Inmy own area, the west rail link needs to be builtup. There is also the technological and individualdivide between Dublin and the west, whereby theeast coast is developing much quicker than thewest. While there is an urgent need to improvehealth services, decentralisation is also important,as is the nation’s infrastructure.

There is no need to steamroll this legislationthrough without properly responding to theOpposition’s concerns. If Ireland wants to be seenas forward-thinking, electronic voting can waituntil we have sorted out the problems raised. Weall know the ongoing problems in the US withelectronic voting and what happened in the lastpresidential election. The Americans aresupposed to be the IT experts. We look at BillGates, Microsoft and Silicon Valley. Many of ouryoung people go to America to be trained byAmerican companies, particularly those workingin the electronic systems. Nevertheless, theAmericans have many problems in the IT area.CNN Television continually highlights theelectronic voting problems in most Americanstates. We should keep these in mind. The UnitedKingdom conducted a pilot trial in 2002 for thelocal elections, after which the relevantcommission concluded that further pilot trialswere necessary to tease out a number of issuesand better establish the security measuresnecessary to protect the systems from attack, andensure confidence.

Public voting is all about public confidence.The commission also wanted to ensure therewould be a proper audit trail to verify thatelections were conducted in a secure and robustfashion. If our neighbours in the UK are goingdown that road and looking at the system in thisway, we should wait a little longer to see if canhave proper paper trails and accountability.

Fine Gael does not oppose electronic voting.We all feel it will arrive at some stage. However,there is a need for openness, accountability andconsultation. The latter is very important. Onlythen will people trust the system. In my ownconstituency in County Clare, the position ofcounty registrar has been vacant for nearly twoyears. The Government has still not made anappointment. One begins to wonder why it is soslow to appoint a county registrar yet in a rush tointroduce an electronic voting system. The actingcounty registrar has stated that Clare will beready for electronic voting, but we will have towait and see.

In my constituency, as in others, there will betown council, county council and Europeanelections all on one day. Deputy Cassidy said thattelevision has 70% penetration, but no matterhow much instruction is given to people by meansof television, people will be confused with thethree electronic screens on polling day.


Mr. N. Ahern: They are all in the one. There isonly one screen.

Mr. P. Breen: That may be so. However,elderly people come to my office regularly whohave forgotten to renew their driving licences.They are scared of the driving test theory and thevan that travels about with the test screen. Peoplehave had to accompany elderly people to the testcentre to show them how the screen works, andthey were still scared by the idea of pressingbuttons. No doubt they will succeed with oneballot paper, but where there are three ballotpapers there is a danger that people may vote inonly one election.

Mr. N. Ahern: What did they do up to now?They voted one, two, three.

Mr. P. Breen: Yes, but with three papers intheir hands, they were able to put down one andfill in another. Elderly people are scared of thenew system. It could happen that people will notvote in more than one election. The Oppositionis not scaremongering or creating trouble to gainpolitical opportunity on this issue, as DeputyKelleher claimed. The Opposition is fighting forthe security of an essential part of our democraticsystem. The Government cannot brush it aside asif it was an insolent child. In every step of theprocess, the Government has ignored theOpposition.

On 17 February, Fine Gael issued a jointstatement with the Green and Labour parties.The Government then assured us that ourconcerns would be addressed, despite a contractfor \20 million with a private company havingalready being signed. That was done before thewhole system was addressed.

Mr. N. Ahern: There were no objections in thelast election.

Mr. P. Breen: When the Government finallyappointed the independent panel on 3 March tolook into the concerns raised, the Opposition,again, was not consulted as to who should be onit. I agree the commission contains a High Courtjudge, the Clerk of the Dail, the Clerk of theSeanad and two IT experts. However, theOmbudsman is not on it, despite the fact that shesits on the Standards in Public OfficeCommission, the Referendum Commission andthe Constituency Commission.

I cannot accept the Government’s efforts inaddressing the Opposition’s concerns aboutelectronic voting in good faith. The Bill isfrustrating. The Opposition has not asked muchof the Government but a paper trail and theavailability of the source codes for independentscrutiny. Granting these will restore people’sconfidence in the system and the democraticprocess. This is a confidence that will be sorelyundermined if the Government does not listenbefore the June local and European elections.

I will conclude with a quote from ThomasPaine that will restate the importance of what weare fighting for today: “The right of voting forrepresentatives is the primary right by whichother rights are protected.” It is for this reasonthat the Government will continue to hear thesame concerns until it is willing to ensure thesafety of that most basic right to vote.

Mr. McGuinness: During Private Members’Business, I listened carefully to the Opposition’scomments on the issue of electronic voting. Now,having listened to the debate inside and outsidethe House, I cannot see a credible argumentbeing put forward by any of the Oppositionparties. I have respected their viewpoints but Ihave reached the conclusion that there is nocredibility in any of their arguments. Some of thepoints made are ridiculous in the context of whatis happening in the real world. The arguments arenot accepted just by the Government but by thepublic too. Reference was made to a recentsurvey poll, yet with the amount ofmisinformation peddled by the Oppositionagainst e-voting, it is no wonder there isconfusion among the public. The Opposition hasbecome disconnected from the real directionpeople, regardless of age, are taking in their lives.

I have not received a single query or complaintfrom a constituent on how a vote might be castor its security. People are now so used toinformation and communication technology thatthey understand the extent of errors that canoccur and the integrity of any system they use.Over the past several years, they have built up aconfidence in the technology use that isunmatched in the European Union or beyond.Comparisons have been made to e-voting systemsin other countries but the Opposition is notcomparing like with like. Has it ever stopped tolisten to itself? These are different systems asthere is different hardware, software andmethodology involved. No one on the Oppositionbenches has bothered to analyse what is beingsaid against the facts of the systems in those othercountries. If they were examined, it wouldbecome clear that this system is different, welltried and trusted by other EU democracies.

To measure this against the backdrop of whatis happening in information technology, whenDeputy Martin, as Minister for Education andScience, rolled out PC use in schools, the deliveryof education was attached to the use oftechnology. The demand for improved softwareand technology at every educational level wasstaggering to watch. How people embraced thetechnology was incredible. In the Oireachtas, wecast our votes by simply pressing a button. I amglad that the Minister for the Environment,Heritage and Local Government won the lastdivision, taken on the screen, on the motion ofconfidence in his record. However, I am baffledby the Labour Party’s attitude to e-voting in theChamber. No sooner than a vote is takenelectronically, it will ask for a traditional division


[Mr. McGuinness.]through the lobbies. I accept it is a prerogativebut how does the public view that? The public isconfident in the technology used in this House.Members should not cod themselves because wehave confidence in it too.

Recent Siemen’s presentations on newlyavailable information technology were wellattended by Members. Every secretary andMember uses this technology. The question nowis how it can be used more in the House. Howcan laptops be brought into the Chamber to assistus in various debates? How can wirelessconnections be brought in? That demand for newtechnology is being undertaken by ourselves. I donot understand the Opposition’s introduction ofthe issue of the lack of confidence into debate. ITis well established and there is confidence in itright across the public and all ages.

The country’s profile in terms of its connectionto information technology was created not byMembers but by public demand. The publicdemanded the technology, bought into it and weare now world leaders in delivering new softwareto the world market and the construction andexport of computer hardware. We are showingthe way in how society can embrace informationtechnology.

In the past, numerous women stayed at homeand were not engaged in the economy. They arenow doing ECDL courses in preparation forgoing back into the workforce on a full-time orpart-time basis. Marginalised communitiesdecided to undertake the same courses in familyresource centres. They are moving from ECDLto advanced ECDL and back into the workforceagain. The significant movement that is takingplace is based on information technology and thedesire of informed members of society toembrace technology and to move back into theworkforce.

If we acknowledge the technological changesthat are taking place, surely we have to moveforward by getting involved with technology, aswe are doing with our work in this House. Wehave an obligation to examine the systems thatare in place. We are not re-inventing the wheel;we are simply improving the model. I amconfident that by the time the system we haveproposed is rolled out on 11 June, the generalpublic will show great confidence in it. I do notdoubt that will happen. The demand that existsfor broadband technology in homes and schoolsand at work underlines the fact that this systemwill be embraced like many new systems andtechnologies that have been put before thegeneral public.

The change we are seeing is inevitable. Wehave reached the point at which demand meansthat change is inevitable. Members will recallsimilar debates in the 1990s, not in this House,but among the general public when peoplecompared our systems with the advances that hadbeen made elsewhere in the world. At the time,people asked why we were not making similar

progress. Public representatives did not ask suchquestions — it was the general public. Peopleacknowledged that there was a need for change.Young voters who are slowly starting toparticipate in the democratic system by castingvotes are also asking for such technologicaldevelopments. People from all age groups,including elderly people, are asking for changeand are willing to embrace it. I think we shoulddo likewise.

When one considers the old system, it is clearthat it was not perfect. I do not believe that anysystem will be 100% perfect, without a glitch. Theold manual electoral system, which we are usedto operating, had its glitches. It is a matter ofhistory that a ballot box once went missing inCarlow-Kilkenny, only to turn up at the lastminute, thereby changing the whole result. Myfather was one of many outgoing candidates to bebeaten by a single vote. He did not ask for anyfurther counts, but instead accepted the verdictof the electorate.

Some 20,000 votes were spoiled at the 2002general election, 24,000 votes were spoiled at the1999 local elections and 46,500 votes were spoiledat the 1999 European elections. Surely suchfigures place an obligation on us, as electedMembers of Parliament, to examine the system.We are not re-inventing the wheel, but we aredoing something to modernise the system and tomake sure that such figures can be taken out ofit, if possible. When one reaches that stage anddecides to examine the technology and softwarethat are available, one should ask a basic questionof whether a change would interfere with theintegrity of the system or of democracy. It iscertain that the proposed change will notinterfere in such a way.

The Opposition has asked whether Fianna Failgremlins will be installed in the hardware andsoftware to manipulate the vote in our favour.Such a suggestion is a load of nonsense. I hopethe Opposition does not think that anyoneoutside the House with a connection withtechnology will believe what it is telling them.Such people may be put astray for a while as theymake up their minds, but they do not share theOpposition’s notions and do not believe what theOpposition is telling them. They understand theintegrity of any piece of software or hardware andare aware that certain things can go wrong.However, they are aware that the proposed newsystem is an attempt to move forwards, ratherthan backwards. That is generally accepted andwill be embraced on 11 June.

A question was asked as to whether someonewill take the electoral process out of the hands ofthe officials who normally deal with it. There isno support for such a suggestion, as it is not thecase. The same staff are being trained, so that thesame faces will be seen at polling stations. It islikely that the same people will probably besupervising the new system, so they willunderstand it and be able to engage with it, orwith voters, if something goes wrong. Standby


computer arrangements have been made in casesomething goes wrong. Provision has been madefor a back-up supply in the event of a power cut.The public’s confidence in the new system will bereinforced by the fact that the same skilled peoplewill be present to deal with issues that mightarise.

I have asked myself if the new system is secure.Contrary to the line being spun by theOpposition, the system is secure. When one walksinto the polling station, one will be faced with twoor three on-screen ballot papers, depending onwhere one is located. People in Kilkenny city willbe asked to vote in three elections — to theborough council, the county council and theEuropean Parliament. One will see the ballotpapers on screen as if one were holding them inone’s hand, one will press buttons to state one’spreference in the context of casting one’s voteand one’s name will be marked off the register asit always was. It is a secure and fair system.People of all ages understand that one will cast avote by pressing a button. Regardless of the walkof life in which they are involved, they are usedto doing business in that way. They understandtechnology because they are engaged with it. Ibelieve that they will feel secure when they casttheir votes.

Electronic voting has been used in theNetherlands for the last ten years. It has beenused in certain parts of Germany. It is beingexamined in the United Kingdom and France. Ido not think one could ask for much more interms of security. The Minister said this morningthat the German institute for science andtechnology has tested and approved the system.The Opposition has claimed that there will not bean audit trail — as if one’s vote goes into limboor floats in cyberspace — but there will be anaudit trail. The record of one’s vote will becontained within the system — in the votingmachine — ready to be examined and counted. Iunderstand that the audit system will be availablefor examination if there is a query in the courtsand I feel confident in that regard. The oppositewas the case in respect of the manual system —one cast one’s vote, one walked away and thatwas the end of it. While the former systemincluded a paper trail, those who advocated theelectronic voting system did not say that oneneeds a paper trail as well. One can only haveone system and one should express confidence inits integrity and security when one presents it tothe public.

I would like to speak about the secrecy of theballot. The ballot box, hardware and simplifiedsoftware will be there to be used. It is a secretballot, to which random numbers apply. It cannotbe traced back to the name that is ticked off theregister. That has always been the case. Thesecrecy of the ballot is maintained, therefore.

I am interested in the new count and tallysystems. The provisions that can be made toretain the existing system are limited, as one mustconsider issues of secrecy and the question of

whether one is damaging the integrity of thataspect of the vote. Everyone who is involved inpolitics loves the buzz of the count and enjoysdiscussing whether the tallymen will be right orwrong. The Minister has promised that a certainamount of that excitement will be retained in thecontext of the movement to this system. A certainamount of information will be made availablewithout damaging the secrecy of the casting ofthe vote. That will be sufficient for me — I willbe quite happy about that. When the electorate,the tallymen and the parties begin to get used tothe new system, they will find that it is enoughfor them.

I served with the former Deputy Nora Owenon the Joint Committee on Enterprise and SmallBusiness. What happened to her was a shockingexperience for anybody and I would not like sucha system to remain in place. The count should bestreamlined so there is a build-up to theannouncement of the final count and candidatesare told in a fair way whether they have beenelected.

We would all wish to see at least that much.The Minister promised us in the course of hisspeech to the House that this would be dealt with.

We must show leadership. The Opposition hasan obligation to examine its position and begin toshow leadership and responsibility in this area.The idea of coming to the House and throwingone’s hands up to heaven and shouting andbreaking a sweat over the issue of e-voting isnonsense. We must reflect on what we are sayingand be responsible about it. We must lookbeyond this House and into the real world,understand what is happening and begin to showleadership. The Minister has responded to theOpposition’s points and has accepted some of itsMembers’ suggestions. We should move alongquickly in this fashion and then use the time ofthe House to better advantage than we are atthe moment.

Two issues were referred to concerning theelection itself. One was the checking of theregister. I thought this would form a much greaterpart of the debate than some of the nonsense thatwe have heard up to now. The checking of theregister is highly important. In the past this wasnormally carried out by political parties andcounty and borough council officials who werefamiliar with the changes in the area. However,with the recent increases in population, there isan even greater onus on political parties and onthe officials in county councils who do this workto ensure there are the fewest possible mistakesin the register. After every election there is nearlyalways an outcry about the numbers who wereleft off the register of electors or were not ableto cast their votes for various reasons. We mustfind some way to ensure throughout the countrythat people are included on the register.

This is a critical issue. It is particularlyimportant that young people turning 18 are ableto vote. We should consider implementing agreater examination of the register. Perhaps this


[Mr. McGuinness.]could be done in collaboration with transitionyear students. It is important that we engage withstudents at school and college to ensure that theregister becomes an important part of elections. Iencourage the Minister to incorporate this in theroll-out of the e-voting arrangements so that wecan begin to inform local communities of how theregister is formed leading up to the introductionof electronic voting. We can show people how toget their names on the register and explain thechanges that have taken place in recent years. Iask him to consider this in the context of theeducational part of the process.

Non-nationals who are trying to put theirnames on the register are having difficultiesbecause they cannot produce passports for onereason or another — when they are held by theState, for example. They have a right to be on theregister. The cards issued by the Department ofSocial, Community and Family Affairs or theGarda national immigration bureau could beaccepted as proof of identity when people presenttheir application forms to Garda stations. I urgethe Minister to deal with this problem nowbecause time is of the essence. These people havea right to vote and they should be allowed to doso. I commend the Bill to the House.

Ms McManus: I have no doubt that DeputyMcGuinness is an excellent Deputy andrepresentative for his constituency, but his speechexemplified the extent of the complacency ofthose on the Government side. I ask him toconsider the reality of electronic voting. It is notthe case that wherever electronic voting has beenintroduced, everybody is happy with it. Theopposite, if anything, is true. In the United States,growing concern is being expressed aboutelectronic voting, not by politicians — we have allsuddenly become experts in informationtechnology — but by computer experts. Peopleneed to start paying attention to this.

The Labour Party commissioned a report onelectronic voting which was published lastNovember. This alerted people for the first timeto the serious technical issues that need to beaddressed. The concerns being expressed in othercountries were underlined by a number ofincidents that are worth mentioning. The reportstates:

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel(Nebraska) was discovered to have failed todeclare his part-ownership in ES& S, thecompany which manufactured the votingmachines which counted 85% of the votes inhis 1996 & 2002 senate elections.

In Louisiana in 1999, an $8m bribery schemeinvolving the purchase of Sequoia votingmachines was uncovered and nettedconvictions against state electionscommissioner Jerry Fowler and Sequoia’sexclusive agent David Philpot.

In Sheffield UK in May 2003, many pollingstations were without an Internet connection

on polling day. As a result voters could get avote at a polling station while still being ableto vote again online from home.

These are examples in which the experiment ofelectronic voting has been attempted in differentforms. It shows one thing: that human naturedoes not change when new technology isintroduced. We may become blinded by the greatlight of technology. This is not the first time thishas happened. Many of the great dangers intoday’s world have arisen because of a blind faithin science and technology.

I support electronic voting, as do my LabourParty colleagues, but we must be realistic. I amextremely dismayed by the arrogance andignorance of Government speakers in this debate.I can live with the arrogance but I find theignorance deeply disturbing. There is a blithedismissal of serious and objective criticisms of thesystem. These are criticisms that have beenvoiced by a wide range of experts in the field ofinformation technology. The argument I haveheard from Deputies such as Deputy Kelleher isone we hear quite often from those in FiannaFail: if something works in the USA or in theNetherlands we do not need to concern ourselvesabout it but just take it on.

Deputy McGuinness chided the Labour Partyfor periodically calling manual votes in theChamber to make a point. This electronic system,which must be the simplest system imaginableand is visible to everybody, was struck by a viruswithin its first year. If this can happen to such asimple system operated among a small,concentrated group of people where everything isout in the open, should it not tell us something?Do we simply presume that it only happens inthis Chamber? That is irresponsible. It was anirresponsible argument to make and I wouldexpect better in this debate.

Let us imagine that voting is done in thefollowing way. A person steps into a pollingbooth and is faced with a red curtain. Behind thecurtain is a man who fills out one’s ballot paper.The person tells him whom he wants to vote forand in which order. If the man follows theinstructions correctly there is no problem, eventhough he cannot be seen. However, whathappens if he writes the information downwrongly or switches the person’s vote to anothercandidate or puts the votes in a different order?What if his pen breaks or he loses the ballot? Thevoter would never know because he does not seehis ballot and there is no proof of the originalvote. That is precisely what happens in electronicvoting, where there is no verifiable trail. No paperrecord of the vote is kept. In a sense it is worsebecause at least there is someone behind thecurtain and one can find out who it is. Here,however, we are being asked to trust a machine.

To give another example, who would use theservices of a bank that did not keep a record oftransactions but just told customers how muchthey had in their accounts? It would be unheardof. Every computer system has an in-built


recording apparatus. ATM machines have suchsystems to ensure that a record of transactions iskept. We are being asked, however, to entrust ourdemocracy to a system that has been criticisedrepeatedly by experts in electronic voting whoknow more than we do about it. Both theexamples I have cited come from the UnitedStates. If we are going to adopt something fromthat country, perhaps we should adopt theirintelligence in assessing the result whenelectronic voting is introduced without properpreparation and safeguards. It seems theGovernment is intent on hurtling willy-nilly intothis experiment without due consideration forwhat has occurred elsewhere.

Almost 30% of the population of the USA isnow using electronic voting but it is the subjectof considerable controversy. Bills have beenpublished both in Congress and in statelegislatures dealing with the concerns about andthe flaws in verifiable information. In Californiathe issue is about ensuring that a voting recordis kept.

Just because electronic voting has beenintroduced somewhere else, it is not an argumentfor introducing it here. It is an argument forlearning from what has happened elsewhere sothat when we come to make the change, we canensure there are in-built safeguards that willmean the system is a good one with which we canbe satisfied. I have no doubt the Oppositionwould support such a measure.

Let us look at what one expert has had to say.Earlier today, I spoke to Professor David Dill ofStanford University to ensure that I would quotehis remarks accurately in this debate. AsProfessor of Computer Science at Stanford, he isan acknowledged expert in this area. He hasstated that “if the machine silently loses orchanges the vote, the voter has no clue that thathas happened”. Voters in Meath or Dublin Westmay have thought electronic voting was a greatexperience but if they were asked whether theycould be sure their votes were counted correctly,could they answer the question? Of course, theycould not show the proof because there is noevidence.

Professor Dill argues that electronic votingmachines should print a paper copy of eachballot, which the voter can inspect and whichcould be used in a recount. It is very simple. Healso says that the person behind the curtainshould show the voter the ballot he or she hascast. He uses this metaphor to illustrate hisgrievance with completely paperless electronicvoting machines, such as the touch-screenmachines. Professor Dill made the case for whathe calls a “voter-verifiable paper audit trail” toa symposium on voting technology, held on 15February, at the annual meeting of the AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Science.This is weighty stuff to which we should belistening.

I have great admiration for officials in theDepartment of the Environment, Heritage and

Local Government but no one expects them tobe computer experts or to have professionalqualifications in that regard. Professor Dill saysthat the old system of what he calls “opticalscanning papers” is still the cheapest and mostreliable method. He is very concerned about thefact that in the US, people are being encouragedto change the voting system. He also talks aboutthe machine making mistakes. Because they aremachines we do not expect them to makemistakes, but clearly that is not Professor Dill’sexperience. He says that “the technology is tooimmature for us to have trust in it”. He is nottalking about the specific technology of ourproposed system, but about the technology per se,which, he says, is too immature not to have flawsin it. Professor Dill is an expert in dealing withcomputer bugs or what we call viruses. He cannotclaim to develop a system that would be virus freebecause he knows it cannot be done. Evenallowing for viruses, I hope that if we had asystem with a verifiable record or paper trail, itwould be possible for us to introduce electronicvoting at some point in the future.

The point has been made that even a papertrail is not good enough. There has been asuggestion from another source that a recordingshould be made of the voter stating whom he orshe is voting for, and that this voice record wouldbe kept confidentially. It would be available inthe event of a recount request or a legal challengein court.

Professor Dill says that the software codeshould be openly available to anyone. Our partyleader, Deputy Rabbitte, asked the Tanaiste andMinister for Enterprise, Trade and Employmentif the electoral commission, that was establishedunder pressure from the Opposition, could accessthe source code. Between the Tanaiste and theMinister for the Environment, Heritage andLocal Government, we received a fuzzy answerthat was not reassuring. At a time when claritywould be enormously convincing, we got a lot offudge which tells its own story.

I am not a computer expert but it would beremiss of me to ignore the advice of such experts.That is why I am dismayed by the approach thatis being adopted by the Government, which ishard to understand. There could be consensus onthe issue but the Government is pursuing thematter in a bull-headed manner, regardless of anyopposition or criticism. Irish experts ininformation technology have made strongarguments against the Government’s proposedsystem for electronic voting.

I welcome the fact that an electoral commissionhas been established but its remit is extremelylimited. It is worrying that the Ombudsman feltinsulted by being excluded from it. I would havethought that the Ombudsman should be includedautomatically in the membership of thecommission. That would have been entirelyappropriate but she made the mistake of voicingher concerns about the electronic voting system.The Government does not brook criticism, it


[Ms McManus.]decides what is good for the rest of us, which, inall cases, also happens to be good for theGovernment. That seems to be the ultimatejustification for many of the Government’sproposals. I have the highest regard for DannyO’Hare, who is a member of the commission, buthe is not an expert in information technology. Hehas a great record in third level education but Iwonder about the limitations on the commissionboth in terms of its terms of reference and itsmembership.

Electronic voting has great potential and Ihope it can be introduced. I was disappointedwhen I realised what the Government meant byelectronic voting because I had a differentpicture. I thought there would be much greaterflexibility in that people would be able to vote atATM machines or in supermarkets, if notimmediately, at some point in the future. That isthe argument in favour of electronic voting.

People would no longer have to attenddraughty school halls that are awkwardly located,difficult to access and not necessarily comfortingor welcoming. Such halls put elderly people andpeople with disabilities at a disadvantage, asmany do not have proper car parking facilities.All these problems militate against peopleenjoying the act of voting, which should be madeeasier rather than more difficult. However, evenwith the introduction of electronic voting, we willstill have to attend draughty school halls that areawkwardly located and difficult to access. Theonly difference is a machine will be put in front ofus instead of a ballot paper. That is not progress.

One system will replace another and theoperation of the machine will not befundamentally different to what is done currently.The count will be quicker. The last generalelection count in my constituency went on for aweek and the result was decided following manylengthy recounts. Elections are not held for ourbenefit. The people decide who will enter thisHouse to represent them. No matter how long thecount takes, the end result should be the samebecause it is a true reflection of the people’sdecision. However, we do not have thatconfidence in the proposed electronic system andit does not offer the flexibility that it should, ifwe are to reap the benefits of the system.

10 o’clock

I do not know how the system will make itmore attractive for people to come out and vote.However, a number of practical changes could be

made to electoral procedures. Theelectoral register should be properlymaintained and accurately reflect the

electorate. That would be a first. I was elected tomy local authority 25 years ago and I have neverseen a comprehensive electoral register. Chunksof the population were always missing from theregister for one reason or another and it causeda great deal of annoyance and grief. It becameeasier over the years to go on the supplementaryregister but it has become more difficult in recentyears as one must appear at a Garda station and

so on to get on the register. It should be madeeasier to get on the register and the register itselfshould be more accurate.

I received a complaint from a non-national, EUcitizen, who was told she would have to appearin front of a notary public to make a declarationthat she was entitled to vote before she couldregister. I was not aware that was the case butthat is an extraordinarily difficult procedure forthose who want to register to vote.

Mr. Fleming: I welcome the opportunity tocontribute to the debate. I would like to put thelegislation in context and then refer to its detail.I supported electronic voting before it became amajor issue.

Mr. F. McGrath: Surprise, surprise. TheDeputy is a nerd.

Mr. Fleming: Laois County Council hired aperson to make a video of the last generalelection count in the Laoighis-Offaly constituencybecause it was understood to be the last manualcount of votes there. It was recorded for posterityso that the next generation could see the archaicprocedures used to conduct elections. Peoplewent out to vote in my constituency on electionday and the counting of votes began at 9 a.m. thefollowing day but by 7 p.m. the result of the firstcount still had not been announced.

Mr. Durkan: An abacus should have beenprovided. There must have been a seriousproblem.

Mr. Fleming: We got the right result. FourGovernment Deputies were returned, eventhough it took a great deal of time to count thevotes. The result was satisfactory from our pointof view. However, when I reflected on the count,I recognised the mistakes that had been made.Many votes were discarded because the correctperforation was not applied in the polling station.That was an outrage. A total of 45,000 votes werecast aside at the last European Parliamentelection while 20,000 votes were discarded at thelast general election because they were spoiled.That was enough votes to elected three Members.Many were spoiled because of mistakes made bythe voter or by the staff in the polling station. Anumber of people deliberately spoil their votesbut the old system was full of flaws and anoverhaul was long overdue.

I have often turned on the 10 p.m. newsprogramme on Sky News or another channel inrecent months to find that one of the accessionstates has held a referendum on whether to jointhe EU. They think they are joining the EUbecause it comprises a good, vibrant economiccommunity. However, when I turned on the 11p.m. news bulletin, the result of the referendumhad been announced. It took one hour followingthe close of the polls to produce a result. Wethink we are progressive but many of the


accession states could teach us a great deal aboutrunning elections.

Mr. F. McGrath: What about the tallymen andwomen? Those states miss the action and thedrama.

Mr. Fleming: When the polls close, the countshould be conducted and the results made knownquickly. That is the way we should proceed. Theunnecessary labour of love, which involves poringover ballot papers, has long passed its sell bydate. People will miss the fun, action and craic ofthe count but that is not what elections are about.That is similar to somebody not watching the All-Ireland final when their team is playing becausehe or she is only interested in the celebrationsafterwards.

Mr. Durkan: If the score was countedelectronically and one only got the result, itwould not be interesting.

Mr. F. McGrath: It is like an All-Ireland finalwithout the match.

Mr. Durkan: The Deputy should start again.

Mr. Fleming: I would prefer if the numeroustally men and party activists canvassed during theelection campaign rather than appearing on theday of the count. I would be happier to meetthem on my travels knocking on doors toconvince the public to vote for candidates of theirchoice. Too many of them are seen only when theelection is over. They are too late to do anythingfor any candidate. They show up for the craic andthe count.

Mr. Durkan: I am confused.

Mr. Fleming: The old system is overdue anoverhaul.

Mr. Durkan: They had a paper vote, but theDeputy’s lads are not counting them quicklyenough.

Mr. Fleming: Given that it takes so long to getan election result under the old system, reform islong overdue. During the recent Spanish election,the new Government was announced early thefollowing morning. We should be aspiring to thatmechanism here.

Aengus O Snodaigh: Was that electronic?

Mr. Fleming: During the last local elections inLaois, we had a dead heat on the final countwhich resulted in a petition in the court.

Aengus O Snodaigh: What will happen now?

Mr. Fleming: I will deal with that and one canstill have a petition.

The tragedy of that count was that severalballot papers were not properly stamped andthose votes were ruled ineligible. That was anoutrage to the candidates who were due thosevotes. I am not commenting on the outcome asthere were loses on both sides. However, it wasan outrage that votes were mish-mashed whenpeople had gone to the trouble to vote. I haveseen counts going on for days and recounts takinga week. On every television news bulletin,announcements were made of new votes beingfound. That is a farce which undermines thepolitical system. The electorate expects the votesto be counted in an efficient manner and the ideaof it taking a week makes some people give up, asparty colleague do not wish to prolong the agony,regardless of the outcome.

Mr. Durkan: There was no prolonged vacancy.

Mr. Fleming: That happened in the last generalelection also.

When one plays quick pick lotto numbers at7.30 p.m. on a Saturday evening, one has theresults at 7.55 p.m.

Mr. Durkan: What we are discussing is moreserious than quick pick lotto numbers.

Aengus O Snodaigh: One has a paper trail.

Mr. Fleming: One has instant access from anATM machine in any part of the world to one’sbank account.

We should have an electronic votingmechanism. There are probably people who stillthink that officials at the count centre should notuse adding machines. A computer only adds upfigures more quickly and in a clearer manner thana person with an adding machine. If I was beingpolitical, I would not make these points but Icannot help being honest. I am looking forwardto the debate in the next two months when theGovernment Deputies will be talking upelectronic voting and convincing our voters thatit is a good idea and the Opposition parties arebusily talking down the system and theirsupporters will end up believing them and stayat home.

Mr. Durkan: Will the Fianna Fail Deputies goto the plinth where they normally would go?

Mr. Fleming: I hope the Opposition keeps upthis debate and continues to tell its supportersthat this is a flawed system. I hope the Oppositioncan convince members and supporters of thatnonsense and if they believe it, their supporterswill stay at home, as directed. I hope thatGovernment supporters will listen to us andrealise it is the way to go. We should keep it upand not let up on telling the Oppositionsupporters to have nothing to do with electronicvoting. However, we will tell our lads to get outand vote.


Mr. Durkan: How about a visit to the plinth forthe Deputy?

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Fleming,without interruption.

Mr. Fleming: Deputy McManus referred tothem as IT specialists, but Labour Party activistswrote this report. I have spoken to her colleagueswho said that five party members got togetherand two of the five came up with a clever idea.They are Labour Party members who wereidentified as such by members of the LabourParty. They are not international, independentexperts

Mr. F. McGrath: Deputy Fleming should notworry. I will give him an independent view in ashort while.

Mr. Fleming: People believe there is a trailfrom when one casts one’s vote to the countunder the present system. There is no verifiableproof of how one votes.

Mr. Durkan: That is wrong. One can identifythe votes that came out of every box.

Mr. Fleming: If a person can identify his or hervote at a count, it is an invalid vote because it isclear there should be nothing on a ballot paperto identify it. If somebody is able to identify aparticular vote, it is an invalid vote.

Mr. Durkan: That is not true.

Mr. Fleming: The Opposition is spinning a yarnthat one can see where one’s vote goes during thecount. That does not happen. It would be abreach of confidentiality.

This legislation is good. It was piloted in fourconstituencies during the last general election andin seven constituencies for the referendum and itgave the results very quickly. Several Deputieswere elected to this House by margins greaterthan the number of spoiled votes in theirconstituency. Many constituencies had from 400to 600 spoiled votes in the last general electionand there are several Deputies who are here bymargins less than the number of spoiled votes intheir constituency. That is an absurdity. Weshould not tolerate a system that had hundreds ofspoiled votes in every constituency.

Aengus O Snodaigh: That is democracy. TheDeputy should ask Dustin.

Mr. Fleming: That is not democracy.Administrative mistakes or mistakes by theelector casting his or her vote can be preventedby the electronic machine. I am very disappointedat the allegations against Members on this sideof the House. We do not run the election, Thereturning officer in every constituency officetogether with staff from the council and healthboards are engaged in the counts. It is a

disgraceful slur to cast on people’s work whenone says that they will not continue to do theirwork in a proper manner because they will beworking with an electronic system.

Aengus O Snodaigh: The computer will dothe work.

Mr. Fleming: It is nonsense to cast one’s voteelectronically and be able to walk out with whathas been called a lotto-type receipt. There wouldbe no secrecy in the ballot paper. There is oneparty which would like that system. It could haveits supporters bring out ballot papers to show howthey voted, together with a blank ballot paperwhich will be filled in and given to a supporterwho will put it in the box and bring out the nextblank paper and keep recycling it. That is whathappens when paper is taken out of the pollingstation. It is subject to abuse. I would nevertolerate a system where a person can walk froma polling station with such a record because he orshe could be intimidated to show people how heor she voted and it would be the most seriousabuse. I am stunned but I am genuinely notsurprised that people suggest that should happen.I am aware that some know how to abuse thesystem. If Members ponder on this they will knowwhat I am talking about. Let us hope that neverhappens.

Mr. F. McGrath: The Deputy seems to know agreat deal about it.

Mr. Fleming: Section 16 of the Bill provides averifiable paper trail on all the votes cast in anelection in an electoral area or using particularvoting machines. In the event of a petition to thecourts, the presiding judge can insist that thesoftware shall include the capability of providinga table of the preferences recorded for each votecast at the poll in the election. That can be doneunder section 16 for all the votes cast at anelection in a local electoral area or in respect ofparticular voting machines. If there is a queryinvolving one, two or three polling stations, thejudge can order a print-out of each individualvote and the preferences. It will not be possibleto identify the voter from the print-out, but it willbe proved to a judge that a ballot box has averifiable paper trail. If 636 votes are cast, a judgecan establish from a print-out the preference ofeach voter. It would be a nonsense to have aprinter in every polling station. Inevitably, itwould run out of ink or paper and bring a usefulelectronic system into disrepute. A verifiablepaper trail will be available to a judge if a petitionis ever made. That is as it should be. Presumably,Opposition Deputies will say we will rig that too.

Mr. Durkan: That is like the Florida system.

An Ceann Comhairle: Allow Deputy Flemingto continue.


Mr. Fleming: If Deputies opposite had takenthe trouble to read the Bill, they would know thaton the opening of a poll a candidate’s agent canverify that no votes have been cast. Obviously,they have not or they would not be making theoutlandish statements they are. A person canpress a button and see that the ballot paper onscreen corresponds with a print-out from themachine before the vote starts.

Aengus O Snodaigh: A print-out.

Mr. Fleming: That provision is made in section9 for those who wish to read it. At the close ofpolling, the number of votes printed out willcorrespond to the number of people whose nameshave been crossed off the voter register. Thenumbers can be verified as happens under theexisting system. According to section 13, aftervotes have been counted an accurate tally can beproduced without compromising the secrecy ofthe ballot. The votes will be randomised toestablish surpluses in the event that there is asurplus at a particular count.

Mr. Durkan: There will be fun when themachine is set to randomise votes.

Mr. Fleming: The machine can print thenumbers on the ballot papers to allow a judge, ifnecessary, to order a reprint of the randomisednumbers in the sequence in which they wereprinted in the first place. A judge can have aprint-out in front of him which shows the detailsof every preference in respect of every vote cast.

It might be a shock and a disappointment tosome that it will be possible to have no spoiledvotes in a constituency in which up to 50,000people have voted. I look forward to the day onwhich spoiled votes are eliminated from oursystem. They are a blight and it is amazing wehave tolerated them for so long. I hope we learnsound lessons from a number of the countriesjoining the EU on 1 May which are able to counttheir votes in a smart, efficient manner. I hopewe do the same.

Mr. Durkan: They did it in Russia.

Mr. Fleming: I can understand the Oppositionthrowing in red herring. The last speakercomplained that we were moving too far only tocomplain subsequently that we were not movingfar enough. She said we should be voting fromautomated teller machines and the Internet. Wehave not gone that far as we are moving one stepat a time. That is how it should be.

Mr. Durkan: We should be able to inventdemocracy, but we have not.

Mr. Fleming: I look forward to a demonstrationby the people that they are happy with theelectronic voting system after they have left theOpposition parties behind them. In due course,we will move on to greater advances in the votingsystem at locations which are much easier forvoters to access. Once proper controls are in

place, voters may be able to vote at shoppingcentres. That is not before us today and that issomething about which we have been criticised.We have been criticised by people who say wehave introduced a form of calculator when weshould be using paper and quills and spendingweek after week carrying out a count. The Irishpeople have moved on.

Mr. Durkan: Deputy Cullen has indoctrinatedthe Deputy well. Indoctrinating young ladsshould not be allowed.

Mr. Fleming: There has been no indoctrination.I have had no discussion with the Minister on thisissue. I am reading the Bill for myself. At thecount in Laoighis-Offaly during the last election,I recorded publicly the hope that I would neversee another manual count. It took a day and ahalf to count votes for five seats.

Mr. F. McGrath: That is sad.

Mr. Durkan: The Deputy should not admit thatoutside the House.

An Ceann Comhairle: Allow Deputy Flemingto speak without interruption.

Mr. Fleming: If Deputies opposite wish to livein the 19th century, they are welcome to do so.The people have moved on and they have muchmore faith in their future.

Mr. Durkan: Will the Deputy give way?

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Durkan willhave 20 minutes to expound on his theory.

Mr. Fleming: I would like to see the effortwhich goes into the count used to ensure thatthere is an accurate voter register in place in eachconstituency. That is where the mistakes aremade and it is where we should aim our nextphase of activity to improve the electoral system.I look forward in future legislation to newarrangements which allow us to put in place anaccurate voter register.

I thank Deputies opposite for contributing tothe debate. We will convince our people thatelectronic voting is a good idea while they keeptelling theirs that it is not. I hope the Oppositionis believed and that they and their supporters stayat home.

Mr. Durkan: The counters in Laoighis-Offalyare not that bad. I apologise to them on DeputyFleming’s behalf.

Mr. F. McGrath: I wish to share time withDeputies O Snodaigh and Boyle.

An Ceann Comhairle: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. F. McGrath: While I enjoyed DeputyFleming’s contribution, I wish to present anopposing view from this side of the House. Iwelcome the opportunity to record my views onvoting machines and electronic counting. I have

207 Animal 31 March 2004. Diseases 208

[Mr. F. McGrath.]major concerns about the Bill before us. I rejectthe waste of taxpayers money it implies, which isan issue about which I feel very strongly. It is notgood enough, particularly when there arepriorities to address in health, education,disabilities and the 70,000 families living in severepoverty. These are the issues on which we shouldbe concentrating public funds.

It will be a sad day for this country when wedo away with tallymen. A manual count is healthyfor democracy and positive for the politicalprocess. It energises the political system andwakes the people, particularly that 35% which isnot directly involved in the electoral process.Sadly, that percentage seems to increase everyday. It is a major problem in this State that asection of our society does not actively participatein the democratic process. The introduction of theelectronic voting system will take away thedrama, the life and the energy which is producedat traditional election counts. This is a validargument. Have people considered the SouthAfrican elections which brought Nelson Mandelaand the ANC to government? People queued inthe heat for seven or eight hours to takeadvantage of the right to vote, as they have inother parts of Africa. Many western societieshave become very smug and electronic voting isa symptom of that.

We should examine the facts when consideringthe dangers of electronic voting. Many peoplehave concerns that the system might represent athreat to democracy. This is a serious issue.Members opposite should suppose theGovernment were to employ a private companyto bundle up our paper ballots, haul them to anunknown location for counting in secret beforeemerging with just the final, unverifiable result.Would Deputy Fleming be happy with or trustthat result? He should consider that scenario.Computers obey coded instructions yet thesource code of the machines in question will notbe open to independent, specialist scrutiny due tocommercial copyright. The count result producedby the machines will not be open to independentverification because, astonishingly, no means tomake such verification is built into the system.

If one does something as mundane as book anairline ticket or make a banking transaction, apaper trail will be available in the event thatsomeone mucks up. When one presses a buttonto vote, there will be nothing anywhere to proveone’s vote did not go to one’s candidate of choice.These are serious democratic issues. DeputyFleming spoke about a paper trail, but we shouldconsider the facts and the evidence. Peopleshould listen to Ms Margaret McGaley, a scholarworking on a PhD on electronic voting. She hastold a committee of the Houses that the systemas planned poses a genuine threat to democracy.She is not a member of the Technical Group orthe Labour Party but an independent person withexpertise on electronic voting. We should alsoconsider the evidence of Rebecca Mercuri, anAmerican professor and world expert.

Debate adjourned.

Adjournment Debate.

————

Animal Diseases.

Mr. Crawford: I thank the Ceann Comhairlefor affording me the opportunity of raising thisimportant issue. I thank the Minister of State forcoming to the House — I hope he can give me apositive reply.

There is an urgent need to re-examine andchange the way the Department of Agricultureand Food deals with BSE cases. It is impossible tounderstand or justify why the Department shouldcontinue with a total herd slaughter policy whenit is clear from all evidence that this disease doesnot affect the rest of the herd. I welcome the dropin the number of herds that are being slaughteredowing to the presence of BSE. However, the lossof a total herd to any disease is traumatic for anyfarm family and is almost akin to a family death.To lose a herd because of one BSE-infectedanimal, when there is no scientific or otherevidence to justify it, is unfair and entirelyirresponsible. Other EU countries have re-evaluated their structures and only slaughter theinfected animal and cohorts. Ireland needs tosatisfy health and export regulations and that iswhat this is about.

The three wise men who advise the Ministerfor Agriculture and Food advised that the processbe re-examined — they obviously saw room formajor savings as that was their brief. This was theonly aspect of the report the Minister ignored. Itis unfair that farmers, many of whom had closedherds before BSE struck, are forced into the openmarket where, even arising from theDepartment’s advice, they have found otherserious disease problems.

More than ten years ago, Fine Gael warned thethen Minister about the dangers of Johne’sdisease and other problems imported into thiscountry. Are depopulated farmers advised ofthese potential problems? A number of farmerswhose herds have been depopulated andrestocked have found their animals have seriousdisease problems for which they can get nocompensation.

I know of a farmer whose farm was destockedfor a second time. He was unhappy about this andrequested that only the diseased animal be takenout. He is now under all sorts of investigation andhe still has not been paid even though 15 monthshave passed. We must be sensible about this.

I know of a farmer, not from my constituency,whose farm was involuntarily depopulated in1997. He made all kinds of efforts with his DVOin seeking personal and health advice. He boughtanimals under the DVO’s regulations. At no timewas he advised of a problem such as Johne’sdisease. He now finds that his herd is sufferingfrom this serious disease. While a number of hisanimals have been disposed of and others arelocked up, he cannot get compensation. Themoneys being wasted on the destruction of entireherds should be used to evaluate the problemspresented by the other disease. Another farmerin my constituency was forced to restock. He has

209 Schools Building 31 March 2004. Projects 210

incurred enormous veterinary bills arising fromthe diseases he found in his herd.

I urge the Minister of State to reconsider thisscheme. If other EU countries have re-evaluatedtheir schemes it is time we reconsidered ours. Aspresident of the European Council onAgriculture, the Minister, Deputy Walsh, is in thestrongest position he has ever been in. Surely hewill have an opportunity to re-evaluate this toensure people understand what it is all about. Ifother EU countries that do not depopulate cansell their products in the same markets as we sellto, surely we can do the same.

Depopulation is traumatic for farmers. I spoketo a woman yesterday whose herd is underinvestigation but has not yet been deemed to beBSE-infected. She begged me to raise this matterin a positive way.

Minister of State at the Department ofAgriculture and Food (Mr. Aylward): I thankDeputy Crawford for raising this matter. Havinghad private conversations with him, I know of hispersonal interest and concern in this matter. TheDeputy will be aware that since 1989, all IrishGovernments have implemented a whole herddepopulation policy where BSE is confirmed.This approach was introduced in the context ofconcerns about the potential impact of thedisease on human health, uncertainty about theepidemiology of the disease, and for marketreasons that are in turn related to publicsentiment in various importing countries. Since1989, this policy has been the cornerstone of theIrish control system and, with other measures, hasbeen used to underpin sales of meat and dairyproducts in a variety of overseas markets. Suchmarkets are worth \1.4 billion annually.

Under current EU legislation on BSE, memberstates are obliged as a minimum to slaughter feedcohorts and progeny of affected animals. I amwell aware that many member states operate thisapproach. However, we do not propose todiscontinue the whole herd depopulationapproach for a variety of reasons, including itsvalue in the marketplace, particularly consumerperception of its benefit, the declining costs of thesystem and the potential difficulties whichindividual farmers would face in disposing ofcattle and milk from their herds where BSE hadbeen confirmed. It would be difficult to find anyco-op in Ireland that would purchase meat froman infected herd. One must consider the potentialdamage to the market in, for example, baby foodproducts. Unlike other EU countries, Irelandexports a minimum of 90% of its agriculturalproducts. This is a consideration other EUcountries do not have to make.

Mr. Crawford: Denmark is an exportingcountry.

Mr. Aylward: The EU supports the whole herddepopulation policy by funding 70% ofcompensation costs involved.

When restocking after depopulation, farmersmust of course take appropriate precautionsagainst introducing diseases. In particular, they

should take care in sourcing replacement stockand subsequently follow calf rearing andmanagement practices to avoid diseases such asJohne’s disease. I am concerned about the levelof this disease and the manner in which it hascome into the country. The Department isactively pursuing this.

I am pleased to report that the outlook on BSEis positive. Numbers last year at 182 were downby 45% on 2002 and the reduction is continuingthis year — to date 47 cases have been confirmedcompared with 69 in the same period in 2003.Moreover, in both 2002 and 2003, 2% of caseswere identified in animals aged six years or lessat the time of diagnosis, compared with 16% and40% of animals in that age category in 2001 and2000 respectively. The increasing age profile ofanimals in which the disease is confirmed and thedeclining number of BSE cases are positiveindications that the enhanced controls in relationto meat and bonemeal, specified risk material andthe processing of mammalian waste productsintroduced in 1996 and 1997 are having thedesired effect and that the incidence of BSE willcontinue to decline as older animals leave thesystem.

I assure the Deputy that the Department keepsthis matter under constant review and this willcontinue.

Schools Building Projects.

Mr. Gilmore: I thank the Ceann Comhairle forpermitting me to raise the needs of theMonkstown Educate Together national school inmy constituency. The Dalkey school project,which has been in existence for some time, isbulging and has a long waiting list. The Brayschool project, which draws students from thesouthern end of my constituency, is also full andhas a long waiting list.

The Monkstown Educate Together school wasestablished seven years ago in response to thegrowing demand for places in such schools andhas grown dramatically in the interim. It hasgrown dramatically over the seven years to theposition whereby it now has eight full classes withmore than 240 students and a long waiting list.However, it has no permanent school buildingand is housed in temporary buildings at the rearof Monkstown House community centre inMonkstown Grove. The temporary buildings areunsuitable, the site is very cramped and in recenttimes it has been subject to some vandalism. In arecent letter to me the chairman of the board ofmanagement stated:

The lease on our current site is not secureand we have only a temporary planningpermission to operate from the site. Theportacabin classrooms are too small. This isunhealthy and uncomfortable and restrictsimplementation of the curriculum. There is noassembly hall or sports facility of any kind.Rental on the portacabins on site is expensiveand wasteful of the resources of theDepartment of Education and Science and ofthe parents, and the existing portacabins arenot secure and subject to vandalism.

211 Special 31 March 2004. Educational Needs 212

[Mr. Gilmore.]About four years ago, a site was identified for thisschool. The site is currently leased by theDepartment of Education and Science. Mattersdo not seem to have been progressed. The schoolhas yet to get confirmation from the Departmentas to the site and when a permanent schoolbuilding will be provided for this growing school.There is now considerable frustration and angeron the part of parents who saw their childrenenter the school seven years ago on a temporarybasis and there is still no sign of a permanentschool building. They are beginning to wonderaloud whether they are being discriminatedagainst. A number of parents have put it to methat if this were a denominational school, theywould not have had to wait this long forconfirmation of a site and for school building toproceed.

There is a belief that because the cost of land,sites and buildings is particularly expensive in myconstituency, the Department of Education andScience is reluctant to commit to expenditure.Every child in my constituency has a right toeducation. Children who have no option but toavail of the free education system are entitled toget the support from the Department ofEducation and Science and should not findthemselves condemned to unsuitable buildingsand school locations. They need to be allowed toavail of their constitutional right to free educationin an area where the cost of sites, land andbuildings happens to be expensive. TheDepartment of Education and Science should notwithhold from committing to provide the site andbuild the school on the basis of cost.

I thank the Minister of State for coming to theHouse to respond to me on this matter. I hopeshe has good news for me this evening. However,if that is not the case I ask her to use her goodoffices to ensure this issue is progressed as soonas possible so the parents and children at thatschool can have good news allowing them to seewhere they will be going well before thecommencement of the new school year.

Minister of State at the Department ofEducation and Science (Miss de Valera): I thankthe Deputy for giving me the opportunity tooutline my Department’s proposals for theprovision of a new school building forMonkstown Educate Together national school.

The school is currently accommodated inprefabricated buildings on a site adjoiningMonkstown Community Centre. The school wasgranted permanent recognition in September1998. The cost of site and portacabin rental isgrant aided by the Department at the rate of 95%. The school had an enrolment of 243 pupils atSeptember 2003 and a staffing of a principalteacher and nine assistant teachers. In addition,the school has three resource posts. Enrolmentsat Monkstown Educate Together national schoolhave been increasing to the current figure of 243.The area from which the school draws its pupilsis wider than the Monkstown area, whereenrolments in other schools have declined inrecent years.

The property management section of theOffice of Public Works which purchases sites fornew schools on behalf of my Department,submitted a report on the issue of site acquisitionfor Monkstown Educate Together nationalschool. However, due to the commercialsensitivity of the process involved, it would beinappropriate for me to comment on anyindividual aspect of the report at this time. MyDepartment intends to secure a site for the schoolas soon as possible. When this has been done thequestion of the architectural planning of a newschool building will be examined as a matter ofurgency.

In the meantime, my Department will continueto grant aid the use of temporary accommodationby the school at a rate of 95% of the cost pendingthe delivery of permanent accommodation.

Special Educational Needs.

Dr. Cowley: I am very grateful for theopportunity to raise this matter on theAdjournment, namely, why a child assessed as“moderate Down’s syndrome” has been refusedentry to St. Dymphna’s special school, Ballina.Little Breege Molloy turned five years of age on1 February and has attended playschool for thepast two years. She has a support worker for twohours every day from the Western CareAssociation and spends the other hour in theplayschool. She also gets two hours every Fridaywith her in-house adviser who does excellentwork.

Her mother began to consider Breege’sschooling commencing in September 2004, as shebelieves that Breege has spent enough time atplayschool and it is time for her to move on. Asher mother thought Breege would not be readyfor mainstream school, she considered anotheroption, St. Dymphna’s special school. Mrs.Molloy approached the principal at St.Dymphna’s school and the home adviser visitedon another occasion. The plan was that Breegewould attend St. Dymphna’s for a year and wouldthen be ready for the local school at Beheymore.

The psychologist carried out an assessment andassessed her as having a moderate disability.While all the details went to the Department ofEducation and Science, the application for entryto St. Dymphna’s was turned down. Mrs. Molloywas given the option of sending Breege to amainstream school with a support worker or tosend Breege to the school for moderate to severedisability. Mrs. Molloy believes this is the firsttime St. Dymphna’s school has had to refuse amoderate Down’s syndrome child and that thisrefusal is due to cutbacks.

Both Mrs. Molloy and her husband areextremely disappointed at the decision to refuseBreege entry to St. Dymphna’s. They feel that asparents they were making an informed choicewhich has unfairly been taken away from them.The school principal was happy to take Breegeinto St. Dymphna’s school. The home adviser wasvery pleased that this was happening. Theprincipal at St. Dymphna’s school is trying tofight the decision of the Department to excludeBreege, as is the psychologist who has written to

213 Hospital 31 March 2004. Staff 214

the Department of Education and Science,pleading the case for Breege to be admitted to St.Dymphna’s school.

As a parent, Mrs. Molloy feels her decision wasundermined and the choice of where to sendBreege to school was removed from her husbandand her. She states that the local school informedher that it was not prepared to teach a child withDown’s syndrome. If Breege were to go there itwould be the first time the school had taught achild with Down’s syndrome. This is the first timethat St. Dymphna’s has had to refuse a child.While St. Nicholas’s school down the road is forchildren with moderate to severe disability, thepsychologist felt that Breege’s disability is milderthan moderate and she would do better at St.Dymphna’s than at St. Nicholas’s special school.

The Western Care Association also felt that St.Dymphna’s was the best school for Breege. Thepsychologist had written to the Departmentasking that Breege be sent there and theheadmistress was happy with this decision. Theheadmistress of St. Dymphna’s met Breege andwas hoping to take her into St. Dymphna’s. Shehas also written to the Department of Educationand Science requesting that Breege be admittedthere. The St. Dymphna’s curriculum ofswimming and gymnastics would suit Breegevery well.

Breege’s mother feels that she was underminedin making her decision and is supported by theWestern Care Association and by the Down’ssyndrome association in her decision. Mrs.Molloy feels this is blatant discrimination againstdisabled people. Mrs. Molloy makes the case thatif she brought her other daughter who is notdisabled to the local convent school and if shewas accepted by the principal there, it would notbe fair for the Department of Education andScience to then refuse her. If it is not right andfair for her daughter who is not disabled, why isit right and fair that it should happen to herdisabled daughter? She feels that this representsdiscrimination against disabled people.

As a parent, Mrs. Molly has done her best.However, she believes that the system has failedher and her daughter. She worked hard for 19years and paid PAYE and all her other taxes. Shecared for her elderly parents but never received,or for that matter sought, carer’s allowances.

The Special Olympics took place last year.Everyone wanted to be associated with the gamesand people were filled with joy and wonder aboutthe contribution disabled people were making.Everyone was so helpful. The Government wasassociated with the Special Olympics but, lessthan a year later, we are hearing about cutbacksbeing made. Why should parents be obliged to goto court to fight for basic rights, particularly thosefor their disabled children, to which they shouldhave access?

Miss de Valera: I am pleased to have theopportunity to clarify the position concerning theenrolment of Breege Molloy in St. Dymphna’sspecial school, Ballina, County Mayo, on behalfof the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey.

I understand that Breege has been assessed bya psychologist as coming within the moderaterange of general learning disability. Parents of achild with such an assessment have the option ofseeking a placement for their child in either aspecial or mainstream national school. Where aspecial school placement is the preferred choice,the usual option would be a school dedicated toproviding for children such as Breege with amoderate general learning disability. There issuch a school, St. Nicholas’s special school inBallina. In this case, however, Breege’s parentshave sought to have her enrolled in St.Dymphna’s special school, which is designated asa school for children with mild general learningdisability. A preliminary investigation has beencarried out by my Department and I can confirmthat St. Dymphna’s is not refusing to enrolBreege due to cutbacks or for any otherreason. Rather, it is seeking advice on theappropriateness of Breege’s placement in theschool.

The issue for my Department is to find anaccommodation between parental choice, on theone hand, and appropriate educationalplacement, on the other. The matter is beinggiven immediate attention with a view to bringingabout an early resolution. I thank the Deputy forbringing the matter to my attention and I assurehim that the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey,will advise him of the outcome as soon as it isknown.

Hospital Staff.

Mr. Durkan: I thank the Ceann Comhairle foraffording me the opportunity to raise thisimportant matter. When I was a member of theEastern Health Board, a great deal of time, effortand energy was invested in a programme torestore, revive and refurbish Naas GeneralHospital. The matter had been on the stocks forin the region of 16 years without progress beingmade. I was glad to have been able to play somesmall role in this affair when in Government fora short period. I spoke with officials of the thenEastern Health Board, brought forward the planswhich had remained on the shelf for so long andeventually ensured that the then Minister forHealth, Deputy Noonan, kindly made availablethe necessary funds to carry out a developmentplan. That plan was ambitious in nature and wassufficient to ensure the future of the hospital atthe highest level.

The Government that took office in 1997delayed the proposals for two years, a periodduring which the costs involved doubled from £21million to £42 million. However, constructionwork commenced and the hospital was eventuallycompleted. It is a fine building but the final twophases contained in the original plan remain tobe completed. However, the hospital is a creditto everyone involved, including the architects,engineers, contractors, the health board and thethen Minister, Deputy Noonan. However, sinceworks were completed in September last, therehas been little effort made to provide thenecessary staff to ensure that the hospital is fullyand properly utilised. The fact that this has not

215 The 31 March 2004. Adjournment 216

[Mr. Durkan.]happened to date is sad. The new state-of-the-art theatres are under-utilised and the clean-airtheatre, which is one of the most modern in theworld, is not used. No orthopaedic procedures aretaking place at the hospital because of a turf warin the region which has not been resolved.

The great investment in the state-of-the-artfacilities at the hospital has been to no availbecause of insufficient staffing at almost everylevel. The high number of beds that are occupiedby long-stay patients because of a lack of propersubvention for beds in nursing homes, wherethere are plenty of spaces available, means thatthe hospital is being slowly strangled. This isunacceptable.

During the past six months I tabled a series ofquestions to the Minister for Health andChildren. On 30 September 2003, I tabled aquestion which inquired about the extent towhich it is intended to put place the necessaryresources for accident and emergency staff atNaas General Hospital and I was informed thatit is a matter for the Eastern Regional HealthAuthority. I tabled the same question on 9October, 19 November, 17 February, 18 Februaryand 3 March and received the same reply oneach occasion.

I do not know how to put it as emphatically asit should be put at this stage, but I have no doubtwhere responsibility for the funding of thehospital lies. It lies with the Department ofHealth and Children and its Minister whoprovides funding through the regional healthauthority or the health boards. The time has longsince passed to bring an end to the ridiculoussituation which prevails at present wherebyservices at the hospital will be brought to a haltand standards will fall due to a lack of adequatestaffing and resources. Unfortunately, the major,worthwhile and necessary investment that hasbeen put in place will go down the drain unlessaction is taken soon.

I am aware that the Minister of State has onlya passing responsibility for this matter. However,I know that, in her heart of hearts, she agreeswith what I have said. Bureaucracy has broughtthis project to a halt and I ask her to do what shecan to ensure that the funds are released and thatpeople can go to work in the facilities that wereprovided for them.

Miss de Valera: The Minister for Health andChildren apologises for not being present and hasasked me to read the following statement on hisbehalf.

Responsibility for the provision of services atNaas General Hospital rests with the EasternRegional Health Authority, ERHA. NaasGeneral Hospital has a 193 bed complement andprovides general, medical and surgical services,acute psychiatric services and medical and socialassessments for patients aged over 65 years andcaters for 180,000 people in the Kildare-westWicklow catchment area.

11 o’clock

A major development programme, phase 2,commenced at Naas General Hospital inNovember 1999. In addition, phase 3A, which

includes accommodation andenabling works for future phases 3Band 3C commenced on site in April

2002. Phases 2 and 3A were completed inSeptember 2003. The additional revenue andstaffing required to fully commission thisdevelopment are the subject of ongoingdiscussion between the ERHA and theDepartment. It is anticipated that the remainderof the development, phases 3B and 3C, will beprocured on a phased basis, with constructionplanned for commencement in late 2004 andcompletion planned for 2005-07. Pressures on thehospital system, particularly in the eastern region,which includes Naas General Hospital, arise fromincreases in hospital admissions throughemergency departments and from difficultiesassociated with patients who no longer requireacute care and treatment but who are dependentand awaiting placement in the sub-acute setting.

Measures aimed at addressing these issuesinclude the provision of additional acute hospitalbeds in line with the report Acute Hospital BedCapacity — A National Review. Some 568 acutebeds have been commissioned to date on foot ofthe report, 253 of which are in the eastern region.Of these, 61 have been commissioned at NaasGeneral Hospital. Revenue funding ofapproximately \40 million has been madeavailable to the ERHA under this initiative.

An additional \8.8 million has been allocatedto the ERHA to facilitate the discharge ofpatients from the acute system to a moreappropriate setting thereby freeing up acute beds.It allows for funding through the subventionsystem of additional beds in the private nursinghome sector and ongoing support in thecommunity. To date, this funding has resulted inthe discharge of more than 220 patients fromacute hospitals in the eastern region, includingNaas General Hospital.

The ERHA is actively monitoring the situationand working with hospitals, including NaasGeneral Hospital, and the area health boards toensure every effort is made to minimise thenumber of delayed discharges from acutehospitals. It is in consultation with the SouthWestern Area Health Board and management atNaas General Hospital regarding the alleviationof accident and emergency pressures at thehospital through the opening of beds under thebed capacity initiative.

I assure the Deputy that the Government willcontinue to invest in the development of highquality, equitable and accessible hospital servicesso that those availing of the services continue toreceive timely and appropriate care.

The Dail adjourned at 11.05 p.m. until10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 1 April 2004.

217 Questions— 31 March 2004. Written Answers 218

Written Answers.

The following are questions tabled by Membersfor written response and the ministerial replies

received from the Departments [unrevised].

Questions Nos. 1 to 10, inclusive, answeredorally.

European Neighbourhood Policy.

11. Mr. English asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if he will report on the progress beingachieved on the European Union near neighbourpolicy; and if he will make a statement on thematter. [10039/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Atits meeting in October 2003, the General Affairsand External Relations Council invited theCommission and the High Representative, MrSolana, to present detailed proposals on “actionplans” early in 2004 under the EuropeanNeighbourhood Policy, ENP, in order to take thematter forward by June 2004. The Councildecided that the first package of “action plans”would cover Ukraine, Russia and Moldova to theeast and Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan and Israel, aswell as the Palestinian Authority.

The Commission has held the first technicalconsultations with some partner countries inJanuary-February 2004 on the key features andgoals of the “action plans”’. These will be agreedpolitical documents with partner countries andjoint ownership of the plans is a key element fortheir success.

The guiding parameters for the ENP are nowbeing finalised by member states and theCommission, in close co-operation with the HighRepresentative. The Commission intends toadopt a further strategy paper in May and furtherdiscussion on the “action plans” is envisaged inthe relevant Council bodies. Furtherconsultations with partner countries will be heldas appropriate.

Once these discussions have concluded, it isintended to have those “action plans” which areready and the overall ENP strategy approved bythe Council in June 2004.

Foreign Relations.

12. Mr. Neville asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if he will make a statement on thebilateral economic relations between Chile andIreland; and if he will make a statement on thematter. [9995/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen):Ireland’s bilateral economic relations with Chileare well established and continue to evolve.Chile, like Ireland, is a small open economy thathas enjoyed increasing prosperity driven by thestrong promotion of trade. Ireland and Chile areboth very dependent on foreign trade, and

growing economic links are an important part ofdeveloping a mutually beneficial relationship.

In 2003 Ireland’s total merchandise trade withChile was worth just over \80 million. This is thehighest level of trade ever reached betweenIreland and Chile and represents a more thanfour-fold increase in trade since 1990. Thebalance of trade in 2003 was slightly in Ireland’sfavour with exports to Chile valued at just over\42 million and imports from Chile worth justover \38 million.

President McAleese has just completed a Statevisit to South America which included Chile. ThePresident was accompanied by a trade missionorganised by Enterprise Ireland. The mission wascomprised of 14 companies from a variety ofsectors, all of whom were eager to developbusiness relationships with their Chileancounterparts.

In addition to Irish companies increasing theirsales to Chile, there is also scope for Irish andChilean companies to join forces in opening upnew market opportunities both across SouthAmerica and in other regions where Chile issuccessfully doing business. Similarly, Irelandoffers excellent opportunities to Chileancompanies which are seeking businesspartnerships in product development, marketingand sourcing in the newly expanded EuropeanUnion.

The visit of President McAleese follows theState visit of President Lagos of Chile to Irelandlast summer. These visits are important steps inforging new business partnerships between ourtwo countries.

Ireland is looking to conclude a doubletaxation agreement with Chile. At present a teamfrom the Revenue Commissioners is in Chileconducting the opening round of negotiations onsuch an agreement. The existence of a doubletaxation agreement will encourage both trade andinvestment between our two countries.

British-Irish Agreement.

13. Caoimhghın O Caolain asked the Ministerfor Foreign Affairs when the British-Irishinterdepartmental co-ordinators group last met;its purpose and functions; its programme of workfor 2004; and if he will make a statement on thematter. [4776/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Iassume the Deputy is referring to the groupwhich meets to co-ordinate the Irish position onthe work of the British-Irish Council. In thiscontext officials from relevant Irish GovernmentDepartments meet as appropriate to consult andliaise on the ongoing programme of work of theBIC, established under Strand Three of the GoodFriday Agreement. The group is chaired byofficials of the Department of Foreign Affairs.The Department of the Taoiseach and otherDepartments which are involved in the Council’sprogramme, including the Departments ofCommunity, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Social


[Mr. Cowen.]and Family Affairs, the Environment, Heritageand Local Government and Health and Children,are represented. The most recent meeting of thegroup took place in February 2004.

The British-Irish Council’s current programmeof work includes a number of priority areas asagreed at the inaugural BIC summit in December1999. These include the important area of misuseof drugs where the Irish Government takes thelead role, with the Department of Community,Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs co-ordinating thework.

The Government also participates in all of theother areas of work within the British-IrishCouncil including environment, social inclusion,knowledge economy, transport, health —telemedicine, tourism, and minority and lesser-used languages. The next BIC summit is currentlyscheduled to take place later this year inGuernsey, focusing on tourism. Ministerial andofficial meetings in a number of other priorityareas are also planned in the coming months.

The Government remains committed to the fullimplementation of the Good Friday Agreementand to the successful operation of all of itsinstitutions.

Dialogue Among Civilisations.

14. Mr. Costello asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if Ireland, as President of the EU, or inits own right, will be holding a regionalconference on Islam and the western world aspart of its preparation for the Dialogue BetweenCivilisations initiative of the United Nations.[9898/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen):There are no plans to organise such a conference.The Government favours continuing dialogueamong cultures in order to improve mutualunderstanding. The United Nations GeneralAssembly designated 2001 as the United NationsYear of Dialogue among Civilisations. Irelandplayed its part in this initiative when it hosted inDublin on 30 and 31 May 2001 a meeting of thegroup of eminent persons who had beenappointed by the United Nations SecretaryGeneral to report on the dialogue amongcivilisations process. Important progress wasmade by the group at its Dublin meeting inpreparing the groundbreaking report that wassubmitted to the United Nations GeneralAssembly. This report led to the GeneralAssembly adopting a global agenda for dialogueamong civilisations unanimously in November2001. This agenda is intended to promotedialogue so as to reduce misunderstandings andmistrust and bring about the basis for non-violentresolution of disagreements and potentialconflicts.

In November 2001, the group of eminentpersons that Secretary General Annan hadappointed to consider this matter issued a report,Crossing the Divide: Dialogue Among

Civilisations. This was not a UN document per seand did not contain recommendations but ratherobservations about new trends which would assistthe process of dialogue. The report contendedthat diversity was an aspect of humanity to becelebrated and urged that dialogue be seen as asoft tool of diplomacy. As noted by the SecretaryGeneral’s Personal Representative on the issue,Giandomenico Picco, dialogue was an opposingforce to terrorism which equated diversity withenmity. Subsequently Secretary General Annanissued his own report to the General Assemblywhich inter alia restated the critical importance ofdialogue among civilisations as a means ofpreventing conflict.

The General Assembly discussed the report on8-9 November 2001 and on 9 December adoptedResolution 56/6 on the Global Agenda forDialogue Among Civilisations which inter aliastated the valuable contribution that dialogueamong civilisations could make to improvedawareness and understanding of common valuesshared by all mankind and set out a generalprogramme of action. Secretary General Annanis to report later this year on the implementationof this programme of action. The work begun bythat initiative has since been carried through inother fora. The EU has played its part infurthering dialogue. One specific initiative beingundertaken by the EU is the Euro-MediterraneanFoundation for a Dialogue of Cultures. One ofthe foundation’s guiding principles notes that“the values of dialogue, tolerance and respect forthe other, which are common to all religions,constitute an important factor in bringing closertogether cultures and civilisations.” Irelandannounced at the sixth Euro-Mediterraneanmeeting of Foreign Ministers, held in Naples on2 and 3 December, a financial contribution of\100,000 to the Euro-Mediterranean Foundationfor the Dialogue of Cultures.

In addition, Ireland has carried forward theEU’s proposed Strategy on the Mediterraneanand Middle East. Last week in Brussels, thePresidency presented to the European Council aninterim report on the policy. The principlesoutlined in this report will form the basis ofconsultations with the countries of the region incoming weeks, which have begun with the visit tothe region by me this past Monday. We willcontinue to build on these contacts atopportunities such as the Euro-MediterraneanPartnership Mid-Term Ministerial Meeting on 5and 6 May and the EU ministerial meeting withthe Gulf Co-operation Council, GCC, on 18 May.

Our relations with our partners in the regionhave been built on consultation. I believe that forthis policy to succeed, it must be based ontransparency, dialogue and consultation. TheUnion must work in full partnership with thecountries of the region to help it meet thechallenges facing it. Our goal should be to createa common zone of peace, prosperity andprogress.


Foreign Conflicts.

15. Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister forForeign Affairs if he will make a statement onthe necessity of differentiating between the warin Iraq and multi-lateral support within theEuropean Union and the United Nationscommunity for a concerted approach towardsdealing with terrorism on the world scale.[10105/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): ForIreland, as indeed for several other members ofthe EU, it was a matter of greatest regret that theIraqi crisis reached a point where military conflictbegan. This is exactly the outcome which we hadworked to avoid during our time on the SecurityCouncil. The Government has consistentlyopposed the use of force, except as a last resortafter all other possible means have been triedand failed.

There are different viewpoints on thecompatibility of the war on Iraq with UnitedNations resolutions. The letter of 20 March 2003from the US Permanent Representative to thePresident of the Security Council stated that “inview of Iraqi material breaches, the basis for theceasefire has been removed and the use of forceis authorised under Resolution 678”. There is,therefore, no international legal consensus on thisissue. Hence, the Government underlined at thetime the overriding political need for a furtherresolution and for absolute clarity that the wayforward was, to partially quote from the Deputy’squestion, through multilateral support within theUnited Nations community.

In the wider context of dealing with terrorism,the Government strongly supports a concertedapproach within the EU and the broaderinternational community in tackling the problemof terrorism as an issue in its own right

Middle East Peace Process.

16. Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister forForeign Affairs his views on the assassination ofSheikh Ahmed Yassin; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [9990/04]

58. Aengus O Snodaigh asked the Minister forForeign Affairs his views on whether the Israeliassassination of Sheikh Yassin constitutes abreach of the human rights clause contained inArticle 2 of the EU Association Agreement withIsrael; if he has raised or will raise this issue withhis European colleagues; the action he proposesto be taken by the EU; the action he proposes tobe taken by the Government; and if he will makea statement on the matter. [9966/04]

103. Ms Burton asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if he is concerned at the failure of theGovernment of the United States to condemn theassassination by Israeli forces of the Hamasleader, Sheik Ahmed Yassin. [9893/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Ipropose to take Questions Nos. 16, 58, and 103together.

The position of Ireland on the assassination ofSheikh Ahmed Yassin was fully reflected in thestatement agreed by the Foreign Ministers of theEuropean Union and acceding countries duringtheir meeting on the day of the killing. ForeignMinisters condemned the particular killing andrecalled the position of the European Union onextra-judicial killings in general. In theirstatement they said:

The European Union has repeatedlycondemned the terrorist atrocities committedby Hamas which have resulted in the deaths ofhundreds of Israelis. The EU recognisesIsrael’s right to protect its citizens againstterrorist attacks. Israel is entitled to do thisunder international law. Israel is not, however,entitled to carry out extra-judicial killings.Furthermore, the assassination which has justbeen carried out has inflamed the situation.The Council called on all sides to exerciserestraint and to refrain from acts of violence,which will only lead to more deaths and willput a peaceful settlement still further fromreach.

The contents of the Foreign Ministers’ statementwere conveyed to the Israeli authoritiesimmediately.

The complete opposition of Ireland to extra-judicial killings is well known. Extra-judicialkillings are in contravention of international lawand do nothing to increase security or advancethe peace process and this is also the position ofthe European Union. The AssociationAgreement between the European Union andIsrael commits both sides to conduct theirrelations on the basis of respect for human rightsand democratic principles. The policy of extra-judicial killing calls into question Israel’scommitment to this element of the AssociationAgreement. The concerns of the European Unionabout Israeli conduct were raised by the ForeignMinisters of the European Union with Israelduring the last Association Council in November.

I have noted the reactions of a number ofUnited States representatives to thisassassination. Like the European Union, theUnited States is firmly opposed to extra-judicialkillings. As far as I am aware there has been nochange in that position. It is the sovereign rightof each country to decide how it wishes to expressits position.

Spanish Elections.

17. Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs his views on the attempts by pro-militaristic tendencies in the European Unionand the media to construe the democratic victoryof Senor Zapatero in Spain as appeasement ofterrorism; and if he will make a statement on thematter. [9899/04]


Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Theelections in Spain were undoubtedly free and fairand the outcome reflects the democratic will ofthe Spanish people. Ireland’s approach to thesavage attack on Madrid was one of sympathyand solidarity with the people of Spain, reflectedin particular in the attendance by the Taoiseachat the service of remembrance in Madrid on 23March. Our response to this attack, which was notjust an attack on Spain but all our democracies,was to ensure that there was a comprehensiveresponse at EU level. To this end, the Presidencyproposed a package of measures forconsideration by our partners and the Ministerfor Justice, Equality and Law Reform conveneda special meeting of Justice and Home AffairsMinisters on 19 March to take this work forward.This was followed by further work on theproposals by Foreign Ministers under theMinister for Foreign Affairs’ chairmanship on 22March, which resulted in final agreement on thevery substantive declaration on counter-terrorismat the specially scheduled discussion of EU Headsof State or Government at the European Councilon 25 March under the Taoiseach’s chairmanship.

By these actions Ireland, as EU Presidency,and all our EU partners demonstrated oursolidarity with the people of Spain in response tothis terrorist attack. The Government rejects thecheap and misleading suggestions to which theDeputy is referring, as I am sure do mostMembers of the House. The people of Spain haveendured much over the years and to falselyattribute such motives to their free and fairdemocratic decision does them and democracy aserious disservice.

We look forward to working with the newSpanish Government when it takes office and tocontinuing the good relations that we enjoy withSpain.

Northern Ireland Issues.

18. Mr. Noonan asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs the outcome of peace process talks heldat Hillsborough Castle on 23 March 2004; if hewill make a comment on the position with regardto the Northern Ireland peace process; and if hewill make a statement on the matter. [9977/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen):Following a meeting between the Taoiseach andPrime Minister Blair at Farmleigh on 11 March,the two leaders met with the political partieselected to the Northern Ireland Assembly atHillsborough Castle on 23 March in an effort tocollectively find a way to resolve the currentpolitical impasse. Trilateral meetings were heldwith the DUP, the SDLP, the UUP, Alliance, thePUP and Sinn Fein. The Government also helda bilateral meeting with Sinn Fein. During ourmeetings we listened carefully to the views ofeach of the parties and their proposals foraddressing the current difficulties. BothGovernments also made it clear that there weretwo crux and related issues which needed to be

resolved in order for progress to be made. As wehave stated on a number of occasions in recentmonths, these outstanding issues are: theachievement of final closure in relation to allforms of paramilitarism from all quarters and acommitment from all the parties to the fulloperation of stable and inclusive politicalinstitutions.

In addition, both Governments haveacknowledged the need to continue to meet theircommitments in regard to the fullimplementation of the Agreement, particularly inthe areas of rights and equality. Work on thisagenda is being actively advanced throughthe framework of the British-IrishIntergovernmental Conference.

Mindful of the need to restore confidence inthe process, the Taoiseach and Prime MinisterBlair at Hillsborough clearly stated theirpreference to see early progress on the key issues,and preferably before the local and Europeanelections in June. Both Governments will remainin close contact with all the parties over thecoming weeks to advance all opportunities forprogress, including through the ongoing review ofthe operation of the Agreement.


19. Mr. McCormack asked the Minister forForeign Affairs his views on the recentlypublished Amnesty International report, Israeland the Occupied Territories — the Place of theFence/Wall in International Law; and if he willmake a statement on the matter. [10000/04]

68. Ms Lynch asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs when he expects that the InternationalCourt of Justice will issue its advisory opinion asrequested by the General Assembly of the UnitedNations in regard to the construction of a wall bythe Israeli authorities in the occupied Palestinianterritories; and if he will make a statement on thematter. [9903/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Ipropose to take Questions Nos. 19 and 68together.

The International Court of Justice has nowreceived all written submissions from interestedparties and has heard the oral submissions. Thecourt has indicated that it will deliver its advisoryopinion expeditiously, due to the importance ofthe matter. It is for the court alone to determinethe schedule of its deliberations. No date fordelivery of the opinion has been set but myunderstanding is that it may be delivered to theGeneral Assembly of the United Nations sometime between the end of May and the middle ofJuly.

I am aware of the Amnesty Internationalreport to which the Deputy refers. The questionof the consequences of the construction of theseparation barrier in international law is thesubject of deliberation by the International Courtof Justice at present.


Ireland’s views on the illegality of theconstruction are well known. In October 2003Ireland and our European Union partnerssponsored a resolution in the General Assemblyof the United Nations demanding “that Israelstop and reverse the construction of the wall inthe occupied Palestinian Territory, including inand around East Jerusalem, which is in departureof the armistice line of 1949 and is incontradiction of relevant provisions ofinternational law.”

Ireland also made a written submission to theInternational Court of Justice to assist in itsdeliberations on the advisory opinion sought bythe General Assembly of the United Nations. Inour submission we argued that the constructionof the wall in departure from the armistice linewas illegal.


20. Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs the report he has received from theBritish authorities of the circumstances in whicha person was kidnapped from a public house inBelfast and violently assaulted on Friday, 20February 2004; and if he will make a statementon the matter. [9910/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Asthe Taoiseach informed the House on 25February, it was the view of the Northern Irelandsecurity forces that by ramming the vehicle thePSNI had saved the individual’s life. At that timeit was the clear view of the Chief Constable thatthe people involved in the incident were membersof the Provisional IRA. This view wassubsequently confirmed at senior official level ata meeting convened by the secretariat of theBritish-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. Fourindividuals are now before the courts facingserious criminal charges as a result of thisincident.

In response, and reflecting its seriousness, theIrish and British Governments issued a jointstatement which expressed our deep concern atthe serious impact it had on the Review of theGood Friday Agreement. Both Governmentsmade clear that the achievement of a sustainablebasis for political progress in Northern Irelandrequires a full and a permanent cessation of allparamilitary activity. We also made clear that thecore issues of completion of the transition toexclusively democratic means and securing thecommitment of all parties to stable politicalinstitutions are inextricably linked. BothGovernments are now determined to intensifyour engagement with the parties to achieve thisend.

In the joint statement the Governmentsreported that they had asked the IndependentMonitoring Commission to examine these eventsin the context of its first report and to bring thatreport forward from July. As the Deputy isaware, the two Governments established theIndependent Monitoring Commission with the

purpose of ensuring compliance with a numberof key commitments to the Agreement. The twoGovernments have asked the IMC to consider theevents of 20 February in the context of thepreparation of its first report. This report isexpected to cover all incidents and activitieswithin its remit since the commission wasestablished in early January, and will now beissued early next month.

Diplomatic Representation.

21. Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs the reasons Ireland has establisheddiplomatic relations with Burma; and if he willmake a statement on the matter. [9979/04]

66. Mr. Crawford asked the Minister forForeign Affairs the matters discussed recently atmeetings held between the Government and Dr.Sein Win, Burmese Prime Minister in exile; andif he will make a statement on the matter.[9980/04]

73. Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs the reasons underlying the Government’sdecision to establish diplomatic relations with themilitary regime in Myanmar/Burma; and if he willmake a statement on the matter. [10077/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Ipropose to take Questions Nos. 21, 66 and 73together.

The decision to establish diplomatic relationswith Burma/Myanmar was taken in the contextof Ireland’s current Presidency of the EuropeanUnion, and the need for Ireland, as EUPresidency, to be in a position to deal directlywith the Burmese authorities. Of the other EUmember states, only Luxembourg does not havediplomatic relations with Burma.

Our previous reticence over appointing anambassador to Burma, however satisfying it mayhave been as a gesture of disapproval, manifestlyhad no effect on the behaviour of the Burmeseauthorities. As Presidency of the EU we haveboth the opportunity and the responsibility tospeak to the Burmese authorities on behalf of theEU. We will in particular demand the release ofDaw Aung San Suu Kyi, and other politicalprisoners, the participation of the NationalLeague for Democracy in the forthcomingnational convention, a timetable for progresstowards democracy and an improvement in thehuman rights situation in Burma.

Our ambassador designate visited Burma from23 to 25 February. The ambassador used thisopportunity to convey our views to the BurmeseDeputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, whom hemet along with other EU heads of mission. Healso met with five members of the centralexecutive committee of the National League forDemocracy and with representatives of Burma’sethnic nationalities. This visit, and the access theambassador gained, confirmed the practical valueof the Government’s decision to establishdiplomatic relations.


[Mr. Cowen.]Both Ireland and the EU are strongly critical

of serious and persistent human rights abuses, thelack of fundamental freedoms and the absence ofpolitical progress in Burma. The EU CommonPosition on Burma, which provides for a visa banon members of the regime and a freeze on alltheir financial assets in the European Union, isdue to expire on 29 April 2004. Ireland, togetherwith our EU partners, will discuss in due coursewhat revisions in the Common Position, if any,may be necessary in view of developments inBurma.

On 26 March, Mr. Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, theUN Special Rapporteur on the situation ofhuman rights in Myaanmar, addressed the currentsession of the Commission on Human Rights. Mr.Pinheiro, who said that he had been unable tovisit Burma before the session, confirmed that theauthorities have now agreed in principle to hisnext visit. In his statement, he recalled the eventsof 30 May 2003 as a setback for the overall humanrights situation in Burma and called for theimmediate and unconditional release of all thosedetained or put under house arrest. In particularMr. Pinheiro sought the restoration of freedomfor Aung San Suu Kyi and the three members ofthe NLD Central Executive Committee.

Ireland continues to work with Burma’s Asianneighbours to encourage them to bring theirinfluence to bear on Rangoon. For example, thequestion of Burma was on the agenda for the EUMinisterial Troika to India of 16 February andwas discussed during the troikas at politicaldirector level with China on 26 February andJapan on 27 February. The EU’s concerns willfeature in discussions at the ASEM ForeignMinisters’ meeting in April 2004, which theMinister for Foreign Affairs will host in Kildare.

At the request of Burma Action Ireland, I metwith Dr Sein Win, head of the National CoalitionGovernment of the Union of Burma, who was inIreland from 4 to 8 March 2004 as part of a tourof European cities. I took the opportunity thatour meeting provided to update Dr. Win on thebackground to the establishment of diplomaticrelations with Burma/Myanmar and I undertookto keep Burma Action Ireland informed of anyfurther developments in our diplomatic relationswith Burma/Myanmar. We discussed the best wayto promote a return to democracy inBurma/Myanmar, including through theEuropean Union’s relations withBurma/Myanmar’s neighbours, and in this regardI noted that Burma/Myanmar had been on theagendas of Troika meetings with India, China andJapan in the first two months of Ireland’sPresidency. Dr. Win raised the possibility ofengagement with education projects for Burmesechildren and I invited him to contact my officialsin this regard.

Our goals continue to be the return ofdemocracy to Burma, an end to human rightsviolations, and the realisation of peace andprosperity for the long-suffering people of

Burma. We believe that the appointment of anambassador to Burma enlarges the platform fromwhich Ireland can and will seek to promote thesegoals, goals which are also shared widely in theinternational community.

Foreign Conflicts.

22. Mr. S. Ryan asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs the Government’s view of recentdevelopments in Haiti and the ousting ofPresident Aristide; if the Government hasrecognised the new regime; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [9919/04]

79. Mr. McCormack asked the Minister forForeign Affairs if he will provide an account ofthe situation in Haiti; and if he will make astatement on the matter [10021/04]


The parliamentary elections of May 2000,which returned a majority for President Aristide’sLavalas party, were judged by internationalobservers to be marred by fraud andconsequently the opposition declined toparticipate in the presidential elections ofNovember 2000. President Aristide was returnedby default for a second term. As a result of thefraudulent elections, all EU aid, with theexception of aid for strictly humanitarianpurposes, was suspended under Article 96 of theCotonou Agreement between the EU and theAfrica, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group. TheEU considered that Haiti had violateddemocratic principles, an essential element of theagreement and indicated that it was not preparedto resume aid until Haiti had met the conditionsestablished by the Organisation of AmericanStates, OAS, which was closely involved inattempts to facilitate discussions between theGovernment and the opposition.

The political stalemate between PresidentAristide and the constitutional oppositioncontinued. In February 2004 violent disturbancesbroke out. The Caribbean Community,CARICOM, with the support of the OAS, theUS, Canada and the EU, led high-level efforts torestore stability and governability through a“Prior Action Plan” which involved a series ofconfidence-building measures. Unfortunately,these efforts failed. On 29 February PresidentAristide signed a letter of resignation and left thecountry. In accordance with the Haitianconstitution, the Chief Justice of the SupremeCourt, Boniface Alexandre, was sworn in asinterim head of state. He immediately asked theUN Security Council to deploy an internationalsecurity force. On the same day the SecurityCouncil adopted Resolution 1529, which inter aliaauthorised the deployment of a multinationalinterim force, MIF, for no more than threemonths; declared its readiness to establish afollow-on United Nations Stabilisation Force; andcalled on UN member states to support the


constitutional succession and political processunderway in Haiti and requested the SecretaryGeneral to elaborate a program of action to assistthe constitutional political process, support thehumanitarian and economic assistance andpromote human rights and the rule of law.

A 3,400-strong force is currently deployed inHaiti, composed of troops from the USA, France,Canada and Chile. Following an initial focus onsecuring key sites in Port-au-Prince, troops havenow begun to move beyond the capital. Thesecurity situation is slowly stabilising but remainsvery difficult because of the absence of aneffective local police force.

Political progress is under way. On 9 March, aseven-member council of elders — composed ofrepresentatives of civil society, the churches andthe political parties — nominated GerardLatortue, a former Foreign Minister, as interimPrime Minister. Mr Latortue then appointed hisinterim government which was sworn in byPresident Alexandre on 17 March.

Ireland and its EU partners have welcomed theformation of the interim Government, which nowgives reason to hope for substantial progress inestablishing democracy and the rule of law, sothat the country can break out of the politicaldeadlock experienced in recent years and regainthe stability for which it yearns. We have alsowelcomed Prime Minister Latortue’s statementsin support of national reconciliation, which weconsider to be essential to Haiti’s development.Ireland and its EU partners are also working toalleviate the humanitarian situation in Haiti, inclose co-operation with the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs. The UN hassought the assistance of the internationalcommunity in raising the budget of $35 millionwhich it has identified as being necessary to meeturgent humanitarian needs and to establish thebasis for recovery for the Haitian people over thenext six months. The Government has announceda contribution of \500,000 in response to this.

The challenge now for Haiti is to organise freeand fair elections for a government which will benot only elected democratically but will also thengo on to govern with full respect for democraticnorms and the rule of law. Ireland and its EUpartners will support all measures that seek topromote and uphold democratic principles,working in close co-operation with otherinterested states and organisations such as theUN, the OAS and CARICOM. The EuropeanCommission is expected to shortly examinewhether conditions are appropriate for aprogressive reactivation of all instruments ofdevelopment co-operation.

Arms Trade.

23. Ms Burton asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if the Government is in favour of theadoption of an international arms trade treaty atthe UN Arms Conference in 2006, in view of thefact that such a treaty would prevent the export

of arms where they might contribute to violationsof human rights and humanitarian law. [9894/04]

33. Mr. Murphy asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if the Government will endorse theControl Arms joint campaign of Oxfam andAmnesty International; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [9984/04]


I understand that the primary objective of theControl Arms campaign launched by AmnestyInternational, Oxfam and International ActionNetwork on Small Arms, IANSA, is to takeaction to prevent the proliferation and misuse ofarms, through the adoption of minimumstandards for the control of arms transfers.

I support the principle of having legally bindinginternational agreements on the control of armsexports, with as wide a participation as possible.This is particularly important with respect tosmall arms and light weapons. Ireland iscommitted to working with others to ensure thatthe illicit trafficking of such weapons is dealt witheffectively by the international community.

While work on the drafting of the text of theproposed international arms trade treaty is stillongoing, it is a promising initiative and Icommend the NGOs concerned for their efforts.An official of my Department participated in aconference held last November at CambridgeUniversity in England, the purpose of which wasto examine the text of the proposed treaty. Iunderstand that the text is currently being re-examined from a legal perspective by thoseNGOs involved in the arms control campaignwho met last month in Costa Rica and that as aconsequence of those discussions revisions to thetext may be made.

I also understand that the UN ArmsConference in 2006 will review progress madeunder the UN Programme of Action to Prevent,Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in SmallArms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects,which was agreed in 2001. The remit of theproposed international arms trade treaty is notconfined to small arms and light weapons but alsocurrently includes heavy weapons. Pendingfinalisation of the text of the proposed drafttreaty and clarification of its focus, it would bepremature to consider what actions would beappropriate in 2006. Ireland will, however,continue to be associated with the process andwill closely monitor developments.

The proposed treaty is currently underdiscussion within the EU. Discussions have takenplace at working group level, most recentlyearlier this month, and will continue duringIreland’s Presidency of the EU.

Situation in Uganda.

24. Mr. Kehoe asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs his views on the findings of aninvestigation by the International Criminal Court


[Mr. Kehoe.]into serious crimes committed in Uganda; and ifhe will make a statement on the matter.[10006/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Itake it the Deputy is referring to the recentannouncement by the Prosecutor of theInternational Criminal Court, Mr Luis MorenoOcampo, that Uganda has referred to him thesituation concerning the activities of the Lord’sResistance Army in northern Uganda. Inaccordance with the provisions of the RomeStatute, it now falls to the prosecutor to evaluatethe information made available to him, and thento decide whether to initiate an investigation. Theprosecutor has indicated that a formalannouncement of the initiation of aninvestigation, which will concern all relevantcrimes allegedly committed in the territory ofUganda, will take place shortly. As yet, however,no “findings” have been made by the ICC inrelation to crimes allegedly committed inUganda.

In investigating a situation, the prosecutor willseek to establish whether there is sufficientevidence to charge particular persons with crimesfalling within the scope of statute. Any decisionas to guilt or innocence of any individuals chargedis then a matter for the judges of theInternational Criminal Court in accordance withthe Rome Statute of the ICC.

In view of the likelihood of an investigationbeing undertaken, it would not be appropriate forme to comment further on the situation innorthern Uganda. However, I express myconviction that any investigation conducted bythe Prosecutor of the ICC will illustrate theintegrity and independence of that institution.

General Affairs Council.

25. Mr. S. Ryan asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if he will make a statement on hisparticipation in and the outcome of the GeneralAffairs Council in Brussels on 22 and 23 March2004. [9920/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Onbehalf of the Presidency I chaired the GeneralAffairs and External Relations Council inBrussels on 22 March 2004. The Minister of Stateat the Department of Foreign Affairs, DeputyRoche, attended the Council as the Irishnational representative.

In advance of the Council, the Minister of Stateappeared before the Joint Committee onEuropean Affairs on Friday, 19 March 2004, toreview the Council’s agenda. Following theCouncil, my Department forwarded the relevantconclusions prepared by the Council Secretariatto the committee for information. These are alsoavailable on the following Internet address:www.ue.eu.int/newsroom/indexem.htm.

In accordance with its usual practice, theCouncil met in two sessions, one dealing withgeneral affairs and the other dealing with external

relations. During the session on general affairs,the Council took note of the resolutions,decisions and opinions recently adopted by theEuropean Parliament and also took note of thestandard Presidency report on the progress ofwork in other Council configurations. TheCouncil also considered the Presidency’s draftannotated agenda for the European Council of25 to 26 March. The principal items in the draftannotated agenda were the Lisbon Strategy, theIGC, terrorism and the international situation.

The Council addressed a wide range of issuesin the session on external relations and adoptedconclusions in relation to the Middle East, theEU Strategic Partnership with the Mediterraneanand the Middle East, Iran, the United NationsCommission on Human Rights and the WesternBalkans. Ministers had an in-depth discussion onthe situation in Kosovo following the recentoutbreak of ethnically-motivated violence. TheCouncil reiterated its commitment to thedevelopment of a stable, democratic and multi-ethnic Kosovo, and its support for the efforts ofthe Special Representative of the UN SecretaryGeneral, Harri Holkeri, and the Standards beforeStatus process.

Ministers adopted an interim report on the EUStrategic Partnership with the Mediterranean andthe Middle East. They condemned the extra-judicial killing of Hamas leader, Sheikh AhmedYassin, and seven other Palestinians by Israeliforces. The Council held a discussion on Iran inlight of the recent meeting of the board ofgovernors of the International Atomic EnergyAgency, or IAEA. Ministers considered theapproach which the Union will adopt at the 60thsession of the UN Commission on Human Rightsin Geneva. Ministers reviewed the preparationsfor the forthcoming Asia-Europe ForeignMinisters’ meeting in Ireland. In addition, thePartnership and Co-operation Agreement withRussia and the situation in Haiti were discussedunder any other business.

A ministerial meeting with the Council ofEurope took place in the margins of the GeneralAffairs and External Relations Council at whicha number of issues of interest to the EU and theCouncil of Europe were discussed.

European Constitution.

26. Mr. P. Breen asked the Minister forForeign Affairs his views on the outcome of thetripartite summit of France, Germany and theUnited Kingdom on 18 February 2004; if he isconcerned at the development of a two-speedEurope; and if he will make a statement on thematter. [10009/04]

42. Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if he will give his assessment of theprospects of concluding negotiations on a newtreaty or constitution for the European Unionduring the period of the Irish Presidency; and ifhe will make a statement on the matter.[9908/04]


48. Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if he will report on the progress made innegotiations on an EU constitution, in particularthe 20 outstanding issues that he recently citedfor the negotiations on the EU constitution; andif he will make a statement on the matter.[5891/04]

64. Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister forForeign Affairs his views on the proposals putforward by the de Borda Institute towards apreference voting system for the Council ofMinisters; and if he will make a statement on thematter. [10014/04]

84. Mr. J. Higgins asked the Minister forForeign Affairs if he will argue for the retentionof the national veto in international tradeagreements in the fields of health, education,cultural and audio-visual services, to be includedin the draft EU constitution; and if he will makea statement on the matter [4403/04]

97. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if he has satisfied himself that the EU isprogressing in a cohesive manner with the varioustreaties and that a two speed or inner coreEurope is not emerging; and if he will make astatement on the matter [10051/04]

131. Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if his attention has been drawn to theviews on Mr Jean-Didier Hache, executivesecretary of the Conference of Peripheral andMaritime Regions’ Islands Commission, who hassaid that the rights of 13 million people living inoffshore and remote locations must be recognisedin the proposed constitution for the EuropeanUnion. [7722/04]

135. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister forForeign Affairs the position with regard toratification of a European Constitution; and if hewill make a statement on the matter. [10288/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Ipropose to take Questions Nos. 26, 42, 48, 64, 84,97, 131 and 135 together.

For my general assessment of the situation inthe Intergovernmental Conference, I referDeputies to my reply to Question No. 5.

A major outstanding question in the IGC is thedefinition of qualified majority voting. A widerange of proposals has been put forward on thisissue from member states and third parties,including that advanced by the de BordaInstitute, on a preference voting system for theCouncil of Ministers. In our Presidency report tothe European Council, we made clear our belief“that a solution, if it is to command consensus,must be based on the principle of doublemajority, must allow for greater efficiency indecision-making than the provisions in thecurrent Treaties, and must have due regard tobalance among all Member States and to theirspecific concerns.”

As a participant in the IGC, the Governmenthas, with a small number of other member states,

supported the retention of unanimity in decision-making on international agreements under theCommon Commercial Policy in the areas ofhealth, education and social services. The draftconstitutional treaty as it stands provides forunanimity in respect of culture and audio-visualservices. As Presidency, it is our task to seek toachieve an overall balanced outcome which isacceptable to all member states.

The Government is aware of the viewsexpressed by the Conference of Peripheral andMaritime Regions on the rights of those living inoffshore and remote locations. The draftconstitutional treaty includes a number ofprovisions both of a general and specific naturethat can help address the concerns expressed. Inparticular Article III-116, which deals witheconomic, social and territorial cohesion, statesthat: “the Union shall aim at reducing disparitiesbetween the levels of development of the variousregions and the backwardness of the leastfavoured regions or islands, including ruralareas”.

The question of the ratification of theconstitutional treaty will be for each memberstate to decide in accordance with itsconstitutional requirements. In the case ofIreland, I expect that ratification of theconstitutional treaty will require a referendum.

My strong view is that as the European Unioncontinues to enlarge, moving forward together isthe best way for Europe to advance. This view iswidely shared across the Union and is reflectedboth in the positive outcome of the EuropeanCouncil and in the collegiate spirit of thatmeeting.

As was made clear at the time, theGovernment had no difficulty with the tripartitesummit between France, Germany and theUnited Kingdom on 18 February. It should benoted that the meeting was not the first suchsummit between the three states and that thereare also a number of other groups of member andaccession states that meet on a regular basis. Asthe Union grows, the importance of such bilateraland multilateral contacts will grow. There is alsoscope in the treaties for enhanced co-operationamong groups of member states. What isimportant is that the structures and procedures ofthe Union and the interests of all member statesare respected.

EU-US Summit.

27. Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs the issues on the agenda for the EU-USSummit in June 2004; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [10073/04]

85. Mr. O’Dowd asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs the approach that he will take to improvethe EU-US relationship; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [9997/04]

90. Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if details have now been confirmed for theplanned EU-US summit to be attended by


[Mr. Howlin .]President Bush at the end of June 2004; if alocation has been agreed; the likely agenda; andif he will make a statement on the matter.[9901/04]


I refer the Deputies to my reply to QuestionsNos. 2, 4 and 6 today on the same issue.

Irish Citizenship.

28. Ms B. Moynihan-Cronin asked the Ministerfor Foreign Affairs if he has received anyrepresentations from any other EU countrysuggesting that the current right to Irishcitizenship of anyone born on the island ofIreland was being abused by residents of theircountry or that the law or the Constitution shouldbe changed; and if he will make a statement onthe matter. [9906/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Ihave not received any such representations. Thesubstantive issues referred to by the Deputy arematters for the Minister for Justice, Equality andLaw Reform.

EU-US Summit.

29. Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister forForeign Affairs if the US authorities haverequested permission to bring special weapons,such as the so-called mini-gun, to accompanyPresident Bush on his visit here; and if so, theGovernment’s views on the request. [9302/04]

104. Mr. Costello asked the Minister forForeign Affairs if his Department has receivedany request for diplomatic immunity for USpersonnel who may visit here as part of theentourage of President George Bush during theplanned EU-US summit; if any such request hasbeen for security personnel; the terms of theimmunity sought; and if the Government intendsto provide it. [9902/04]


The security of visiting heads of State is theresponsibility of the Garda Sıochana and it wouldnot be appropriate for me to comment onoperational security issues. I can confirm that nosuch requests have been received or are expectedto be made for immunity.

EU-China Relations.

30. Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs his views on whether Tibet is an integralpart of China; if the pursuit of a one-China policyhas been discussed by the EU in the context ofIreland’s Presidency; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [9982/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): TheEuropean security strategy was adopted by the

European Council on 12 December 2003. Itincludes a recommendation that a strategicpartnership be developed between the EU andChina. In view of our respective internationalroles and increasing political and economicweight, it is important that the Union and Chinawork together to promote global stability, peaceand sustainable development. We must alsoengage with China on issues such as humanrights, on which we have had traditionallydiffering views.

In 1971 Ireland voted in favour of UN GeneralAssembly Resolution 2758. Since then we haverecognised the Government of the People’sRepublic of China as the sole legitimateGovernment of China. Ireland, together with ourEU partners, adheres to the one-China policy andrecognises Tibet as an integral part of China.

Discussions on EU relations with China, andthe situation in Tibet, have been ongoing at everylevel in the first three months of our Presidency.Most recently I held useful discussions on theseissues with Mr. Zhang Yesui, Vice-ForeignMinister of China, on the occasion of his visit toDublin on 12 March 2004.

The Union’s long-standing one-China policywas discussed among EU Foreign Ministers inOctober 2003. The General Affairs and ExternalRelations Council welcomed and generallyendorsed the Commission policy paper entitledA Maturing Partnership — Shared Interests andChallenges in EU-China Relations. It clearly andexpressly reaffirmed that the EU continues itsone-China policy. The continuing commitment ofthe EU to the policy was also reiterated at themost recent EU-China Summit that took place inBeijing last October.

In the course of the GAERC discussions lastOctober, the Council welcomed recent efforts bythe Chinese Government to put strongeremphasis on sustainability and social issues.At the same time, while acknowledgingimprovements in relation to the establishment ofthe rule of law and the development of the legalsystem, the Council noted that we remainedconcerned about the significant gap thatcontinues to exist between the human rightsproblem in China and internationally acceptedstandards.

Ireland, together with our EU partners,encourages the continuation of the dialoguebetween the Chinese authorities andrepresentatives of the Dalai Lama. I welcome thestatement issued on 10 March 2004 by the DalaiLama. He expressed the hope that this year maysee a significant breakthrough in relations withthe Chinese Government. He has instructed hisenvoys to continue the process of dialogue withBeijing at an early date. Similarly, it isencouraging that the Chinese delegation at themost recent session of the EU-China humanrights dialogue, held in Dublin on 26 to 27February 2004, indicated a willingness, inprinciple, to continue to meet representatives ofthe Dalai Lama.


During the recent discussions with Vice-Minister Zhang, we emphasised the importanceof dialogue between Beijing and the Dalai Lamaon the Tibet issue. We also noted our strongdesire for progress and positive developments onthis matter given that both sides are nowexpressing themselves ready to talk.

Nuclear Weapons.

31. Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister forForeign Affairs his views on the possibledevelopment of weaponry with a nuclearcapability within Iran; and if the matter wasdiscussed during Ireland’s Presidency of theEU. [9988/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen):Discussion by the EU on Iran and its nuclearprogramme took place on a number of occasionsduring Ireland’s Presidency. Last January theGeneral Affairs and External Relations Councilhad an exchange of views on developments inIran following a briefing by High RepresentativeSolana on his visit to the country on 12 and 13January. The Council also examined the matterin February.

Earlier this month Iran was on the GAERCagenda. On 13 March the Council welcomed theadoption, without a vote, of an IAEA board ofgovernors’ resolution on Iran’s nuclearprogramme and called on Iran to comply withits provisions.

The Council also welcomed Iran’s signature ofthe IAEA Additional Protocol, recalled that Irancommitted itself to act in accordance with itsprovisions, pending its entry into force, and urgedits implementation of an early ratification. TheCouncil also welcomed the decision by Iran on 24February to extend the scope of its suspensionof enrichment related and reprocessing activities,and its confirmation that the suspension appliesto all facilities in Iran. Ministers called on Iran tostart, in accordance with the decision,immediately, comprehensively and verifiably thefull suspension of all such activities and to refrainfrom all fuel cycle activities that can also be usedto produce fissile material for nuclear weapons.

At the same time the Council expressed seriousconcern that a number of questions on Iran’snuclear programme remain outstanding. It urgedIran to provide full and proactive co-operationwith the agency in resolving all such questions ina spirit of full transparency. Ministers agreed tocontinue their discussions in light of the IAEADirector General El Baradei’s next report that isdue in May. The report is scheduled forconsideration at the meeting of the IAEA boardof governors in June.

Ireland supports the EU position on Iran’snuclear programme. It will, with our EU partners,continue to closely monitor the situation.

International Conventions.

32. Mr. Morgan asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs the reason Ireland did not sign the

International Convention on the Protection ofthe Rights of All Migrant Workers and Membersof their Families; and if the Government isconsidering signing it. [8022/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen):Ireland has not signed the convention. InDecember 1990 it was adopted by the UNGeneral Assembly and it entered into force on 1July 2003, following its ratification by therequisite 20 states. To date only 22 states haveratified or acceded to it. No EU member statehas signed, ratified or indicated an intention toratify it. The convention has not acquireduniversal recognition as a standard for theprotection of the rights of migrant workers.

Ireland’s position on the ratification ofinternational instruments generally, including theconvention, is kept under review in light ofprevailing circumstances. There is also anongoing assessment and prioritisation of Ireland’sinternational commitments.

Where Ireland wishes to ratify or accede to aninternational instrument, the Government mustfirst ensure that our domestic law conforms withthe agreement. It must make any necessarylegislative changes or be satisfied that none arerequired before ratification takes place. Assignature of an instrument is an indication of anintention to ratify it, the Government would alsointend to ratify, and take steps to do so, beforesigning an international instrument.

My Department examined the convention. Inorder for Ireland to ratify it significant changesmust be made across a wide range of existinglegislation, including legislation addressingemployment, social welfare provision, education,taxation and electoral law. These changes wouldhave implications for our relations with our EUpartners and the acceding states, none of whomhave signed or ratified the convention. They havenot signalled an intention to do so. There wouldpossibly be implications for the operation of thecommon travel area between Ireland and the UK.At present there are no plans to introducechanges in the necessary areas before Irelandcould ratify or consider signing the convention.

Existing legislation protects the rights ofmigrant workers and their families. The humanrights of migrant workers and their families arealso protected under the Constitution and byIreland’s commitments under internationalhuman rights instruments to which the State isparty.

Question No. 33 answered with QuestionNo. 23.

Foreign Conflicts.

34. Mr. P. McGrath asked the Minister forForeign Affairs if he will provide an update onthe situation in Iraq; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [10005/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen):Security in Iraq remains bleak. I condemned the


[Mr. Cowen.]recent terrorist attacks that caused so manydeaths and I reiterate my condemnation. Theyare an attempt to disrupt the process of restoringsovereignty and stability to Iraq. Recent attacksfocused on vulnerable targets with a high risk ofcivilian casualties, including religious ceremonies,and tried to promote sectarian violence.

Recently there have been some positivepolitical developments. On 8 March Iraq’sgoverning council signed an interim constitution,The Transitional Administrative Law. It will bethe supreme law of Iraq during the transitionperiod. It sets out a number of key elements onissues such as religion, fundamental rights and thetransitional system of government.

Following this, and in response to the UNSecretary General’s report on the holding ofelections, the Iraqi governing council invited theUN to assist with the transition process. In aletter dated 17 March the it welcomed UN helpwith the formation of an interim IraqiGovernment to which sovereignty will betransferred on 30 June. Preparations for directelections will be held before the end of January2005. Secretary-General Annan replied to theinvitation saying that he asked his special adviser,Lakhdar Brahimi and an electoral assistanceteam to return to Iraq as soon as possible to lendthe advice and assistance required. On 24 Marchthe Security Council adopted a presidentialstatement welcoming the missions of both teamsand called on all parties in Iraq to give their co-operation and support.

I support the rapid transfer of power to ademocratically elected Iraqi Government. I hopethat agreement on the transitional administrativelaw will lead to the transfer of power to asovereign Iraq. I welcome the invitation to theUN. A UN role in the transition process is anessential element in its success. I hope that thepolitical transition process will lead to peace andstability in Iraq.

Services for Emigrants.

35. Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if, in regard to the Taoiseach’s statementto the Dail on 10 March 2004, he will give thenumber of development officers placed in Irishemigrant communities abroad; the regions towhich they have been appointed; the totalfunding or resources available to thedevelopment officers; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [9913/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): In2003, 16 welfare organisations primarily inLondon, Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds,received Dıon grants as contributions towards thesalaries of development workers.

A total of \886,890 in Dıon grants was paid tothese 16 organisations in 2003. Of this amount,approximately \584,359 was allocated to supportthe employment of these development workers.

My Department has also provided additionalfunding to the Federation of Irish Societies inBritain to support a five year capacity buildingproject. This will involve the creations of threeposts for community development regionalworkers, one covering London and the SouthEast, one covering the midlands and the west andthe third covering the north and the east.

Foreign Conflicts.

36. Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Minister forForeign Affairs the extent of the Government’ssupport for Kosovo and its political future.[10125/04]

96. Mr. Kehoe asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs his views on the increasing tensions inKosovo. [10024/04]

107. Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister forForeign Affairs the Government’s view of thecurrent problems in Kosova, particularly forminorities, in view of the recent outbreak ofethnic violence. [9917/04]

141. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister forForeign Affairs the steps he has taken toinfluence EU policy in regard to the ongoingAlbanian-Serb-Kosovar tension and violence.[10295/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Ipropose to take Questions Nos. 36, 96, 107 and141 together.

Kosovo has stabilised since the violence of 17and 18 March when at least 19 people were killedand hundreds wounded. It remains very tense. On23 March two policemen, one an officer servingwith the UN in Kosovo and one a member of theKosovo police service, were shot dead. Over3,000 people were displaced from their homes,mostly ethnic Serbs, and there has beenwidespread destruction of property, includingprivate homes and places of worship. The KFORinternational peacekeeping force in Kosovo wasstrengthened significantly in response to theviolence. I pay tribute to the Irish contingent inKFOR for its efforts to stabilise the problem andto restore calm.

The EU remains committed to thedevelopment of a secure, democratic and multi-ethnic Kosovo, in line with UN Security CouncilResolution 1244 of 1999. As Presidency, Irelandreacted strongly to the recent violence. On 17March I contacted the Special Representative ofthe UN Secretary General in Kosovo, HarriHolkeri, and immediately issued an EUPresidency statement calling for calm. This wasfollowed by a statement on behalf of the EU atthe UN Security Council public meeting on 18March. On 22 March I chaired a meeting ofGAERC in Brussels and Kosovo was one of themain items on its agenda. The Councilcondemned the violence and asked HighRepresentative Solana to visit Kosovo as soon aspossible and to assess the problem.


On 25 and 26 March the European Councilreaffirmed the EU’s strong support for SpecialRepresentative Holkeri, the UN Mission inKosovo and KFOR in their determined efforts tostabilise the situation and to ensure theimplementation of UN Security CouncilResolution 1244. It also reconfirmed its supportfor the policy of standards before status. We mustnow reassert the primacy of politics in Kosovoand ensure that there is no further descent intoethnic violence.

The EU is agreed that political leaders inKosovo, especially the Kosovo Albanianleadership, need to take responsibility for theproblem and ensure that there is not a repeat ofethnically motivated violence or threats ofviolence. Those responsible for it must bebrought to justice. Kosovo’s provisionalinstitutions of self-Government mustdemonstrate their commitment to a multi-ethniccountry. Last week’s European Council called onthem to take an immediate step in this directionby allocating resources for the urgentreconstruction of damaged property, includingplaces of worship, to ensure that internallydisplaced persons can return to their homes insafety. Political leaders in Kosovo must now workclosely with the UN Mission in Kosovo and withKFOR to ensure the physical security and theprotection of the rights of all sections of thepopulation, including members of minoritycommunities.

Under Ireland’s Presidency, the EU isconsidering how it can strengthen its role insupport of the UN led policy of standards beforestatus. Over the coming weeks the Government,as EU Presidency, will remain in close contactwith Special Representative Holkeri, HighRepresentative Solana and the Commission andother member states to ensure that the EU makesan effective contribution to the restoration of apolitical process for Kosovo. It is clear that thefuture for the people of Kosovo lies in theeventual integration of the countries of thewestern Balkans region into European structures,as agreed at the EU-Western Balkans Summit inThessaloniki last June. The issue of the finalstatus of Kosovo can only be addressed oncesufficient progress has been made on theimplementation and review of standards. Despitethe recent violence and continuing tensions, thismust include the resumption of progress in thedirect dialogue on practical matters betweenBelgrade and Pristina.

Kosovo has been under UN administrationsince the end of the conflict in 1999. The EU hasspecific responsibility as part of the UN Missionfor reconstruction and economic development inKosovo. In the four years to the end of 2003 theEU provided almost \960 million in assistance toKosovo. The Government, through DevelopmentCo-operation Ireland, is also providing bilateralassistance to support health, education,employment generation and democratisation inKosovo. Almost \1 million was provided in direct

bilateral assistance in the period 2002-03. Irelandhas also provided funding for the UN Office ofMissing Persons and Forensics. It identifies bodyremains and has helped to address one of themost sensitive post-conflict issues in the region.Ireland has assisted the UN refugee returnprogramme for Kosovo and provides support forthe privatisation process through the EuropeanBank for Reconstruction and Development.Ireland also contributes to the regional activitiesof several multilateral agencies active in thewestern Balkans, including the Council ofEurope, the OECD and the Stability Pact forSouth Eastern Europe.

37. Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs his views on the recent attempts bymercenaries operating in the interests of multi-national oil interests to destabilise theGovernment of Equatorial Guinea; and if he willmake a statement on the matter [9900/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen):Reports indicate that foreign nationals wereinvolved in a plot to overthrow PresidentTeodoro Obiang Nguema. The alleged plotinvolved 67 alleged mercenaries and on 7 Marchthey were arrested in Harare when their planelanded. I and my EU partners are concernedabout attempts to overthrow a government byforce.

Ireland, as Presidency of the EU, will continueto monitor the problem in Equatorial Guinea, inconsultation with EU partners and it will makeknown its concerns, as appropriate.

HIV-AIDS Crisis.

38. Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if he will provide an update on theprogress of Ireland’s Presidency of the EU inhighlighting the spread of HIV-AIDS and inpresenting the EU with solutions to combat theproblem; and if he raised the issue of cripplingdebt on third world countries during thePresidency. [10049/04]

Minister of State at the Department of ForeignAffairs (Mr. Kitt): The Government made theHIV-AIDS pandemic one of its priorities for ourPresidency of the EU. The fight against HIV-AIDS is a major imperative of Ireland’sdevelopment policy and we are using ourPresidency to advance it. We want to see thedisease mainstreamed into EC developmentpolicy.

Three key related events have been or will behosted during our Presidency. On 23 and 24February an interministerial conference on HIV-AIDS was held in Dublin. There wererepresentatives from over 50 countries from theEU, Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Wesecured an agreement set out in the DublinDeclaration that will provide a basis for strongerregional co-operation across 55 countries to fightAIDS. A meeting between European and Africanparliamentarians on the challenges the disease


[Mr. Kitt.]presents to governance in Africa will be held inDublin in April. In June the Government willhost a meeting on the importance of investingfurther in the development of an effective vaccineagainst the disease.

The EU collectively increased funding tocombat the spread of HIV-AIDS and accountsfor 55% of all resources pledged to the GlobalFund for AIDS, TB and Malaria. We want to seethe disease mainstreamed in EC developmentpolicy. We have chosen HIV-AIDS as a topic forthe open discussion between Ministers andrepresentatives of civil society at the ACP-EUCouncil of Ministers meeting in Gaborone inMay.

The Government continues to use whateveropportunities that arise during its Presidency topromote our national debt strategy. Whilemembers states have agreed to contributegenerously to debt relief from the EU budget,there is no common position on debt relief policy.It is the Government’s view that there is no scopeat present for securing a common EU positionthat would go beyond the current heavilyindebted poor country initiative of the WorldBank.

The Presidency has been engaged with theCommission in its study on the issue of debt relieffor poor countries and the adequacy of the HIPCinitiative. We are determined to continue to workclosely with the Commission on this issue and towork with the Commission in giving practicaleffect to the conclusions of this study.

As part of that approach, we intend to keepHIPC debt at the top of our political agenda indiscussions with our EU and developing countrypartners. During my address to the EuropeanParliament’s development committee Ihighlighted aspects of our policy on debt relief tothe parliamentarians. On 15 and 16 February wediscussed and reached significant agreement onthe issue of debt relief during high leveldiscussions with our African partners.

In April development Ministers will participatein the GAERC Council meeting. Again, we willconsider debt relief in the context of the EU’scommitments to financing development.

Common Foreign and Security Policy.

39. Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if he will report on his efforts toimplement the draft EU Constitution’s solidarityclause prior to an agreement on an EUConstitution; and if he will make a statement onthe matter. [9108/04]

55. Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if he will report on the EU SolidarityProtocol; if it will not involve EU troops beingsent outside of the EU’s border. [10071/04]

93. Mr. J. Higgins asked the Minister forForeign Affairs if he has sought the support ofEU leaders for the implementation of a clausecontained in the draft EU Constitution that

would commit all member states to help eachother in response to terrorist threats. [9095/04]


Last week a Declaration on Solidarity AgainstTerrorism was adopted by the Heads of State orGovernment of the EU member states at ameeting of the European Council. It formed partof the EU’s response to the terrorist attacks inMadrid on 11 March.

The declaration calls on member states to actin the spirit of the solidarity clause of the drafttreaty establishing a constitution for Europe. Thedeclaration clearly states that each member statemust determine its response to a request forassistance. It does not commit member states tohelp each other. Any decision that has militaryimplications under the solidarity clause would betaken by unanimity.

The declaration was based on the solidarityclause of the draft treaty establishing aconstitution for Europe. The clause does notaffect Ireland’s traditional policy of militaryneutrality. It should not be confused with themutual defence clause of the draft treaty. Ourresponse to a situation covered by the solidarityclause would be consistent with relevant nationalconstitutional and legislative provisions.

Any action taken under the terms of thedeclaration will not involve troops being sentoutside the borders of the EU. In accordancewith the Union’s European security and defencepolicy, military personnel under EU auspices canonly be deployed outside the borders of the EUto undertake humanitarian, peacekeeping andcrisis management tasks. This is known as thePetersberg Tasks.

Foreign Conflicts.

40. Ms Enright asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if he will provide an update on thepolitical problem in Kashmir; and if he will makea statement on the matter. [9993/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen):There is a long history of conflict between Indiaand Pakistan. These nuclear armed countriescame close to the brink of war on two occasionsin 2002. The problem in Kashmir remains serious.Recently there have been encouraging politicaldevelopments. Both countries began a compositedialogue that included the Kashmir issue. Aceasefire along the control line has existed since25 November.

Following the talks between the President ofPakistan and the Prime Minister of India, the 5January South Asian Association for RegionalCo-operation Summit took place and thePresident of Pakistan and the Prime Minister ofIndia attended. Since then they made a jointstatement announcing that they had agreed tocommence a process of composite dialogue. On18 February the foreign secretaries of the ForeignMinistries of India and Pakistan met and agreed


to modalities for the composite dialogue and theirforeign ministers will meet in August. The foreignsecretaries are expected to meet again in May orJune for talks on security, confidence buildingmeasures and Kashmir.

Ireland, together with our EU partners, and theinternational community attaches the greatestimportance to these significant and positivedevelopments between India and Pakistan. Thisnew process has raised a shared hope that it willlead to progress in resolving this long-standingdispute. We hope that it will lead to improvedrelations between India and Pakistan andadvance peace and stability in the region.

The EU is ready to support both countries intheir efforts to reduce tension and to seek alasting solution to their outstanding differences,including the issue of Kashmir. Last SeptemberIreland participated in an EU Troika visit toKashmir at the level of Heads of Mission in NewDelhi. An EU Troika to Islamabad on 21October 2003, in which Ireland also participated,included a discussion of the Kashmir issue as acore element of the mission. At the fourth EU-India summit, held in New Delhi on 29 November2003, the EU welcomed recent steps andexpressed the hope that differences could beresolved peacefully through dialogue.

As Presidency, I led an EU Troika mission toIndia on 16 February and to Pakistan on 18February. The Troika welcomed the compositedialogue between Pakistan and India. It alsowelcomed the agreement of a timetable forfurther discussions with a view to reaching apeaceful settlement between the two sides on arange of issues including Kashmir. The Troikaconveyed the Union’s willingness to assist theprocess in any way considered appropriate byboth parties.

Following the Troika missions the GeneralAffairs and External Relations Council adoptedconclusions on India and Pakistan on 23February. The Council welcomed the start ofcomposite dialogue and indicated that the EU isready, at the request of the parties, to assist inappropriate manner.

The question of Kashmir is regularly discussedby officials of EU member states. EU heads ofmission in New Delhi and Islamabad alsoregularly engage with Indian and Pakistaniofficials on the issue. Ireland, along with our EUpartners, remains committed to supporting everyadvance in this critical dialogue.

State Visits.

41. Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs his views on the recent visit of the Vice-President of Colombia to Ireland; and his viewson the matters discussed with him during hisvisit. [10044/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Mr.Francisco Santos Calderon, Vice-President ofColombia, visited Ireland on 22 and 23 March aspart of a tour of a number of European countries

in preparation for the current session, from 15March to 23 April, of the UN Commission onHuman Rights in Geneva. He also wanted todiscuss overall EU relations with Colombia.

The Taoiseach, the Tanaiste and officials in myDepartment met the him during his visit. I wasunable to meet him because of my participationin the General Affairs and External RelationsCouncil on 22 March and meetings in NorthernIreland on 23 March. He also met the OireachtasJoint Committee on Foreign Affairs, a number ofnon-governmental organisations working inColombia, representatives of the Bring ThemHome campaign and family members of the threeIrishmen on trial in Colombia.

In the course of the official meetings with Vice-President Santos, the key matter for discussionwas the human rights problem in Colombia. Heoutlined the significant improvement in thesecurity situation in 2003 as evidenced by: asignificant reduction in the overall murder rate; inmurders of trade unionists and other particularlyvulnerable groups; massacres of civilians; forceddisplacements; attacks against towns; kidnappingsand hostage taking. The Vice-Presidentacknowledged that the level and frequency ofsuch grave crimes continues to be extremely high.

The Irish Government took the opportunity toimpress upon him our concern at some aspects ofthe Colombian Government’s policies, in linewith EU policy, as set out in the conclusions ofthe GAERC’s meeting on 26 January. In thecontext of the current session of the Commissionon Human Rights, we raised, inter alia, EUconcerns at the granting of judicial powers to thesecurity forces and the failure by the ColombianGovernment to implement the specificrecommendations on human rights of the UNHigh Commissioner for Human Rights.

The Taoiseach also took the opportunity of hismeeting with the Vice-President to raise the caseof the three Irishmen on trial in Colombia. Hereiterated his concern for their safety and securityand conveyed our hope that the trial would beconcluded as expeditiously as possible.


EU-Ukraine Relations.

43. Mr. Naughten asked the Minister forForeign Affairs his views on the upcoming EU-Ukraine Troika at foreign ministerial level on 30March. [9996/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): TheEU-Troika with Ukraine has been postponed. Atpresent we are actively seeking an alternativedate.

When an new date has been arranged weanticipate that the troika discussion will be wide-ranging. Key issues to be addressed are:democratic and economic reform in Ukraine;internal developments in the EU; ensuringstability and security and meeting common


[Mr. Cowen.]challenges in the European continent; andstrengthened co-operation between the EU andthe Ukraine in the European neighbourhood.

The Presidency work plan for the Ukraine wasadopted by GAERC at its meeting on 26 January.It highlights the importance of an action plan forthe Ukraine under the European NeighbourhoodPolicy. Support for the Ukraine’s integration intothe European and world economy and the furtherenhancing of EU-Ukraine co-operation in thefield of justice and home affairs are alsoimportant elements of the work plan.

The Troika meeting will offer both sides anopportunity to discuss the reform process in theUkraine. The process is a fundamental elementin the successful development of relationsbetween the EU and Ukraine. A meeting willprovide an opportunity for the Ukrainian side toupdate the EU on progress made in addressingthe concerns highlighted by the Presidency in adeclaration made on 18 March. We requestedmedia freedom and democratic standards in theUkraine. This would allow a fair presidentialelection to be held in the Ukraine in the autumn.

Death Penalty.

44. Mr. Ring asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs his views on the use of the death penaltyin Turkey; and if he will make a statement on thematter. [9998/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Thedeath penalty has not been carried out in Turkeysince 1984.

Over the past two years Turkey has enacted awide range of legislative reforms as part of itsefforts to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteriafor EU candidate countries. The third majorpackage of legislation was enacted on 9 August2002. It provided for the abolition of the deathpenalty except in times of war, the imminentthreat of war and for crimes of terrorism. Thesixth package, which entered into force on 19 July2003, removed the exemption for crimes ofterrorism.

Protocol No. 6 of the European Convention onHuman Rights deals with the abolition of thedeath penalty in times of peace. It was enacted inTurkey on 1 December 2003 followingcompletion of the ratification procedures. On 9January 2004 Turkey signed Protocol No. 13 ofthe European Convention on Human Rights thatprohibits the death penalty in all circumstances,including times of war.

The EU is opposed to the death penalty in allcases and aims at its universal abolition. TheGovernment warmly welcomes the decision ofTurkey to abolish it in all circumstances. Thisrepresents a significant step towards full respectfor European human rights standards.

EU Summits.

45. Mr. Allen asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if he will report on the outcome of the

EU Spring Summit meeting held at Brussels on25 and 26 March 2004; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [10011/04]

53. Ms Shortall asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if he will make a statement on hisparticipation in and the outcome of the SpringEuropean Council in Brussels on 25 and 26March 2004. [9921/04]


The Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance, theMinister of State for European Affairs and Iattended the European Council in Brussels on 25and 26 March 2004.

The Deputy will be aware that the Taoiseachmade a detailed statement to the Dail yesterday,30 March, 2004, on the outcome of the EuropeanCouncil. The European Council conclusions andthe declarations adopted have been forwarded tothe Oireachtas Joint Committee on EuropeanAffairs. The European Council focused on arange of issues, including the IntergovernmentalConference, terrorism, the Lisbon Strategy andthe international situation.

On the IGC, the Government’s report waswarmly welcomed by partners. The EuropeanCouncil requested the Presidency to continue itsconsultations and as soon as appropriate toarrange for the resumption of formalnegotiations. It also committed itself toagreement on the constitutional treaty no laterthan the June European Council. This is a verysignificant step forward.

The European Council discussed the EuropeanUnion’s response to the terrorist attacks inMadrid on 11 March. The Presidency broughtforward a package of measures designed toenhance the capacity of the European Union tomeet the threat of terrorism. These were adoptedby the Council as the Declaration on CombatingTerrorism, a comprehensive document whichbalances the need for effective action to protectthe security of EU citizens, including theaccelerated implementation of already agreedmeasures, with the need for a longer-termcounter-terrorism strategy. The declaration alsoincludes provision for the establishment of theposition, within the Council Secretariat, of acounter-terrorism co-ordinator. Former DutchInterior Minister and MEP, Dr. Gijs de Vries, hasbeen appointed to the role. A related Declarationon Solidarity against Terrorism, which calls onmember states to act jointly in the spirit of thesolidarity clause of the draft constitution if amember state is the victim of a terrorist attack,was also adopted by the European Council.

As Presidency, Ireland proposed to partnersthat discussion of the Lisbon strategy shouldcentre on the themes of sustainable growth andmore and better jobs. Discussions on thesustainable growth theme focused on maintainingsound macro-economic policies and promotingcompetitiveness and innovation, while ensuring


that social cohesion and environmentalsustainability would also remain centre stage.

The European Council agreed, in the contextof an overall employment strategy, that memberstates should give urgent attention to fourparticular structural challenges: adaptability,attracting more people into the labour market,improving the quality of employment andinvesting in human capital. The EuropeanCouncil agreed that a high level group would beestablished under the chairmanship of Mr. WimKok to carry out an independent review tocontribute to the mid-term review of the Lisbonstrategy next year.

The European Council also addressed anumber of important international issues. Itadopted conclusions on the Middle East peaceprocess, Iraq, the strategic partnership with theMediterranean and the Middle East, Russia, Cıted’Ivoire Afghanistan and Cyprus. It reviewed thesituation in Kosovo following the recent outbreakof ethnically motivated violence. It is essentialthat the primacy of the political process bereasserted and to this end the European Councilreiterated its full commitment to thedevelopment of a stable, democratic and multi-ethnic Kosovo as well as the EU’s continuedsupport for the work of the SpecialRepresentative of the UN Secretary General, Mr.Harri Holkeri, and the standards before statusprocess.

On Afghanistan, the European Council lookedforward to the international conference onAfghanistan, taking place in Berlin on 31 Marchand 1 April, and reaffirmed the Union’scommitment to assisting the people ofAfghanistan in the reconstruction of theircountry. The European Council also consideredthe current state of negotiations on a Cyprussettlement. It reiterated the European Union’ssupport for the UN-led negotiations andreaffirmed its readiness to accommodate theterms of a settlement in line with the principleson which the EU is founded. The EuropeanCouncil also welcomed the interim report on theEU strategic partnership with the Mediterraneanand the Middle East which was adopted byForeign Ministers at the General Affairs andExternal Relations Council the previous Monday,22 March. On the margins of the EuropeanCouncil, EU Foreign Ministers also discussed thesituation in the Middle East and the current stateof relations with Syria.

46. Mr. Naughten asked the Minister forForeign Affairs if he will report on the outcomeof a recent EU-Canada summit; and if he willmake a statement on the matter. [10030/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): TheEU-Canada Summit which took place in Ottawaon 18 March 2004 provided an opportunity todeepen our partnership across the full range offoreign policy and economic and trade issues. Thesummit meeting was divided into three parallelmeetings of Heads of State or Government,

Foreign Ministers and Trade Ministers, followedby plenary discussions on important issues suchas globalisation and multilateralism.

The outcome of the summit was very positivewith a high level of convergence on most issues.The summit identified a clear determination onboth sides to translate this convergence intotangible results. International issues such ascounter-terrorism, non-proliferation, issues in theMiddle East and the World Trade Organisationreceived significant attention. The summitadopted three important documents: the EU-Canada Partnership Agenda, the framework forthe EU-Canada Trade and InvestmentEnhancement Agreement, and a Declaration onEU-Canada relations. All three documentsencapsulate the willingness of both the EU andCanada to enhance our close relationship. I haveasked for copies to be placed in the Dail Library.

EU Presidency.

47. Mr. Hayes asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if he will report on the situation inMacedonia and if he will make a statement onthe matter. [10042/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): ThePrime Minister of the former Yugoslav Republicof Macedonia, Mr. Branko Crvenkovski, led ahigh level political delegation which visitedDublin on 22 March for the presentation of thecountry’s application for membership of theEuropean Union. The Taoiseach accepted theapplication in his capacity as President of theEuropean Council. The Government welcomethe Macedonian application and especially thepresence on this occasion of a delegation whichwas so clearly representative of the two maincommunities in the country and of the cross-partysupport for the development of closer relationswith the EU. The Taoiseach confirmed to PrimeMinister Crvenkovski that the next step will bethe consideration of the application by theCouncil of Ministers. The Council is likely torequest the European Commission to prepare aformal opinion, in line with the practice adoptedfor the application submitted by Croatia inFebruary 2003.

Deputies will be aware that Prime MinisterCrvenkovski had to cut short his earlier visit toDublin, on 26 February, because of the tragicdeath of President Boris Trajkovski in a planecrash in Bosnia. The Government have conveyedcondolences on this tragic loss. I would like topay tribute to the enormous contribution whichthe late President made to peace, stability andreconciliation in his country, and throughout theregion of the western Balkans. He was committedto his country’s European future and it was oneof his last official acts to sign the application forEU membership. Presidential elections will nowbe held on 14 April.

The EU has worked closely with the authoritiesin the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedoniato consolidate peace and stability following the


[Mr. Cowen.]conflict of 2001. That conflict was brought to anend by the Ohrid Framework Agreement,brokered by the EU. Its objective is the creationof a truly multi-ethnic Macedonia. It provides fora series of constitutional amendments tosafeguard minority rights, strengthen localgovernment and secure equitable representationfor the two main ethnic communities at all levelsin the state administration. Important progresshas been made over the past year. A census hasbeen conducted successfully, and its resultsreleased. A dozen more laws required under theAgreement have been adopted. Key draft laws ondecentralisation are currently before Parliament.The main political challenges in the period aheadwill be to ensure effective progress on the difficultbut essential issues of decentralisation andequitable representation.

The EU continues to play a central role insupport of the reform process in the country,politically, economically and in terms of security.This close co-operation is being maintainedduring Ireland’s Presidency of the EU. TheStabilisation and Association Agreement with theformer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia willformally enter into force on 1 April, the first ofthese agreements with the countries of the regionto do so. In co-operation with the MacedonianGovernment, the EU is helping to address thecontinuing security challenges in the country,through the EU police mission, Proxima, whichhas been in place since 15 December 2003.

The EU-Western Balkans summit inThessaloniki last June agreed that the future ofthe countries of the region lies in their eventualintegration in to EU structures. Progress towardsthis goal will be made through implementation ofthe detailed and wide-ranging reforms requiredunder the EU’s Stabilisation and AssociationProcess. The Macedonian application formembership of the EU is an important step forall the people of the country. The Taoiseach andPrime Minister Crvenkovski agreed last weekthat progress in the European integration processwould be directly linked to continued progress onthe full implementation of all aspects of the OhridFramework Agreement.


International Criminal Court.

49. Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister forForeign Affairs if he has had contact with the USadministration with regard to their difficulties inbecoming signatories of the statutes thatestablished the International Criminal Court; andif he will make a statement on the matter.[10018/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): TheUnited States of America signed the RomeStatute of the International Criminal Court inDecember 2000. However, in May 2002, the US

informed the Secretary General of the UnitedNations that it did not intend to become party tothe statute, and that it accordingly had noobligations arising from its signature. Theobjections of the US to the InternationalCriminal Court are based on its view that,because of the independence of the Prosecutor ofthe ICC, US citizens and in particular its militaryforces, could be subjected to politically motivatedprosecutions before the court.

As I have stated previously, while I recognisethese concerns I do not share them. Thejurisdiction of the ICC is complementary tonational jurisdictions, meaning that the court willbecome involved in a case only where a state withjurisdiction over a crime is unable or unwillinggenuinely to carry out an investigation orprosecution. The Rome Statute contains strongand carefully drafted safeguards to preventpolitically motivated prosecutions. I would alsopoint to the integrity, character and professionalqualifications of the persons who have beenelected to serve as prosecutors and judges of thecourt.

This view is shared by our EU partners. Inrecent years, approaches have been made to theUS on behalf of the EU, outlining the EUposition on the court and urging US support forit. In addition, the EU Council Conclusions onthe ICC of 30 September 2002 recall the sharedobjective of the EU and US of individualaccountability for the most serious crimes ofconcern to the international community, and callfor a broader dialogue between the EU and USon all matters relating to the ICC. I wish toreiterate my hope that, in time, the ICC will cometo enjoy universal support, based on the commoninterest of all states in seeing that the mostheinous crimes of international concern do notgo unpunished.


50. Ms Lynch asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs the matters discussed and conclusionsreached at his recent meeting in Dublin with theIsraeli Foreign Minister, Mr. Silvan Shalom; andif he will make a statement on the matter.[9904/04]

54. Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister forForeign Affairs his assessment of the Arab-Israeliconflict and the Government’s approach to thatconflict; the Government’s views on the IsraeliGovernment’s targeting of Hamas leaders forassassination; and if he will make a statement onthe matter. [10081/04]

75. Mr. Noonan asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if he will advise on the current situationin the Middle East; if he has had recent contactwith the Government of Israel; and if he willmake a statement on the matter. [9994/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Ipropose to take Questions Nos. 50, 54, and 75together.


Israeli Foreign Minister Mr. Silvan Shalomvisited Dublin on 27 February for discussions onthe Middle East Peace Process. In the course ofour discussions, he briefed me on developingIsraeli ideas on a withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.I outlined for him the five criteria which theEuropean Union Foreign Ministers had agreedon 23 February which must be fulfilled for sucha move to attract international support. For theinformation of the House, these are that it musttake place in the context of the road-map; it mustbe a step towards a two state solution; it mustnot involve a transfer of settlement activity to theWest Bank; there must be an organised andnegotiated hand-over of responsibility to thePalestinian Authority; and Israel must facilitatethe rehabilitation and reconstruction of Gaza.

We also discussed the lack of progress inimplementation of the road-map. I stressed thefact that the road-map contains all the elementswhich will have to form part of anycomprehensive peace settlement. I suggestedthat, if the first phase of the road-map wasproving too difficult to implement, then theparties should proceed by implementing a seriesof small, concrete and visible measures to buildconfidence.

The situation in the Middle East remains amajor source of concern. The cycle of violencemust be broken and a cease-fire implemented andobserved by both sides. Clearly, a policy of extra-judicial killing does nothing to help the situation.Ireland’s position on this matter was clearly setout in the statement adopted by EuropeanForeign Ministers on 22 March, the day of theYassin assassination. The situation in the MiddleEast remains a major source of concern. Thecycle of violence must be broken and a cease-fireimplemented and observed by both sides. Clearly,a policy of extra-judicial killing does nothing tohelp the situation. Ireland’s position on thismatter was clearly set out in the statementadopted by European Foreign Ministers on 22March, the day of the Yassin assassination, towhich I have referred earlier.

Foreign Conflicts.

51. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if he and his EU colleagues have reviewedthe situation in the Balkans with particularreference to recent developments there; if he hassatisfied himself that adequate resources areavailable to meet all possible eventualities; and ifhe will make a statement on the matter.[10050/04]

99. Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister forForeign Affairs the nature of the continued workof Ireland’s EU Presidency with the westernBalkans; his views on the steps towards EUmembership being taken by Croatia; and if he willmake a statement on the matter. [10017/04]

134. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister forForeign Affairs the extent to which he and hisEU colleagues can prevent further outbreaks of

violence in the Balkans; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [10287/04]

142. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister forForeign Affairs the extent to which he, throughthe EU, can prevent human rights violations inthe Balkans; and if he will make a statement onthe matter. [10296/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Ipropose to take Questions Nos. 51, 99, 134, and142 together.

During Ireland’s Presidency, the Governmentare committed to maintaining the priorityattached by the EU to the development ofrelations with the countries of the westernBalkans. The situation in the region is reviewedevery month by the General Affairs and ExternalRelations Council. The most recent meeting ofthe Council, which was chaired by me on 22March, and the European Council in Brussels on25-26 March considered recent developments inthe region, especially the situation in Kosovo andthe political situation in Serbia and Montenegro.The EU has taken the lead role in working withthe countries of the western Balkans toconsolidate peace and stability in the region, andto promote economic development and respectfor human rights and the rule of law. EUassistance to the region in support of theseobjectives will amount to \4.65 billion over theperiod 2000 to 2006.

The EU-Western Balkans Summit, which washeld in Thessaloniki last June, confirmed that thefuture of the region lies in its eventual integrationinto European structures. The achievement ofthis objective will involve the fulfilment of clearand objective political and economic criteria bythe democratically-elected Governments of thecountries of the region, under the EU’sStabilisation and Association Process. AsPresidency, Ireland will ensure that thecommitments made in the Thessaloniki agenda,which was agreed at the summit, will be fullyimplemented on the EU side. This will includethe agreement by the Council on Europeanpartnerships for each of the countries of thewestern Balkans, outlining the specific progressrequired for further movement in the integrationprocess.

The December 2003 European Councilrequested the incoming Irish Presidency andHigh Representative Solana, in co-ordinationwith the Commission, to present concreteproposals for the implementation of theEuropean security strategy in a number of areas,including the elaboration of a comprehensivepolicy towards Bosnia and Herzegovina. Work onthe comprehensive approach is going well and Iexpect that it will be considered by the GeneralAffairs and External Relations Council in June.As Presidency, Ireland is also facilitating practicalsteps for the possible transition from the NATO-led SFOR peacekeeping force in Bosnia to anEU-led force. The EU Police Mission has madegood progress in co-operation with the Bosnian


[Mr. Cowen.]authorities since it was launched in January 2003.The General Affairs and External RelationsCouncil on 23 February 2004 appointed AssistantGarda Commissioner Kevin Carty as head of thepolice mission.

Croatia formally applied for membership of theEuropean Union in February last year. TheCommission opinion on the application isexpected in the near future. The opinion will bebased on an assessment of Croatia’s progresstowards fulfilment of the Copenhagen politicalcriteria for candidate states. Issues of particularimportance in Croatia’s case will include progressin wide-ranging institutional reforms, minorityrights and the implementation of measures toenable the return of refugees who had to leavetheir homes during the conflicts of the 1990s. Theassessment of Croatia’s co-operation with theInternational Criminal Tribunal for the formerYugoslavia will be crucial. If the Commissionopinion is positive, Ireland as Presidency willfacilitate its consideration by member states witha view to a possible decision on candidate statusby the June European Council.

The Prime Minister of the former YugoslavRepublic of Macedonia, Mr. BrankoCrvenkovski, presented his country’s applicationfor EU membership to the Taoiseach in Dublinon 22 March. The next step will be for theCouncil to consider the application. It is probablethat the Council will request the Commission toprepare its formal opinion. I believe that theprogress being made by both Croatia and theformer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in theirrelations with the European Union should act asan encouragement to neighbouring countries intheir own reform processes and as a contributionto peace and stability across the region.

The situation in Kosovo has been of particularconcern in recent weeks. It has stabilisedfollowing the violence of 17 and 18 March, butremains very tense. The immediate EU reactionto the violence was to encourage the restorationof calm and to support the work of the SpecialRepresentative of the UN Secretary-General inKosovo, Mr. Harri Holkeri. The EuropeanCouncil last week reiterated the EU’scommitment to the creation of a secure,democratic and multi-ethnic Kosovo. It called onKosovo’s political leaders to take immediate,practical steps to enable the return of displacedpersons to their homes. It underlined the need forKosovo’s leaders to develop, together withUNMIK and KFOR, security and otherinstitutional arrangements to ensure theprotection of the rights of members of allcommunities in Kosovo. The European Councilreaffirmed the Union’s strong support for SpecialRepresentative Holkeri, for UNMIK, and forKFOR in their determined efforts to stabilise thesituation and to ensure the implementation ofUN Security Council Resolution 1244. Itconfirmed the EU’s support for the policy ofstandards before status.

In Serbia, a new Government, headed by PrimeMinister Vojislav Kostunica, was formed on 2March. The EU has stated clearly that it is readyto work with the new Government, on the basisof its policies and actions. The General Affairsand External Relations Council on 22 Marchurged the Government to make clear itscommitment to political and economic reformand the fulfilment of international obligations.These include full co-operation with the tribunalin The Hague, the fight against organised crime,and continued reconciliation and co-operationwith neighbouring countries. It is important thatthe Government resume co-operation with theGovernment in Montenegro on theharmonisation of the two economies of the stateunion of Serbia and Montenegro. This will enablefurther progress towards the completion of theCommission’s feasibility study on the possibleopening of negotiations with Serbia andMontenegro for a Stabilisation and AssociationAgreement.

EU Presidency.

52. Mr. P. McGrath asked the Minister forForeign Affairs when the next ASEM meetingwill take place; the agenda for this meeting; theviews that the Asia member states of ASEM havecommunicated to EU member states of ASEMregarding the political situation in Burma; and ifhe will make a statement on the matter.[10047/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): AsEU Presidency, Ireland will host the 6th meetingof ASEM Foreign Ministers on 17 and 18 April2004. ASEM, the Asia-Europe Meeting, is aninformal multilateral process of dialogue and co-operation, bringing together the 15 EU memberstates and the European Commission, with tenAsian countries — Brunei, China, Indonesia,Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines,Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.

The ASEM process was established in 1996 asa forum for informal dialogue between Europeanand Asian partners to facilitate an open exchangeof views and discussion of political, economic andcultural issues of concern to the two regions. Itwas formed with the objective of strengtheningthe relationship between Europe and Asia, in aspirit of mutual respect and equal partnership.ASEM has now grown into a process of ongoingand useful dialogue, which includes summit-levelmeetings every second year, annual meetings ofForeign and Finance Ministers, and a range ofmeetings and activities at official level across thethree ASEM pillars.

At our April meeting, discussions will rangeacross the three pillars on which the ASEMprocess is based — political, economic andcultural. This will provide a very usefulopportunity for open exchanges across the widerange of issues of concern to Asian and Europeanpartners. Along with current regional andinternational issues, the working methods and the


future membership of the ASEM process will bethe principal items for discussion by Ministers.ASEM provides a unique and very useful forumfor open dialogue with our Asian partners,particularly on issues such as Burma-Myanmarwhich continue to be of serious concern to theinternational community.

Our Asian partners continue to emphasisetheir preference for engagement with theBurmese regime, rather than its internationalisolation, and for this reason continue to pressstrongly for Burma to be accepted as a memberof ASEM as soon as possible, along with the tenEU accession states, Laos and Cambodia. Whilethey stress that the situation in Burma is aninternal matter, and as such should not be subjectto undue outside interference, our contacts withAsian partners on this question have illustratedthat we share common goals — the return ofdemocracy to Burma, an end to human rightsviolations, and the realisation of peace andprosperity for the long suffering people of Burma.The visit to Burma from 3-5 March 2004 of theSpecial Envoy of the UN Secretary General, Mr.Razali, was a step in the right direction, and it isimportant that his access to Burma and to AungSan Suu Kyi continues. It is encouraging that ourAsian partners are making active efforts to bringBurma towards democracy and reconciliation. Irefer in particular to the Bangkok process, thefirst meeting of which was held on 15 December2003, and I look forward to further progress inthis regard.




EU Presidency.

56. Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if the Government will be represented atthe Euro-Arab Parliamentary Dialogue Meetingin Tunisia in April 2004; and if so, the form andcomposition of the representation. [9897/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): TheGovernment has not received an invitation toparticipate in this meeting. I understand,however, that the Oireachtas had been invited toparticipate and that a decision had been taken bythe relevant Committees of the Oireachtas to doso. However, the latest information is that thismeeting has now been postponed from itsplanned date of 27-28 April and that a new datehas not yet been arranged. The Government ofcourse welcomes any meeting which enhancesdialogue between Europe and the Arab world,and hopes that the meeting will go ahead as soonas possible.

EU Enlargement.

57. Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if he will provide an update on theplanned date for the accession of Romania andBulgaria to the European Union; and if he willmake a statement on the matter. [10037/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): TheEuropean Council in December 2003 emphasisedthe continuity and irreversibility of the ongoingenlargement process of which Bulgaria andRomania form an integral part. Over the pastyear, these countries have significantly takenforward their preparations for membership,which is reflected in the well-advanced state oftheir accession negotiations. To date, Bulgariahas closed 26 negotiation chapters and Romaniahas closed 22. The Union’s objective is toconclude negotiations with both countries in2004, sign the Accession Treaty in 2005 and thatthe two countries should accede in January 2007,if they are ready. Negotiations will be concludedon the same basis and principles applied to theten acceding states.

The March session of the General Affairs andExternal Relations Council secured agreementamong member states on an overall financialpackage for the accession of Bulgaria andRomania. Reaching agreement at this early stagerepresented an important step forward in thenegotiations. The Commission will now preparenegotiating positions for the finance-relatedchapters, which are expected to be broughtforward in the coming weeks. As Presidency,Ireland is endeavouring to advance negotiationsas rapidly as possible, in line with the clearpolitical mandate given by the DecemberEuropean Council.


EU Presidency.

59. Ms Enright asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if he will be attending the ceremonies tobe held in Kigali, Rwanda in April 2004 to markthe tenth anniversary of genocide in that country;if Ireland’s Presidency of the European Unionwill mark this date appropriately; and if he willmake a statement on the matter. [10025/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Iintend to travel to Kigali on 7 April 2004 in orderto attend the ceremonies which the Governmentof Rwanda has organised to commemorate thetenth anniversary of the horrific genocide inRwanda. The date of 7 April 2004 has beendesignated by the United Nations GeneralAssembly as the International Day of Reflectionon the Genocide in Rwanda and I believe it isimportant for the European Union to beappropriately represented at the commemorationceremonies in order to demonstrate the Union’ssolidarity with the people of Rwanda and withthe victims of the genocide. The scale of the


[Mr. Cowen.]brutality and horror which occurred at this timemust never be forgotten.

As President of the Council of ForeignMinisters, I will address the maincommemoration ceremony in Kigali on 7 Aprilon behalf of the European Union. It is also thePresidency’s intention to issue a declaration bythe European Union to mark the anniversary.This declaration will state the European Union’sintention that crimes against humanity such asoccurred in Rwanda in 1994 must never again betolerated or allowed occur without prompt activeintervention by the international community. Iwill also refer in my statement to the majorefforts which are being undertaken during ourPresidency to improve the EU’s capacities in thearea of early warning and conflict prevention andwhich are designed to try and prevent a re-occurrence of the kind of atrocities perpetratedin Rwanda in 1994.

Shannon Airport.

60. Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if he will report on his statement inOttawa in March 2004 concerning the use ofShannon Airport by US troops; and if he willmake a statement on the matter. [10076/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Ithink that the Deputy may be referring to areport of an interview, published in The IrishTimes newspaper on 19 March 2004, which I gaveduring the course of a visit to Canada. In thisinterview, I stated, in the context of the issue ofthe use of Shannon airport by the US military,that the Government makes its decisions on thebasis of its assessments of what, in an overallcontext, is in the best interests of the country. Ialso repeated the view of the Government thatwe cannot allow the fear of terrorism to dictateour arrangements with other countries.

EU Membership.

61. Mr. J. Bruton asked the Minister forForeign Affairs if Turkey fulfils the Copenhagencriteria for membership of the European Union;and if not, the respects in which it is deficient.[9558/04]

101. Mr. O’Dowd asked the Minister forForeign Affairs his views on the remarksattributed to the European Commission InternalMarket Commissioner that Turkey should act asa buffer to Iran, Iraq and Syria for the EuropeanUnion, and should not be given membership ofthe EU for that reason; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [10033/04]


The Helsinki European Council in December1999 decided that Turkey is a candidate countrydestined to join the European Union on the basisof the same criteria applied to other candidate

states. The Copenhagen European Council inDecember 2002 made the clear commitment thatif the European Council meeting in December2004 decides that Turkey has fulfilled theCopenhagen political criteria, the EU will openaccession negotiations without delay. Thesepolitical criteria require a candidate country tohave achieved stability of institutionsguaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, humanrights and respect for and protection ofminorities. The decision to be taken in Decemberwill be on the basis of a report andrecommendation by the Commission. It will bethe result of a transparent process, based on anobjective assessment prepared in co-operationwith Turkey throughout this year, under theterms of the revised Accession Partnershipbetween the EU and Turkey.

The Government has welcomed theremarkable progress made by Turkey over thepast two years in legislating for wide-rangingreforms. Further legislative reform is expectedover the coming months. The EU continues toencourage Turkey to pursue the full and effectiveimplementation of the reforms. The Governmenthas maintained regular contact with the TurkishGovernment in relation to internal reforms andinternational developments. Representing theIrish Presidency, I led an EU Ministerial Troikawhich visited Ankara on 8 March for meetingswith Prime Minister Erdogan and ForeignMinister Gul. Discussions focused on the reformprocess, with a particular emphasis on the fiveareas highlighted for further action by theEuropean Council in December 2003. Theseconcern the independence and functioning of thejudiciary, the exercise of fundamental freedoms,civil-military relations, cultural rights and thesituation in south-east Turkey. The EU welcomedthe progress made by Turkey to date in legislatingfor reform. I and my colleagues emphasised thata central element in the assessment to be madeby the European Council in December will be theeffective implementation of the legislativereforms at all levels of the administration andthroughout the country. Prime Minister Erdoganand Foreign Minister Gul confirmed that theprimary goal of the Turkish Government was tofulfil the Copenhagen political criteria byDecember 2004.

I have seen the media reports of negativeremarks attributed to Commissioner Bolkesteinearlier this month on the prospects for Turkey’saccession to the EU. I have also notedsubsequent reports that the Commissioner statedin the Dutch Parliament on 18 March that heforesaw the possibility of Turkish accessionaround 2016. In line with the commitments givenby the European Council, the Government takethe view that if the December European Councildecides that Turkey has fulfilled the Copenhagenpolitical criteria, the EU will open accessionnegotiations without delay.



62. Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs the progress made to date with regard tothe review of the Good Friday Agreement; theGovernment’s priorities for the review; the lengthof time he expects the process to take; and if hewill make a statement on the matter. [9909/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen):Since the review of the operation of the GoodFriday Agreement was convened on 3 February2004, we have had the opportunity to meet withall the political parties elected to the NorthernIreland Assembly. Over the last few weeks, inpartnership with the British Government, I havemet with the parties on a number of occasions todiscuss all aspects of the operation of theAgreement and to collectively examine ways toresolve the outstanding issues. On 9 February,Secretary of State, Paul Murphy MP, and I metwith Alliance, Sinn Fein, the SDLP, the DUP andthe UUP. In all of our meetings, we discussed abroad range of issues, including institutionalmatters. However, as the DUP have yet to bringforward their proposals on strands 2 and 3, wehave not yet had an opportunity to discuss thesematters in detail with them. Secretary of StateMurphy also updated me on the Strand Onemeetings that had taken place the previous day.

Following the alleged abduction of a man inBelfast on 20 February, the review meetings on24 February and 2 March focused primarily onparamilitary activity. Following discussions withall the parties, both Governments asked theIndependent Monitoring Commission to bringforward its first report, from July to May,covering all paramilitary activities since itsestablishment in early January. The commissionsubsequently indicated that the report would bepresented to both Governments in early April.On 9 March, I met with Secretary of StateMurphy in Stormont to review developments. Onthat day, I also met with a DUP delegation andwith Mark Durkan, MLA, Leader of the SDLP.

On 26 March, both Governments wrote to theparties, requesting them to submit, by 8 April,further proposals in relation to the operation ofthe Agreement which they would like to discussas part of the review process. Both Governmentswill, in the light of these submissions, makeproposals for the time-tabling of further reviewdiscussions.

Development Aid.

63. Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs his views on the proposed linkage by theEU of developing states’ efforts in the war againstterrorism with receipt of EU development aidagreed at the EU Foreign Ministers meeting on22 March 2004; and if he will make a statementon the matter. [10079/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen):There is nothing in the Declaration onCombating Terrorism, adopted at the European

Council on 25 March 2004, which states thatreceipt of EU development aid will be directlylinked to developing states’ efforts in combatingterrorism. Section 12 of the declaration, oninternational co-operation, commits theEuropean Union to ensuring effective andpractical co-operation with third countriesthrough the “Development of technical assistancestrategies, to facilitate vulnerable third countriesin enhancing their counter-terrorism capability,and by addressing counter-terrorism concernsinto all relevant external assistance programmesto promote good governance and the rule of law”.

There is no implication in this to suggest thatreceipt of EU development aid would in any waybe linked with states’ efforts to combat terrorism.Rather, the EU is committed to providingassistance to enhance counter-terrorist capacityto those states which require it. The EU, throughthe European Commission, is already pursuingthis strategy in a number of third countries on apilot basis, pursuant to its obligations underUNSCR 1373, 2001. At the same time assistancewill be provided to promote good governance inan attempt to deal with some of the root causesof terrorism, an essential step in the eliminationof terrorist violence. Such assistance will be basedon the continuing centrality of poverty reductionand of local ownership of developmentprogrammes.

The declaration also sets out, in Annex I, sevenstrategic objectives which will form the basis of anew EU plan of action to combat terrorism to bebrought to the European Council in June. TheCouncil has committed, under objective 7, “totarget actions under EU external relationstowards priority Third Countries where counterterrorist capacity or commitment to combatingterrorism needs to be enhanced”. Inimplementing this objective it is proposed to“mainstream counter-terrorist objectives into thework of the geographical working groups andexternal assistance programmes”. Specificmeasures to achieve this objective will beincluded in the new plan of action to combatterrorism, to be brought before the JuneEuropean Council.

The declaration does not mean, in any sense,that the provision of development aid would becontingent on a state’s compliance withinternational counter-terrorism obligations.Rather, the EU will ensure that inter alia accountis taken of counter-terrorist concerns in thedevelopment of assistance programmes to thirdcountries, including technical assistanceprogrammes such as those designed to enhanceborder controls or police and judicial systems, orbroader programmes designed to promote goodgovernance and the rule of law.



65. Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for


[Mr. Broughan.]Foreign Affairs the initiatives the Government isproposing to take to assist the ending of slavery,bonded labour, and particularly child slavery; thetalks that have taken place with othergovernments and institutions in this regard; andif he will make a statement on the matter.[9895/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): TheGovernment is committed to the activepromotion of full observance of universal humanrights standards, and opposes and seeks theelimination of all forms of contemporary slavery,including bonded labour. Through ourparticipation in international fora such as the UNGeneral Assembly, the UN Commission onHuman Rights, the Council of Europe and theOrganisation for Security and Co-operation inEurope, OSCE, we raise our concerns in regardto this issue together with like-minded countries.At the current session of the Commission onHuman Rights, 15 March-23 April, we will delivera Presidency statement on contemporary forms ofslavery in which the EU will urge all states toprioritise the eradication of all contemporaryforms of slavery and to ensure that the humanrights of victims are upheld at all times.

Ireland has consistently supported theInternational Labour Organisation in its effortsto promote core labour standards. In June 1998,Ireland supported the adoption by theInternational Labour Conference of a declarationon fundamental principles and rights at work.This commits the International LabourOrganisation’s 175 member states world-wide torespect the principles inherent in the core labourstandards and to promote their universalapplication. Ireland has ratified all of the sevencore labour standards.

This declaration emphasises that all memberstates of the International Labour Organisationhave an obligation, arising from the very fact ofmembership of the organisation, to respect, topromote, and to realise, in good faith and inaccordance with the constitution of theInternational Labour Organisation, the principlesconcerning the fundamental rights which aresubject to those conventions. These principlesinclude the elimination of all forced orcompulsory labour and the effective abolition ofchild labour. In June 1999, the InternationalLabour Conference adopted Convention 182concerning the prohibition and immediate actionfor the elimination of the worst forms of childlabour. Ireland ratified the convention on 20December 1999 and was the first EuropeanUnion country to do so.

The Deputy will also be aware of the prioritythe Government has attached to “children andarmed conflict” and “human rights defenders” aspart of the EU Presidency. The issues of childrenand armed conflict and slavery are closely linkedand the role of human rights defenders inhighlighting instances of slavery and bondedlabour is vital in focusing national and

international attention. We are currentlyoverseeing the satisfactory progress of theimplementation of EU guidelines on children andarmed conflict and EU partners have beencirculated with a paper on draft EU guidelines forthe support of human rights defenders.


Foreign Conflicts.

67. Mr. English asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if he will provide an update on the currentpolitical situation in the Democratic Republic ofthe Congo; and if he will make a statement onthe matter. [10001/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen):While the peace process in the DRC continues totake hold and remains largely on track, there aresome concerns that the pace of implementationof the transition process provided for under theSun City peace accords needs to be stepped up,with a view to meeting the goal of nation-wideelections and the election of a new governmentin 2005. The European Union, in a declarationissued on 18 March 2004, has urged theTransitional National Government led byPresident Kabila to speed up its decision-makingprocess and enact the necessary legislativemeasures to get the transition process back ontrack, including enactment of electoral laws,faster reform of the justice and security sectors,and appointment of a national co-ordinator toassist with implementation of the necessary DDR— disarmament, demobilisation andreintegration — process.

The recent delays in implementation of thetransition process have also been accompanied byan increase in security and political tensions inthe eastern DRC. There have also been reportsof an attempted coup against the transitionalnational Government in Kinshasa in recent daysthough this has been successfully averted. Thedeclaration issued by the Irish Presidency on 18March has made clear the European Union’sserious concerns at the deteriorating securitysituation in eastern DRC and the continuingreports of human rights violations and atrocitiesinflicted on the civilian population in Ituri, Northand South Kivu and Katanga. We have calledupon all those still engaging in violence toforswear disorder, show consideration for thepopulation and commit themselves irrevocably tothe peace process.

The European Union has also once again urgedthe transitional Government in Kinshasa to takeevery possible measure to re-establish andconsolidate its authority throughout the territoryof the DRC and to hasten the process of creatingan integrated national army and police force. Inthis regard, the EU is providing support, in a two-phase project, towards the establishment of anintegrated police unit in Kinshasa, with the


emphasis in the initial phase on training andrehabilitation of the training infrastructure.

The European Union has already made asubstantial contribution to restoring peace andsecurity in eastern DRC through deployment ofthe EU-led emergency multinational force,Operation Artemis, to the town of Bunia in Iturilast June. Operation Artemis, the first EUoperation to undertake implementation ofPetersberg tasks outside Europe, was deployed atthe request of the United Nations SecretaryGeneral and on foot of UN Security CouncilResolution 1484. In September, OperationArtemis handed over control of Bunia to astrengthened United Nations Mission in theDRC, MONUC, having fulfilled its mandate ofrestoring stability to the town. Irelandcontributed five army officers to OperationArtemis and a proportionate share of the costs.Ireland is currently providing two army officerswho serve as military observers with MONUC.

The European Union will also, in line with thedecision adopted by the General Affairs andExternal Relations Council at its meeting lastweek, proceed with the practice which it hasfollowed for a number of years of putting forwarda resolution on the human rights situation in theDRC at the current 60th session of theCommission on Human Rights in Geneva.

Ireland fully intends to sustain the positiveengagement of the EU in the DRC and the GreatLakes region during our Presidency. We willwork to prepare the proposed Great Lakesconference which is currently scheduled to takeplace in November 2004. The conference willfocus on peace, security, democracy anddevelopment in the Great Lakes region and willbe held under the auspices of the African Unionand the UN.

As further evidence of Ireland’s commitmentto the DRC, we will ensure that the office of theEU special representative to the Great Lakesregion is utilised to the full in promoting EUpolicy in the region. In addition, my Departmentcontinues to avail itself of bilateral meetings withregional and pan-African parties to stressIreland’s support for the peace process in theDRC and to encourage others to support fully thetransitional institutions in that country.

The Government will also continue itsconstructive engagement in providing substantialhumanitarian assistance in response to theenormous suffering caused by conflict and naturaldisasters in the DRC. Development Co-operationIreland, DCI, has delivered over \5.5 million inemergency and recovery humanitarian aid for thepeople of the DRC since 2000, while a furtherestimated \1.1 million will be made availableunder DCI’s multi-annual programme scheme.


Airspace Regulation.

69. Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for

Foreign Affairs if the US Air Force will bepatrolling Irish airspace during President Bush’svisit here; if so, will special legislation requiredfor foreign aircraft to police Irish airspace; and ifhe will make a statement on the matter [9305/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen):Permission for foreign military aircraft to fly inIrish airspace is regulated by the Air Navigation(Foreign Military Aircraft) Order, 1952, whichstipulates that foreign military aircraft may onlyfly in Irish airspace at the invitation of, or withthe permission of, the Minister for ForeignAffairs. No such request has been received inrespect of the forthcoming visit of PresidentBush.

Foreign Conflicts.

70. Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if any report has been received from theauthorities in Burundi regarding thecircumstances of the murder of ArchbishopMichael Courtney; the progress that has beenmade with regard to efforts to bring thoseresponsible to justice; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [9916/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): TheGovernment was presented with a report on theinvestigation conducted by the Burundianauthorities into the murder of ArchbishopCourtney when I met with Foreign MinisterSinunguruza during his visit to Dublin on 9February. This report, which was also presentedsimultaneously to the Holy See, has beenprovided in confidence both to the Governmentand to the Holy See. Foreign MinisterSinunguruza also met with the family ofArchbishop Courtney during his visit to briefthem on the circumstances of the Archbishop’smurder and to present a posthumous award onbehalf of the Government and people of Burundi.

As the Deputy will be aware, arising from theinvestigation by the Burundian authorities, anindividual has now been apprehended and is incustody on suspicion of possible involvement inthe ambush which resulted in ArchbishopCourtney’s murder. Legal proceedings against theindividual are now pending. I also understandthat the Burundian authorities are continuing topursue others who they believe may have beeninvolved in the ambush.

No information is as yet available as regardswhen the trial of the individual in custody is likelyto take place. However, the Government iscontinuing to monitor closely the situation andfurther information may be provided on the casewhen I visit Burundi on 8 April.


71. Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister forForeign Affairs the steps that he will take duringIreland’s Presidency of the European Union toaddress international concerns with regard tohuman rights abuses in West Papua; his views on


[Mr. G. Mitchell.]the campaign to revisit the act of free choicedecision; and if he will make a statement on thematter. [9989/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Atthe April 2003 meeting of the EU ExternalRelations Council, Ireland, together with our EUpartners, adopted revised Council Conclusions onIndonesia, confirming the EU’s support for theterritorial integrity of Indonesia. The EuropeanUnion welcomes the progress Indonesia hasmade in its democratic reform process andrecognises the importance of the 2004 elections.The EU notes the Indonesian Government hastaken steps to punish members of the securityforces responsible for human rights violations.While acknowledging Indonesia’s legitimateconcern to preserve its territorial integrity, weencourage the Government to strengthen itsefforts to protect human rights and put an end tohuman rights violations occurring in particular inAceh and Papua, such as extra-judicialexecutions, disappearances and torture.Indonesia should take all necessary measures toensure the safety of civilians, human rightsdefenders, humanitarian workers and politicalactivists.

I will meet with the Indonesian ForeignMinister, Mr. Wirajuda, at an EU ministerialmeeting in troika format, to be held in themargins of the ASEM Foreign Ministers’meeting, which I will host in Kildare from 17 to18 April 2004. Among the matters to be discussedat this meeting will be the situation in Papua,including human rights. This will be anopportunity for the EU to express its concernsabout the situation there.

I am aware that 88 Deputies, from all parties,have signed a letter to the Secretary General ofthe United Nations, supporting a call for theUnited Nations to review its role in the Act ofFree Choice in Papua in 1969. As I have statedpreviously, the question of a review of the UN’sconduct in relation to the Act of Free Choice inPapua, would require the support of UN memberstates. Inquiries, made at my request by ourpermanent representative to the UN, confirmthat, at present, there is no significant support forsuch an initiative. There is, moreover, concernthat such an approach might prejudice on-goingefforts to initiate a meaningful dialogue with theGovernment in Jakarta, and would not contributeto the amelioration of the current situation of thePapuan people.

Officials of my Department continue to meetregularly with representatives of the West PapuaAction Group. On 25 March 2004, they met withMr. John Rumbiak, a human rights advocate ofthe Papua-based Institute for Human RightsStudy and Advocacy, ELSHAM, Mr. ViktorKaisiepo, the European Spokesperson, PapuaPresidium Council, PDP, and Dr. John OttoOndawame, of the West Papua People’sRepresentative Office, who briefed them on thecampaign.

The Government continues to monitor closelythe situation in Papua, and encourages theauthorities in Indonesia to act with full regard tothe interests of the people of Papua. Ireland,together with our EU partners, will continue tosupport the development of a strengthenedpartnership and effective dialogue between theEU and Indonesia. The Government sees this asthe most effective framework at this time foraddressing our serious concerns about thesituation in Papua.

Foreign Conflicts.

72. Mr. Kenny asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs his views on the political and securitysituation in Afghanistan; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [10035/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): On17 February 2004, as President of the Council ofMinisters, I led an EU Troika mission toAfghanistan, during which separate meetingswere held with President Karzai and with ForeignMinister Abdullah. The Troika expressed to itsAfghan interlocutors the great importance thatthe EU attaches to achieving progress in thereconstruction of Afghanistan and the Union’scommitment to working with the Afghangovernment and people in the period ahead. TheTroika congratulated the President on theadoption of a new constitution and discussed thenext stages of Afghanistan’s development,including political and security issues.

Elections this year in Afghanistan willconstitute the next and final step inimplementation of the agreement onarrangements for the re-establishment ofpermanent Government institutions inaccordance with the Bonn Agreement ofDecember 2001. During the Troika, I confirmedthat the EU is prepared to send an electoralobservation mission and, as a first step, anexploratory mission. The exploratory missionreturned last week and a report of its conclusionsis awaited. In order for elections to be credible,a successful registration process is needed, and astable security environment. As the House will beaware, President Karzai has announced in recentdays that presidential and parliamentary electionswill take place next September.

Stabilising the security situation in Afghanistanis essential for creating an environmentconducive to dealing with all the other pressingissues, such as counter-narcotics, reconstructionand the electoral process. The expansion of theinternational security assistance force, ISAF,under the authority of the United NationsSecurity Council, is a demonstration of theinternational community’s commitment toAfghanistan and will play a key role in assistingthe Afghan Transitional Authority in providingsecurity for the electoral process. At the sametime, security is a shared responsibility, and it isimportant that the Afghan Government approvesand implements a comprehensive national


security framework, and that both the army andthe Ministry of Defence be more representativeand reflect the multi-ethnic composition ofAfghanistan.

It is important that all irregular forces aredisarmed and demobilised or integrated into thenational army. I welcome the steps already takentowards this end, but more needs to be done sothat the future Afghan Government has unifiedarmed forces at its disposal.

Ireland, together with our EU partners, fullysupports President Karzai’s uncompromisingstance on the illicit cultivation of and traffickingin drugs. It is vital that the internationalcommunity and the Afghan people work togetherto eliminate Ireland, together with our EUpartners, fully supports President Karzai’suncompromising stance on the illicit cultivationof and trafficking in drugs. It is vital that theinternational community and the Afghan peoplework together to eliminate the production,trafficking and consumption of opium inparticular. During the Troika meeting withPresident Karzai on 17 February 2004, wediscussed the importance of increasing the risk ofpenalty to producers and traffickers to preventillicit narcotics activity in Afghanistan.

I will attend the conference, Afghanistan andthe International Community — A Partnershipfor the Future, which takes place in Berlin from31 March to 1 April 2004. The conference willprovide a welcome opportunity to review theachievements of the Afghan TransitionalAuthority and of the international community inthe reconstruction of Afghanistan. Theconference will also ensure, beyond the Bonnprocess, that Afghanistan’s developmentrequirements will continue to be addressed.

The EU has made a strong commitment to thefuture stability and development of Afghanistan,and the European Commission has recentlysigned a \79.5 million aid package to support theongoing reconstruction of the country. Takingtogether contributions from member states andthe Community budget, the EU provided over\850 million in 2002 and \835 million in 2003 tohelp Afghanistan. At the InternationalConference on Reconstruction Assistance toAfghanistan, which took place in Tokyo on 21January 2002, Ireland pledged \12 million inreconstruction assistance to Afghanistan overthree years. I am pleased to note that this hasnow been fully disbursed.

As Presidency, I will deliver a statement at theconference on behalf of the EU and its memberstates. The statement will emphasise the EU’scontinuing firm commitment to thereconstruction of Afghanistan and underline thefact that the EU will continue to be one of themajor donors towards these costs.

There is a small number of Irish NGOs andindividuals who are performing selfless work inadvancing Afghanistan’s reconstruction,sometimes in dangerous circumstances. I metsome of them when I was in Kabul. I would like

to record before the House how much we allappreciate their endeavours.



74. Mr. Allen asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if he will report on the political andsecurity situation in Burundi; his views on arecent Amnesty International report on Burundiconcerning human rights abuses in the country, inparticular the incidence of rape; and if he willmake a statement on the matter. [9983/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen):There has been significant political progress inBurundi since the signing of the Arusha peaceaccords in August 2000 and the overall prospectsfor peace have probably not been as strong in avery long time. Peace agreements concludedbetween the transitional national Governmentand the CNDD-FDD movement in November2003 mean that there is now only one armedgroup, the FNL, continuing to oppose the peaceprocess. Efforts are continuing to urge the FNLto resume peace negotiations with thegovernment which had begun in January but havesince been suspended. As EU Presidency, wehave made clear the EU’s full support for thecurrent peace efforts and have also called for allsides to conclude a ceasefire and for the FNL toabandon its military campaign and commit fullyto the peace process.

The efforts to achieve a comprehensive andlasting peace agreement in Burundi have gainedrenewed momentum since the tragic murder ofArchbishop Michael Courtney, the Papal Nuncioto Burundi, on 29 December 2003. The UNSecretary General has now recommendeddeployment of a UN peace-keeping mission inBurundi to oversee the remaining period of thetransition up until the holding of schedulednational elections at the end of October. Ireland,as EU Presidency, has remained very closelyengaged in the Burundian peace process and hashad a series of contacts with the BurundianGovernment since the murder of ArchbishopCourtney, most recently when I met with ForeignMinister Sinunguruza in Dublin on 9 February2004. I will be visiting Burundi on 8 April forfurther consultations on the peace process and todemonstrate the EU’s full support for the effortsunderway to achieve a lasting peace settlement.

The need to ensure full respect for humanrights and to bring to justice those responsible forthe very serious incidents of rape and otherhuman rights abuses which AmnestyInternational have documented in their recentreport, clearly represents an imperative for thetransitional national government as they seek tore-build Burundi following a decade of conflict.The Arusha peace accords of 2000 contain veryclear provisions for tackling impunity,safeguarding human rights and ensuring measures


[Mr. Cowen.]are in place to guard against any re-occurrenceof genocide, war crimes or other crimes againsthumanity. It is necessary for the internationalcommunity to maintain pressure on theTransitional National Government to ensurethese provisions are enacted. Ratification of theStatute of the International Criminal Court byBurundi is also a step which would offerassurance of justice to all those who have sufferedhuman rights abuses during the latter years of theconflict in Burundi. It is my intention to raisethese points with the Burundian Governmentduring my forthcoming visit.

I also welcome that a significant human rightscomponent has been included in the mandate forthe proposed UN peace-keeping operation inBurundi which the UN Secretary General hasnow recommended and which the UN SecurityCouncil is currently considering.



76. Ms McManus asked the Minister forForeign Affairs the discussions he has had withthe British authorities regarding the implicationsfor the Agreement between the Government ofthe United Kingdom and the Government ofIreland concluded in Belfast on Good Friday1998 of the Government’s proposals to amend theConstitution in regard to the right of citizenship;and if he will make a statement on the matter.[9891/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): TheGovernment has approved the preparation of aBill to amend the Constitution and of a draftimplementing Bill regarding the entitlement tocitizenship of persons born in Ireland to non-nationals who do not have a substantialconnection with the State. No formal discussionshave taken place with the British authorities onthis subject to date.

Foreign Conflicts.

77. Mr. Perry asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if he will detail the current situation inLiberia; and if he will make a statement on thematter. [10002/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen):Despite recent improvements in the securitysituation in UN controlled areas and progress inthe implementation of the comprehensive peaceagreement, the peace process remains fragile.Monrovia is now a weapons free zone but thesituation is less stable in areas outside the capital.Sporadic outbreaks of fighting in rebelstrongholds highlight the need for acomprehensive process of disarmament,demobilisation and reintegration. On 27December 2003, UN troops deployed in rebelterritory outside Monrovia for the first time and

the effects have been immediate, with thousandsof refugees returning from Sierra Leone.

A United Nations Mission in Liberia —UNMIL — programme of disarmament,demobilisation and rehabilitation — DDR — forrebel groups was suspended shortly after itslaunch in early December. It has beenacknowledged generally that UNMIL did nothave the capacity at the time to cope with thehuge demand for DDR among former rebelsoldiers, of which there are an estimated 53,000.The programme will resume once UNMIL hasdeployed throughout Liberia, possibly in April.In the meantime, a public awareness campaign onDDR has been launched.

On 5 and 6 February 2004, the Liberiareconstruction conference was held in New York.The Minister of State at the Department ofForeign Affairs, Deputy Tom Kitt, representedthe European Union and announced $200 millionin EU assistance, as well as a further \5 millionin funding from Ireland. In total, the conferencereceived pledges for Liberia in excess of $500million. The Minister of State welcomed theestablishment of the United Nations Mission inLiberia and stressed that no progress could bemade in Liberia without the timelyimplementation of UNMIL’s mandate. He urgedthe international community to set realistictargets for Liberia adding that the challengesfacing the country are enormous.

The comprehensive peace agreement wasbrokered commendably by the regionalorganisation, the Economic Community of WestAfrican States, ECOWAS, on 18 August 2003,and has been endorsed by the United NationsSecurity Council. Mr. Gyude Bryant will serve aschairman of the transitional Government untilparliamentary and presidential elections are heldbefore the end of 2005. On taking office, Mr.Bryant pledged to introduce transparency ingovernment and respect for human rights. TheIrish Government was represented at theinauguration of the Liberian transitionalGovernment in Monrovia on October 14 by mycolleague, the Minister of State, Deputy TomKitt.

The Government has deployed a contingent ofthe Permanent Defence Forces to participate inthe UN peacekeeping mission, UNMIL. The Irishcontingent comprises a motorised infantrybattalion of some 430 personnel, including thedeployment of a small number of personnel atforce headquarters in Monrovia. TheGovernment is of the view that the deploymentof UNMIL is critically important in supportingthe implementation of the comprehensive peaceagreement and for the political and economicrecovery of Liberia.


78. Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Minister forForeign Affairs the position with regard todiscussions on the future of Northern Ireland, inparticular on the decommissioning of all


remaining weaponry; and the prospects forgetting the institutions operational in the shortterm. [10126/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Inall our recent discussions with the political partieselected to the Northern Ireland Assembly, wehave made it clear that for progress to beachieved on a sustainable basis, we need to seethe operation of stable inclusive politicalinstitutions, with a definitive end to all forms ofparamilitarism. In partnership with the BritishGovernment and the political parties, we remainfirmly committed to resolving these key issuesand to the full implementation of the GoodFriday Agreement.

The Agreement contains a commitment to thedecommissioning of illegally held arms in thepossession of paramilitary groups. The fulfilmentof that commitment is an indispensable elementof the Good Friday Agreement. BothGovernments have welcomed the three acts ofIRA decommissioning, verified by theIndependent International Commission onDecommissioning, which have taken place todate. In addition, paragraph 13 of the JointDeclaration sets out detailed requirements inrelation to the cessation of all forms ofparamilitary activity. We will continue to avail ofevery opportunity to engage with the parties toensure that paramilitarism from all quarters isbrought to an end and that the process ofdecommissioning is advanced to completion.

We are conscious that other commitmentsunder the Agreement must be met as part of itsoverall implementation, particularly in the areasof institutional stability, policing, equality andhuman rights. In this regard, we are working withall the parties to find a context in which thepower sharing political institutions can berestored on a sustainable basis and, with theBritish Government, will continue to advance theimplementation of the non-institutional aspects ofthe Agreement.



80. Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister forForeign Affairs his views on a recently publishedAmnesty International report entitled, HumanRights Begin at Home — Recommendations toIreland’s EU Presidency; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [10016/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Ihave received a copy of the AmnestyInternational report, Human Rights Begin atHome. The Government values the contributionthat Amnesty International makes to furtheringthe cause of promoting and protecting humanrights internationally and will give appropriateweight to the recommendations contained in thereport.

The report calls for the European Union totake effective leadership in putting into practiceits human rights policies at home and outside theUnion. As the Deputy is aware, support forhuman rights is a core value which underpins theEuropean Union and is a priority of the IrishPresidency. The EU is a community of sharedvalues, founded on the principles of liberty,democracy, respect for human rights andfundamental freedoms, and the rule of law. Theseprinciples come from the constitutional traditionsand international obligations common to themember states of the Union.

The protection and the promotion of humanrights not only constitute defining principles ofthe EU, but also form part of Communitylegislation. They were explicitly incorporated intoand stated as common European objectives in theTreaty on European Union, which entered intoforce in November 1993. This step representeda significant strengthening of human rights as apriority issue for the EU in its internal as well asexternal policies.

The charter of fundamental rights of theEuropean Union, which was proclaimed by thethree main EU institutions, namely, the Council,the Commission and the Parliament, inDecember 2000, is aimed at further strengtheningthe protection of fundamental rights in the lightof changes in society, social progress andtechnological developments, by making the rightsmore visible in an EU instrument.

On the external policies of the EU, Article 11of the Treaty on European Union states thatefforts to develop and consolidate democracy andthe rule of law, and respect for human rights andfundamental freedoms are among the objectivesof the Common Foreign and Security Policy ofthe EU. Article 117 of the Treaty establishing theEuropean Community requires that CommunityDevelopment Co-operation policy alsocontributes to the achievement of theseobjectives. During our Presidency Ireland willwork with our EU partners works to upholdhuman rights and fundamental freedoms.

Emigrant Services.

81. Mr. Ring asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs his views on the welfare of Irish emigrantsabroad; and if he will make a statement on thematter. [9978/04]

86. Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if, in regard to statements in the Dail on10 March 2004, the emigrant groups hisDepartment has been meeting fortnightly, if notweekly, to co-ordinate activities in assisting them;the grants or funding that have been allocated tothese emigrant groups; and if he will make astatement on the matter [9914/04]

100. Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister forForeign Affairs if, in regard to the dedicated unitin his Department which has been establishedinstead of the agency for the Irish abroad, asrecommended by the task force on emigrants, the


[Mr. Rabbitte .]number of staff in the unit broken down by grade;the funding available to the unit; the workundertaken to date by the unit; and if he willmake a statement on the matter [9912/04]

108. Ms Shortall asked the Minister forForeign Affairs if he will now publish the reportof the interdepartmental working groupconsidering the recommendations of the taskforce on policies regarding emigrants; if, in regardto the report of the task force, he will list thoserecommendations that have been implementedand those that have not; if a timetable has beenset for the implementation of outstandingrecommendations; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [9892/04]

110. Mr. Penrose asked the Minister forForeign Affairs the steps that have been made toimplement the recommendation made in the taskforce on policy regarding emigrants that thereshould be increased financial assistance tovoluntary agencies and programmes abroadwhich provide welfare services to Irish personswho are vulnerable or excluded; the finance hisDepartment currently provides; if it is intendedto increase such funding; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [7964/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Ipropose to take Questions Nos. 81, 86, 100, 108,and 110 together.

The Government has been providing assistanceto Irish emigrants in Britain, the United Statesand Australia for many years. The DION fund,which is administered by the embassy in Londonthrough the DION committee, has increasedsubstantially in the past four years, from \592,300in 1999 to \3.57 million this year. The totalamount allocated in grants since 1984 is nowalmost \18 million. This year, my Departmentwill provide a total of \400,000 to voluntaryorganisations in the United States which provideadvocacy and support to Irish immigrants, anincrease of 33% over 2003. Increased grants willalso be given to Irish welfare groups in Australia.

I intend that, in allocating the additional fundswhich I have secured, priority will be given toimproving services for the neediest and the mostvulnerable among our emigrants, particularly inBritain, in line with the recommendations of thetask force report. As regards the implementationof the report, action is being taken on more thantwo thirds of the recommendations. Some of therecommendations fall within the areas ofresponsibility of other Departments and I haveasked those Departments to examine them todetermine what progress has been made inimplementing them. In this regard, my colleague,the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, isimplementing the recommendation that theGovernment give priority to the link betweenmigration and social exclusion during ourPresidency of the European Union, by organisinga Presidency conference on reconciling mobilityand social inclusion next April.

As regards other recommendations, thefollowing examples will illustrate the progressthat is being made. A key recommendation of thetask force was that all funding for emigrantservices abroad should be brought together underthe Department of Foreign Affairs. This wasdone last year with the transfer of the DION fundfrom the Department of Enterprise, Trade andEmployment.

I secured an additional provision of \1 millionin the Vote for the Department of ForeignAffairs for services to emigrants in 2004. Thisbrings the overall expenditure by my Departmenton emigrant services this year to just over \4million, an increase of one third on 2003.

The task force recommended that financialassistance be given to AN, the umbrella groupfor voluntary agencies providing information andadvice to potential emigrants, to enable it toprovide more effective support to its memberagencies. I recently announced that part of theadditional funds made available this year will beallocated for this purpose.

The task force also recommended that theGovernment continue its political engagementwith the authorities in the United States asregards the position of undocumented Irishpeople in that country. During my recent visit toWashington, I met a number of prominentmembers of Congress with whom I discussed adraft Bill, which would regulate the status ofundocumented Irish immigrants in the UnitedStates.

As the Taoiseach mentioned in this House on10 March, an interdepartmental group, chaired bythe Secretary General of the Department ofForeign Affairs, meets on a fortnightly basis tomonitor progress in implementing therecommendations. I intend to establish thededicated unit in the Department of ForeignAffairs when the Presidency is over. I have notyet reached a firm conclusion on the number orlevel of staff required for the unit.

The report of the interdepartmental workinggroup which examined the task force’srecommendations has been placed on theDepartment’s website. I assure Deputies that Iwill continue to implement the report of the taskforce and to work in partnership with theGovernments of the countries concerned andvoluntary Irish agencies at home and abroad, tosupport our emigrants overseas.

EU Presidency.

82. Mr. Murphy asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs the agenda and matters for discussion atthe upcoming EU Foreign Ministers meeting tobe held on 16 and 17 April 2004; and if he willmake a statement on the matter. [10012/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Theinformal meeting of Foreign Ministers, orGymnich, takes place every six months and ishosted by the Presidency. It is named after asmall suburb outside Bonn which hosted the first


such meeting. The purpose of the Gymnich is tofacilitate more in-depth or strategic discussionson an informal basis than is usually possible inthe monthly formal meetings of EU ForeignMinisters. The Gymnich under the IrishPresidency will take place in Tullamore on 16 and17 April and arrangements are being finalised.The agenda and matters for discussion at theGymnich have not yet been decided.

Centre for Cross-Border Studies.

83. Mr. Coveney asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs his views on the work of the Centre forCross-Border Studies; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [10013/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Ihave been very impressed by the work of theCentre for Cross-Border Studies. In a relativelyshort time, it has become a key focal point ofanalysis and debate for matters which impactupon the North-South relationship on the island.Now in its fifth year of existence, the pioneeringwork of the centre has led to the establishmentof many other organisations which specialise incross-Border research and collaboration inspecific areas.

An excellent working relationship hasdeveloped between the centre and the North-South Ministerial Council, resulting in co-operation on projects such as the studycommissioned by the council on obstacles tocross-Border mobility on the island of Ireland.My Department has supported the Centre forCross-Border Studies since its foundation and, todate, it has received more than \138,000 from thereconciliation fund of the Department ofForeign Affairs.





87. Mr. Hayes asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs his views on the human rights situationin Iran; and if he will make a statement on thematter. [10003/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Iregret that overall there has been littleimprovement in the human rights situation inIran. Although some limited positive measureshave been adopted in certain areas, violations ofhuman rights continue to be widespread. Theseinclude arbitrary detention, disappearancesfollowing arrest, and torture, as well as thecontinuing practice of public executions. The defacto moratorium on amputations has not beenrespected. Members of the Baha’i faith, in

particular, continue to suffer discrimination andviolations of their rights.

There is an on-going pattern of closure ofnewspapers, arrests and interrogation ofjournalists and blocking of pro-reform websites.The recent interference in the electoral processrepresents a major setback for democracy and ageneral trend toward even more restrictions onthe exercise of political rights and freedoms. Inaddition, the fourth round of the EU-Iran humanrights dialogue has not taken place due to Iran’sfailure to confirm the dates agreed.

Emigrant Services.

88. Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if his attention has been drawn to the Irishemigrant support centre in Coventry, England,known as Teach na hEireann; if his attention hasfurther been drawn to the fact that due to fundingconstraints it is only open for two days per week;if he will consider providing funding to allow thecentre to operate seven days per week; and if hewill make a statement on the matter [9915/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): TheTeach na hEireann project was set up in 1999 bythe Irish Elders Resource Centre in Coventry andwas officially opened by the Lord Mayor ofCoventry in October 2000. Teach na hEireann isa day care and resource centre for elderly Irishpeople. With the backing of Coventry CityCouncil and the Coventry Irish Society, it set outto establish a facility targeted at reducing thesocial isolation experienced by Irish elders livingin the community and to offer culturally sensitivesocial, educational, health and welfare support tothose who are most at risk. It offers an outreachservice, provided by its volunteers, of whom thereare more than 20 at present, for those Irishelderly people who for physical or social reasonscannot access the centre.

In 2003, it had 208 clients, of which 88 wereIrish men and 105 were Irish women. The DIONfund, which is administered by the Irish embassyin London through the DION committee, hasprovided grant support to the centre for a numberof years as follows: 1999 — £16,000, \20,316; 2000— £21,333, \27,087; 2001 — £25,000, \31,743;2002 — \31,740; and 2003 — \30,158.

In 2003 the centre provided a day care serviceto elderly Irish people on two days each week. Iunderstand that it wishes to provide day care ona five day per week basis and to expand outreachservices and offer home support services. In itsrecent application to the DION committee itindicated that, from the beginning of 2004, theproject manager’s working time has beenincreased from 20 to 30 hours per week tospecifically target funds and grants from othersources, for example, charitable trusts, statutorybodies, commercial companies, and to increasesupport to its voluntary fund-raising committee.It also requested DION to increase its grant in2004 in order that its overall objective ofproviding a full-time service could be realised.


[Mr. Cowen.]The DION committee will examine the Teach

na hEireann application for continuation offunding for the two existing posts of projectmanager and a part-time support worker, as wellas two new part-time posts of administrator andoutreach worker at its next meeting in late April2004. I also understand that the centre continuesto receive funding — £25,000 in 2003 — from thelocal city council in recognition of its work inimproving the quality of life of older Coventryresidents.


89. Mr. Broughan asked the Minister forForeign Affairs if the European Union will co-sponsor a resolution at the 60th United NationsCommission for Human Rights which will dealwith the breach of human rights in China ingeneral, and the occupation of Tibet inparticular. [9896/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen):Ireland, along with our EU partners. takesseriously concerns about human rights in China.Human rights, including the situation in Tibet,are an integral part of our ongoing relationshipwith China. At its meeting on 22-23 March lastthe GAERC stressed the importance that the EUattaches to dialogue with third countries in thehuman rights field generally, and particularly inthe context of the Commission on Human Rights.It recalled that the EU has engaged in dialoguewith the Government of China on human rightsissues.

It is the view of the European Union that thedialogue with China does not precludeappropriate consideration by the Commission onHuman Rights of the human rights situation inthat country. The EU has received the text of theproposed US resolution on human rights in Chinaand is studying the contents of the draft carefully.



91. Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs the latest reports or information he hasreceived from the consular office in respect of thepersons that attended the trial of three Irish menfacing serious charges in Colombia; if he has anyinformation on when a verdict will be given; andif he will make a statement on the matter.[9911/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Theambassador to Colombia acted as my officialrepresentative throughout the trial and hisreports were considered carefully in myDepartment. The trial has ended and the decisionof the judge is awaited. The Deputy willappreciate that, pending the delivery of thejudge’s decision, it would not be appropriate forme to make any comment on this case.

During his recent meeting in Dublin with theVice-President of Colombia, Mr. FranciscoSantos Calderon, the Taoiseach took theopportunity to reiterate the concerns for thesafety and security of the men and our hope thatthe trial would be concluded as expeditiously aspossible. I assure the Deputy that my Departmentwill continue to follow this case closely and toprovide all possible consular assistance to themen and their families.

State Visits.

92. Mr. Gormley asked the Minister forForeign Affairs if US Air Force Eagle fightersbased in the UK will provide air cover duringPresident Bush’s visit here; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [9304/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen):Permission for foreign military aircraft to fly inIrish airspace is regulated by the Air Navigation(Foreign Military Aircraft) Order 1952, whichstipulates that foreign military aircraft may onlyfly in Irish airspace at the invitation of, or withthe permission of, the Minister for ForeignAffairs. No such request has been received inrespect of the forthcoming visit of PresidentBush.


Nuclear Disarmament Initiative.

94. Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs the extent to which the Government ispushing other EU member states todecommission their nuclear weapons in advanceof a conference on nuclear disarmament to beheld at the United Nations in New York in April2004; and if it is the policy of the Governmentto work towards making Europe a nuclear freezone. [7218/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Theupcoming third preparatory committee for the2005 review conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is a pivotalevent in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation in 2004. The NPT is the cornerstoneof the nuclear non-proliferation regime and theessential foundation for the pursuit of nucleardisarmament. The treaty has three pillars,namely, peaceful use of nuclear energy, non-proliferation and disarmament.

According to Article VI of the treaty, whichentered into force in 1970, each of the parties,including the five nuclear weapon states parties,China, France, the Russian Federation, theUnited Kingdom and the United States,undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faithon effective measures leading to nucleardisarmament. At the 2000 review conferencefurther progress was made on this aspect of thetreaty with an unequivocal undertaking by thenuclear weapons states to accomplish the total


elimination of their nuclear arsenals andagreement on 13 practical steps, to be taken bythem, that would lead to nuclear disarmament.

Ireland, as a member of the new agendacoalition, NAC, was actively involved in thenegotiations on the final document of the 2000review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which was agreed byconsensus. Since that time, Ireland and ourpartners in the new agenda coalition haveadvocated the implementation of these steps byall parties to the non-proliferation treaty,particularly the five nuclear weapons states. Inthe NAC ministerial declaration in Septemberlast year, my colleagues and I expressed our deepconcern at the lack of progress to date in theimplementation of the 13 steps agreed in 2000.

Work on disarmament and non-proliferationissues is also ongoing in the EU context withefforts to universalise multilateral treaties andagreements, such as the NPT, and to mainstreampolitical dialogue on such issues within theCommon Foreign and Security Policy. These aremeasures within the framework of the EUstrategy against the proliferation of weapons ofmass destruction, WMD, which was adopted byHeads of State and Government at the EuropeanCouncil in December 2003.

The WMD strategy underlines the EuropeanUnion’s particular commitment to the Treaty onthe Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. TheEU believes that all our efforts should be aimedat preserving and strengthening this fundamentalinstrument of international peace and security.The EU supports wholeheartedly the objectiveslaid down in the treaty and is committed to theeffective implementation of the final document ofthe 2000 NPT review conference and thedecisions and resolution adopted at the 1995review and extension conference.

Ireland, as the holder of the EU Presidency,will work within the Union and with key partnersahead of and during the NPT preparatorycommittee in seeking agreement on a solid basisa successful outcome to the review cycle. Irelandcontinues to believe that the only guaranteeagainst the use or threat of use of weapons ofmass destruction, including nuclear weapons, istheir complete elimination and the assurance thatthey will never be used or produced again. Weremain committed to disarmament and non-proliferation and to the full implementation ofthe nuclear non-proliferation treaty and 2000final document in the European and globalcontexts.

Overseas Development Aid.

95. Ms B. Moynihan/Cronin asked the Ministerfor Foreign Affairs the allocation for overseasdevelopment aid in his Department’s Estimatesfor 2004; if it remains the Government’scommitment to meet the target for overseasdevelopment aid of 0.7% of GNP by 2007; theproportion of that target that will be met in 2004

and in each successive year up to 2007; and if hewill make a statement on the matter. [9907/04]

139. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister forForeign Affairs his intentions to increase aspreviously indicated Ireland’s contribution tooverseas development aid; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [10293/04]

Minister of State at the Department of ForeignAffairs (Mr. Kitt): I propose to take QuestionsNos. 95 and 139 together.

The Government continues to have as anobjective the achievement of the overseasdevelopment aid target of 0.7% of GNP by 2007.Despite the many pressures on the publicfinances at present, an allocation of \400 millionhas been made in the 2004 Estimates to myDepartment’s Vote for international co-operation. In addition, elements of overseasdevelopment aid, ODA, which are administeredby other Departments are expected to total some\80 million this year. Total spending on ODA,therefore, is expected to approach \480 million in2004, the highest in the history of the programme.This level of expenditure demonstrates the strongcommitment of the Government to theattainment of the UN target.

In 2001 and 2002, our aid expenditureamounted to 0.33% and 0.41% of GNPrespectively. Provisional figures indicate that wemaintained the percentage at 0.41% in 2003. Thisyear it is likely to reach the same level or possiblyexceed it. In percentage terms, Ireland is one ofthe world’s leading donors, currently standing inseventh place, well ahead of the European Unionaverage. The Government hopes that increasedallocations, the scale and timing of which will beconsidered on an ongoing basis, will be possibleover the coming years with a view to theachievement of our objective. As budgetarycircumstances improve, we hope that renewedmomentum towards the UN target will bepossible.




98. Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs if he will make a statement on his addressto the opening meeting of the 60th session of theUN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva on15 March 2004. [9918/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen):Ireland is firmly committed to the purposes andprinciples of the UN Charter, which includepromoting and encouraging respect for humanrights and fundamental freedoms for all withoutdistinction. In this context, we attach greatimportance to the United Nations Commissionon Human Rights, which is the primary forum


[Mr. Cowen.]within the United Nations for the discussion ofhuman rights matters.

As the Deputy is aware, the Government iscommitted to ensuring that Ireland, along withour EU partners, will play an active andconstructive role in the Commission on HumanRights with the aim of ensuring that human rightsare effectively promoted and protected at theinternational level. As President of the Council,on Monday 15 March last, I addressed the 60thsession of the UN Commission on Human Rights.In my statement, I focused on a number of keyissues: the need to conduct the fight againstterrorism with full respect for human rights andfundamental freedoms; the need to bring about aworld where people can live in security anddignity, free from want and hunger; the need forthe international community to take actionagainst large-scale flagrant and persistentviolations of individuals’ human rights; the needto support the International Criminal Court; andthe need to strengthen the Office of the UN HighCommissioner for Human Rights.

I also reaffirmed the EU’s key human rightspriorities: the fight against the death penalty; andthe prevention of torture and the protection ofthe rights and well-being of children exposed toarmed conflict. In addition, I welcomed theannouncement of the appointment of LouiseArbour as the new UN High Commissioner forHuman Rights. At the beginning of mystatement, I called for the Commission on HumanRights to observe a minute’s silence inremembrance of those killed and injured in thebomb attacks in Madrid. I have arranged for acopy of the speech to be placed in theOireachtas Library.




Lisbon Agenda.

102. Mr. Timmins asked the Minister forForeign Affairs the actions being taken by hisDepartment in the context of Ireland’sPresidency of the European Union to pushforward the requirements of the Lisbon Agenda;and if he will make a statement on the matter.[10007/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): TheLisbon strategy is designed to make theEuropean Union the most competitive anddynamic knowledge-based economy in the world,capable of sustainable economic growth withmore and better jobs and greater social cohesion.It was identified as one of the key priorities ofIreland’s EU Presidency. The Department of the

Taoiseach has lead responsibility for the Lisbonstrategy while a number of other Departmentshold substantive responsibility for specific issuesarising under the strategy. My Departmentworked with the Department of the Taoiseachand other Departments in developing thePresidency’s approach which focused discussionon two overarching themes, sustainable growthand more and better jobs. I used my bilateralcontacts, with partners as well as the meetings ofthe General Affairs and External RelationsCouncil on 23 February and 22 March, to securethe agreement of member states to this approach.

Following the successful outcome of theEuropean Council, my Department will continueto work with other Departments to ensure thatkey Lisbon strategy dossiers are finalised oradvanced before the end of Ireland’s Presidency.



Ceapachain Ranna.

105. D’fhiafraigh Caoimhghın O Caolain denAire Gnothaı Eachtracha an bhfuil ionadaıocht oRoinn an Taoisigh ar an gcoiste idir-rannach arstadas na Gaeilge san Aontas Eorpach. [5589/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Taleoga oifigeach o Roinn an Taoisigh ar angcoiste seo.

EU Treaties.

106. Aengus O Snodaigh asked the Minister forForeign Affairs if, in view of the fact that hisgroup reply to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 44,48, 54, 97 and 102 on 12 February 2004 did notaddress Parliamentary Question No. 102, he willreport on the status of the Article 40 commondefence provisions of the draft EU constitutionaltreaty; if the Article 40 provisions have beenfinally agreed; if not, if they are still open tochange at the next round of negotiations; if theGovernment has agreed to the Article 40provisions; if not, if the Government will beseeking changes; and the changes that will besought. [9965/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Myreply to the Deputy on 12 February 2004 wascomprehensive and addressed all aspects of thequestions under reference.

In relation to Article 40 of the draftconstitutional treaty, the position is as follows: on9 December 2003, the Italian Presidencypublished a revised version of Articles 40.6 and40.7 of the draft constitutional treaty relating tostructured co-operation and mutual defencerespectively. Although there was no formalagreement on the proposals at the EuropeanCouncil in December, there was anunderstanding among member states at the timethat the Presidency text had achieved broad


consensus and that, as regards mutual defence, ittook due account of the various security anddefence traditions within the Union.

Ireland is supportive of the Italian Presidencyproposals of 9 December and we will not activelyseek to reopen discussion on these or on anyother aspects of Article 40.



Foreign Conflicts.

109. Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister forForeign Affairs his views on the evidence givenin sworn inquiry by a senior official in the USAdministration that the invasion of Iraq hassignificantly weakened the multi-lateral supportfor the war on terrorism; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [10104/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): I amnot aware any evidence has been provided to theeffect that the invasion of Iraq has significantlyweakened the multilateral support for the war onterrorism. A former official of the USAdministration has voiced the opinion that byinvading Iraq the president of the US has greatlyundermined the war on terrorism. Evaluation ofthat opinion is a matter for individual judgement.

It remains the case that there is very strongmultilateral support for the fight againstterrorism as evidenced by the many measurestaken by the international community includingthe adoption of UN Resolution 1373 of 28September 2001 and the most recent measures,Declaration on Combating Terrorism, adopted bythe European Council on 25 March 2004.


Foreign Conflicts.

111. Mr. Coveney asked the Minister forForeign Affairs his views on the findings of theUS Council on Foreign Relations task forcestudying developments in Iraq; and if he willmake a statement on the matter. [9985/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): I amaware of the report to which the Deputy refers.My officials are in the process of studying it atpresent.

The report provides a useful assessment of thecurrent situation in Iraq and makes a number ofrecommendations on future action. Our initialassessment shows a number of suggestions in thereport which we would welcome. In particular, wewelcome its recommendation that the USAdministration should “secure a meaningful andeffective role in Iraq for the UN”. Ireland andour EU partners have consistently maintained theview that a strong UN role in the politicaltransition process is an essential element for its

success. In this context, we are very pleased withthe decision of the Iraqi Governing Council toinvite the UN to help with the transfer ofsovereignty at the end of June and future nationalelections and the acceptance of this invitation bythe United Nations Secretary General, KofiAnnan.

Illegal Immigrants.

112. Ms McManus asked the Minister forForeign Affairs if he will make a statement on hisrecent visit to the United States and particularlyhis discussions with US politicians regarding theposition of undocumented illegals from thiscountry in the United States. [9905/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen):During my visit to Washington, I discussed thesituation and status of Irish immigrants in theUnited States with a number of prominent USpoliticians on 2 March. I met with Senator ChuckHagel who, together with Senator Tom Daschle,the Democratic Leader in the Senate, hasrecently initiated a Bill in Congress which wouldenable undocumented foreign nationals in the USto legalise their status if they fulfilled certainconditions. This initiative followed theannouncement by President Bush of his proposal,Fair and Secure Immigration Reform, which alsoseeks to address the situation of undocumentedforeign workers in the US.

I welcomed the Daschle-Hagel initiative whichI see as a constructive effort to deal with thesituation of the undocumented in the UnitedStates in a pragmatic and compassionate way. Ihad previously welcomed President Bush’sinitiative when it was announced in January. Eachof these initiatives will have to follow thelegislative paths within Congress. However, I wasdelighted to have this early opportunity to flagour concerns about the position of Irishimmigrants in the US.

I also met with Senator Edward Kennedy whohas been working on proposals for animmigration initiative. He indicated that he is stillconsidering the Daschle-Hagel bill and has notyet decided whether to proceed with his own Billin the matter. I will continue to monitor theprogress of these initiatives closely in thecoming months.

Nuclear Disarmament Initiative.

113. Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister forForeign Affairs if he will report on his recentattendance at a UN conference on disarmamentin Geneva; and if he will make a statement on thematter. [10022/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Ihad the privilege of addressing the Conference onDisarmament in Geneva on 16 March 2004.During my speech I stressed strong support forthe role of the United Nations in conflictprevention and in peacekeeping and our beliefthat the CD can have an important role to play


[Mr. Cowen.]in UN efforts to maintain peace and security. Iemphasised the importance Ireland attaches tomultilateral co-operation in the field ofdisarmament and non-proliferation and our faithin the multilateral regime of treaties andagreements in this area. I reiterated ourcommitment to implementing and strengtheningthese instruments and to pursuing theuniversalisation of their norms.

During my address, I also spoke about somespecific problems caused by conventionalweapons and urged that a greater priority begiven to making progress in addressing the misuseof small arms and light weapons. On the issue oflandmines, I recalled that this year marked thefifth anniversary of the Ottawa Convention onLandmines and looked forward to the Nairobireview conference later this year which willprovide an opportunity to take stock and toconsider how to achieve universal respect for theprinciples and application of this treaty. I alsoreferred to the question of discarded explosiveremnants of war and welcomed the successfuloutcome of negotiations on an additionalprotocol to the Convention on CertainConventional Weapons.

I noted that while conventional weapons mayhave killed more people, it is the proliferationand possible use of weapons of mass destructionthat causes greatest fear. I emphasised theimportance in this connection of strengtheningthe treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclearweapons referring to the severe strains to whichthe treaty has been subject in recent years. Iexpressed my conviction that disarmament andnon-proliferation are mutually reinforcing andstressed that preserving the integrity of the NPTmeans respecting all its provisions and thecommitments freely entered into at its reviewconferences, including that in 2000 whichprovided a realistic blueprint for achievingnuclear disarmament. I also underlined the needto abide by commitments on non-proliferationand urged those countries which have not yetdone so, to sign and ratify the IAEA additionalprotocol as a demonstration of their commitmentto the NPT.

I noted that the recognition of the dangersposed by WMD had led the EU to recently adopta strategy against the proliferation of suchweapons. This strategy mainstreams non-proliferation into the Union’s overall policies andconfirms both our support for the multilateralinstitutions charged with verifying compliancewith the relevant treaties, and our commitment tostrong national and internationally co-ordinatedexport controls. I mentioned the importance ofan effective compliance and verificationinstrument for the Biological and Toxin WeaponsConvention and that we are working withpartners to secure the universalisation of both theBTWC and the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Finally, I addressed the impasse at the CD andthe lack of political consensus on the next stepsto be taken in the multilateral arena on armscontrol. I referred to those issues of importanceto Ireland, including support for theestablishment of a subsidiary body to dealspecifically with the issue of nucleardisarmament, and suggested a way in which theconference might move forward to buildunderstanding and greater trust. I asked theconference to reflect on the current relevance ofits methods of work and supported both theinclusion of civil society in its deliberations andthe expansion of the CDs membership.

Foreign Conflicts.

114. Mr. Crawford asked the Minister forForeign Affairs if he will provide an update onthe current political and security situation inChechnya; and if he will make a statement on thematter. [10008/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen):During the past year, the Russian authoritieshave made a concerted effort to build up apolitical system in Chechnya. This policy hasincluded an offer of an amnesty to rebels, theadoption by referendum of a new Chechenconstitution in March 2003, and a Chechenpresidential election in October 2003. Due tosecurity problems, neither the referendum northe Chechen presidential election weremonitored by observers from the OSCE or theCouncil of Europe. Akhmad Kadyrov was electedPresident of Chechnya in October 2003 with 81%of the vote. On 14 March, Chechnya took part inthe Russian presidential election, which was wonby President Putin. Turnout in Chechnya wasrecorded at 94.99% of voters.

The EU acknowledges the efforts made byRussia towards reconstruction and institutionbuilding in Chechnya. In particular, the RussianGovernment has recently undertaken to providefinancial compensation for damaged property inChechnya. We look forward to the earlyimplementation of this decision, which will bringrelief to the civilian population.

Regrettably, it is clear that the securitysituation in Chechnya remains very serious andthat the civilian population has sufferedenormously as a result of the conflict there. Thehumanitarian situation is difficult. There havebeen a number of large-scale terrorist attacks inand near Chechnya during the past year,including an attack on a local governmentcompound in Znamenskoye in May 2003 whichkilled 60 people, and an attack on a hospital inthe nearby region of north Ossetia in August 2003in which more than 50 people lost their lives.There has been a worrying increase in suicideattacks during the past year. Attacks and politicalassassinations are regrettably still common within


Chechnya — it is reported, most recently, thateight Russian soldiers were killed by a bomb incentral Chechnya on 26 March. Ireland and theEuropean Union strongly condemn the terroristattacks which have caused significant loss of lifein Chechnya and throughout Russia in recentyears.

Unfortunately, there continue to be crediblereports of human rights abuses against Chechencivilians by both rebels and Russian securityforces. According to the Russian human rightsNGO memorial, there were 472 cases ofdisappearances in 2003, of which 269 havedisappeared without a trace, 48 were later founddead with marks of torture and 155 were releasedafter a ransom was paid. These incidents can onlyhinder prospects for long-term peace andreconciliation. The EU is also concerned at thereports of difficulties experienced by the localpopulation in obtaining proper investigations andprosecutions of such human rights abuses.

Ireland and the European Union recognise theterritorial integrity of the Russian Federation. Weacknowledge the right and responsibility of theRussian Government to oppose terrorism andcrime, and to protect its citizens. However, theEU has consistently stated that the fight againstterrorism, in the Russian Federation aselsewhere, must be conducted in accordance withinternationally-accepted human rights standards.

Organisation of Working Time Act.

115. Mr. Howlin asked the Tanaiste andMinister for Enterprise, Trade and Employmentthe number of inspections that have taken placeunder the Act for each year since it came intoforce in respect of the Organisation of WorkingTime Act 1997; the number of prosecutions takensince the Act came into force; the number ofconvictions that have been obtained; if she hassatisfied herself with the level of enforcement ofthe legislation; if she has any plans to amend theAct to allow for an individual opt out from itsprotection in relation to doctors in training; theposition she is taking on the recent consultationpaper issued by the Commission to the Councilof Ministers; and if she will make a statement onthe matter. [10142/04]

Minister of State at the Department ofEnterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Fahey):Details of the number of inspections under theOrganisation of Working Time Act 1997 for theyears 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, respectively, are2,088, 1,163, 1,005 and 1,193. From January 2004to 26 March the figure is 215. Figures for theprevious years are not readily available. In thisregard, however, it is to be noted that the Actcame into operation on a phased basiscommencing on 30 September 1997, with fullimplementation of the Act not taking effect until1 March 1998.

Concerning prosecutions and convictions, theposition is that in the years 2000, 2001 and 2002there were three, six and three prosecutions,respectively, and for the same years theconviction figures are three, four and three,respectively. There are no prosecutions orconvictions recorded for 2003 or, to date, in 2004.

The Deputy may wish to note that enforcementof the provisions of the Organisation of WorkingTime Act 1997 is by means of complaint to arights commissioner and, accordingly, recoursefor individuals, who are seeking redress in respectof their employer’s non-compliance with theprovisions of the Act, is available through thatservice of the Labour Relations Commission.

The Labour inspectorate’s role is limited to therecords provisions of the Act only. In thisconnection, when inspectors are pursuingcomplaints concerning alleged infringements ofother employment rights entitlements, they willcheck that an employer, in accordance with theprescribed format required by the Act, ismaintaining relevant records.

Regarding the working hours of doctors intraining, which are the responsibility of theMinister for Health and Children, these wereexcluded from the scope of the original workingtime directive and, therefore, are not covered bythe Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.However, amending Directive 2000/34/ECextends the original directive to doctors intraining and the deadline for transposing thatdirective into Irish law in respect of such doctorsis 1 August 2004.

Regarding the review of Directive 93/104/ECconcerning certain aspects of the organisation ofworking time, the European Commission hasaddressed a communication to the Council, theEuropean Parliament, the European Economicand Social Committee and the Committee of theRegions. By way of contribution to the review Ihave sought the views of the social partners. Oncompletion of the review by the Commission itwill invite the social partners, at EU level, toreach an agreement on an amendment of thedirective failing, which the Commission itself willbring forward a proposal.

EU Directives.

116. Mr. Howlin asked the Tanaiste andMinister for Enterprise, Trade and Employmentwhen she intends to transpose the horizontalamending directive of 2002 and the otheroutstanding directives extending the cover of theoriginal working time directive; and if she willmake a statement on the matter. [10143/04]

Minister of State at the Department ofEnterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Fahey):The Organisation of Working Time Act 1997transposed into Irish law the original WorkingTime Directive 93/104/EC. This directive


[Mr. Fahey.]excluded a number of sectors such as air, rail,road, sea, inland waterway and lake transport, seafishing, other work at sea, and the activities ofdoctors in training.

The position is that the transposition in Irelandrelating to the sectors and activities covered bythe amending Council Directive 2000/34/EC,known as the horizontal directive, involves policyareas which are the responsibility of a number ofGovernment Departments as follows: policydecisions relating to mobile road transportworkers are the responsibility of the Departmentof Transport; offshore work and work on boardsea-going sea fishing vessels are the responsibilityof the Department of Communications, Marineand Natural Resources; and doctors in trainingare the responsibility of the Department ofHealth and Children.

My Department has overall centralresponsibility for employment rights legislation inIreland and has been working closely with theabove three Government Departments given thatthe original Working Time Directive 93/104/EChad been transposed into Irish law through theOrganisation of Working Time Act 1997 — No.20 of 1997. The position in relation to each of thesectors covered by amending Council Directive2000/34/EC is as follows.

The Department of Transport is currentlyexamining a number of policy issues, relating todecisions about the utilisation of availablederogations under the directive, in the cases ofmobile transport workers, for “workersconcerned with the carriage of passengers onregular urban transport services”, and rail andaviation workers. That Department hasundertaken to advise my Department of theposition in relation to any decisions taken in thisregard as soon as possible. In addition, CouncilDirective 2002/15/EC of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002on the organisation of the working time ofpersons performing mobile road transportactivities is also the responsibility of theDepartment of Transport and must be transposedinto Irish law by 23 March 2005.

The provisions of the amending directiverelating to offshore work and work on board sea-going sea fishing vessels were due fortransposition by 1 August 2003. The Minister forCommunications, Marine and Natural Resourcesmade a statutory instrument to transpose thisdirective with respect to workers on board sea-going fishing vessels on 18 December 2003entitled European Communities (Workers onBoard Sea-going Fishing Vessels) (Organisationof Working Time) Regulations 2003 — S.I. No.709 of 2003.

Work on drafting a second ministerial statutoryinstrument in relation to offshore work is under

consideration, and will involve consultation withthe Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to theGovernment. This statutory instrument isexpected to be signed into Irish law shortly. Inaddition, the Minister for Communications,Marine and Natural Resources made regulationson 6 November 2003 entitled EuropeanCommunities (Merchant Shipping) (Organisationof Working Time) Regulations 2003 — S.I. No.523 of 2003 — which gave effect to CouncilDirective 1999/63/EC concerning the agreementon the organisation of working time of seafarersconcluded by the European CommunityShipowners’ Association and the Federation ofTransport Workers’ Unions in the EuropeanUnion, and European Parliament and CouncilDirective 1999/95/EC concerning theenforcement of provisions in respect of seafarers’hours of work on board ships calling atcommunity ports.

The Department of Health and Children pointsout that Article 2 of Directive 2000/34/EC statesthat the date for bringing into force the laws,regulations and administrative provisions shall be1 August 2004, with regard to doctors in training.For that reason, that Department was not obligedto implement the provisions of the directive by 1August 2003, as is the case for other professions.The Department of Health and Children has alsoindicated to my Department that negotiationsbetween the relevant medical representativeorganisations and that Department are ongoing.A primary aim of these negotiations will be toachieve agreement on the implementation of therequirements of the directive regarding reductionof non-consultant hospital doctors, that is,doctors in training, working hours by the relevantdeadline. It is the Department of Health andChildren’s intention to transpose the provisionsof the directive as regards doctors in training atthe earliest opportunity, but in any case inadvance of the 1 August 2004 deadline.

Overseas Missions.

117. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister forDefence the number and locations to which Irishtroops are currently serving overseas on foot ofEU, UN or other mandates; and if he will makea statement on the matter. [10291/04]

Minister for Defence (Mr. M. Smith):Currently, a total of 796 Defence Forcespersonnel is serving overseas, full details of whichare listed in the following statement.

The provisions in relation to the dispatch of acontingent of the Defence Forces for overseasservice are laid down in the Defence Acts, whichrequire that the mission must be authorised bythe United Nations, approved by Governmentand, where the contingent is armed and exceeds12 in number, approved by way of a resolution ofDail Eireann.


Members of the Permanent Defence Force serving Overseas as of 30 March 2004

Number

1. UN Missions

(i) UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) 7

(ii) UNTSO (United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation) — Israel, Syria and Lebanon 14

(iii) UNFICYP (United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus) 4

(iv) MINURSO(United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara) 4

(v) UNMIK (United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo) 3

(vi) UNMISET (United Nations Mission of Support in East Timor) 1

(vii) MONUC (United Nations Mission in Democratic Republic of the Congo) 3

(viii) MINUCI (United Nations Mission in Ivory Coast) 2

(ix) UNMIL (United Nations Mission in Liberia) 435

Total 473

UN Mandated Missions

(x) SFOR (Stabilisation Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina SFOR HQ Sarajevo) 12

(xi) KFOR (International Security Presence in Kosovo) 261

(xii) ISAF (International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan) 7

Total number of personnel serving with UN missions 753

2. EU Mission

(i) OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina 1

(ii) OSCE Mission in Croatia 1

(iii) OSCE Mission in Kosovo 1

(iv) OSCE Presence in Albania 1

(v) OSCE Mission in FRY 2

(vi) OSCE Mission in Macedonia 1

(vii) OSCE Mission in Georgia 4

(viii) Staff Officer, Higher Level Planning Group, Vienna 1

Total number of personnel serving OSCE 12

4. Head of Military Staff (Brussels) 1

5. EU Military Staff (Brussels) 6

6. Liaison Office of Ireland, PfP (Brussels) 4

7. Permanent Representative to EU (Brussels) 6

8. Military Representatives-Advisers

(i) Military Adviser, Permanent Mission to UN, New York 1

(ii) Military Adviser, Irish Delegation to OSCE, Vienna 1

(iii) Military Representative to Partnership Co-ordination Cell-Supreme Headquarters Allied 1Powers Europe (SHAPE), Mons, Belgium

9. Appointments — UN HQ (New York)

Officers seconded to DPKO (Department of Peace Keeping Operations) 2

Total Number of Defence Forces Personnel Serving Overseas 796

118. Aengus O Snodaigh asked the Minister forDefence if a comparative cost analysis has beencarried out between EU Rapid Reaction Forcedeployments and UNSAS deployments to takeaccount of the fact that contributing states mustabsorb RRF deployment costs whereas UNSASdeployments are partially reimbursed tocontribution states; if so, if he will report on theresults; if not, if such a study will be carried out;when it will be completed; and if the results willbe published. [10316/04]

Minister for Defence (Mr. M. Smith): Irelandparticipates in a range of peace support missions.

Participation in such missions is subject toauthorisation by the United Nations,Government decision and approval of DailEireann, in accordance with the statutoryprovisions laid down in the Defence Acts.

In authorising a mission, the UN can decideeither to establish a UN force for the purposesof enforcing the provisions of a Security Councilresolution or to authorise a regional organisationor a framework nation to establish such a forcefor this purpose. So, for example, in the case ofLiberia, the UN has authorised the establishmentof a UN Force, whereas in the case of the mission


[Mr. M. Smith.]in Kosovo, the force, which is authorised by theUN, is led by NATO.

Where the mission is operating under thetraditional UN “blue beret” arrangements,contributing countries are entitled to somereimbursement of costs in respect of personneland equipment. Where the force is operatingunder regional arrangements, such as the EU orNATO, each participant carries its own costs andshares the common operating costs.

The main difference in costs which arises inrelation to a non-UN led force is the absence ofreimbursement. This will vary depending on themission. In the case of the mission in Liberia thetotal estimated additional cost arising fromparticipation is \12.1 million per annum of which\10.8 million per annum will be reimbursed bythe UN. In the case of Operation Artemis, theEU led mission in the Democratic Republic ofthe Congo, Ireland’s contribution to the commoncosts amounted to some \60,000.

No formal report has been completed into thedifference between the two types of operations interms of costs. Missions are considered on a case-by-case basis and cost is but one of a number ofconsiderations which informs the decision toparticipate in a mission. In consideringparticipation, the Government takes into accountIreland’s strategic interests, the nature of themission and the risks involved, the mission’smandate and its potential to ensure peace andsecurity, foreign policy considerations and themission costs.

Milk Quota.

119. Mr. Noonan asked the Minister forAgriculture and Food if he has received anapplication for extra milk quota from a person(detail supplied) in County Limerick for thereference years for decoupling to be amended;when a decision will be made; and ifconsideration will be given to the applicant.[10152/04]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mr.Walsh): Allocations of milk quota from thenational reserve are granted on the basis ofrecommendations from the Milk Quota AppealsTribunal. The tribunal is a body established toconsider and advise on applications for additionalquota from individual producers who havesuffered severe hardship in the context of themilk quota system.

The person named last applied to the tribunalin the 2000-01 milk quota year but there is norecord of him having applied in the current 2003-04 quota year. While the deadline for applicationin respect of the current quota year has passed anapplication may be made for the 2004-05 quotayear when the application forms becomeavailable in the autumn.

120. Mr. Noonan asked the Minister forAgriculture and Food if he has received an

application for extra milk quota from persons(details supplied) in County Limerick for thereference years for decoupling to be amended;when a decision will be made; and if sympatheticconsideration will be given to the applicants.[10153/04

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mr.Walsh): Allocations of milk quota from thenational reserve are granted on the basis ofrecommendations from the Milk Quota AppealsTribunal. The tribunal is a body established toconsider and advise on applications for additionalquota from individual producers who havesuffered severe hardship in the context of themilk quota system. It also examines applicationsfrom producers whose herds have been restrictedby animal disease in the current quota year. Thepersons in question submitted an application foradditional quota on the grounds of animal diseaseand the tribunal recommended a temporaryallocation for the 2003-04 quota year. Thepersons concerned and their co-operative havebeen notified of this allocation.

Grant Payments.

121. Mr. N. O’Keeffe asked the Minister forAgriculture and Food when payment of a forestrygrant will issue to a person (details supplied) inCounty Cork. [10239/04]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mr.Walsh): Payment of the 2004 forestry premiumwill made within the next few weeks.

122. Mr. N. O’Keeffe asked the Minister forAgriculture and Food when payment of grant aidwill issue to a person (details supplied) in CountyCork. [10265/04]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mr.Walsh): Applications under the third round of theNDP horticulture scheme were recently receivedin the Department — closing date 9 March 2004.All applications are being examined at presentand it is planned to issue approvals to successfulapplicants at the end of April 2004. The personreferred to submitted an application under thescheme on 8 March 2004. I am not in a positionat this stage to say if approval for the payment ofa grant will issue to the individual referred to.

123. Mr. Ellis asked the Minister forAgriculture and Food if his Department will payforestry premia to a person (details supplied) inCounty Leitrim. [10266/04]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mr.Walsh): Payment of the 2004 forestry premiumwill made within the next few weeks.

Export Licences.

124. Mr. Timmins asked the Minister forAgriculture and Food the position with regard tothe measures being taken to ensure that thecondition relating to the granting of export


licences are monitored and enforced; and if hewill make a statement on the matter.

125. Mr. Timmins asked the Minister forAgriculture and Food the position with regard tothe penalties applied to the abuse of licences; andif he will make a statement on the matter.[10274/04]

126. Mr. Timmins asked the Minister forAgriculture and Food the position with regard tothe reason there is no minimum valueimpediment applied here as is done in Britain;and if he will make a statement on the matter.[10275/04]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mr.Walsh): I propose to take Questions Nos. 124 to126, inclusive, together.

Trade in horses between member states andfrom member states to third countries is governedby specific EU Commission decisions whichestablish the health conditions and certificationto be applied to such animals for trade purposes.However, a derogation from these rules hasoperated for many years in relation to tradebetween Ireland, France and the UK, under atripartite agreement based on a common animalhealth position in the equine sector.

Under this agreement, horses travellingbetween Ireland and the UK and registeredhorses travelling between Ireland and France anddo not have to be certified, though they must beindividually identified by means of their passportsor, in the case of non-registered horses travellingbetween Ireland and the UK, by way of a currentmarking sheet. Both registered and nonregistered horses are subject to spot checks by anofficial veterinarian at the port of departure.

In so far as horses traded outside of tripartitecountries are concerned, my Department has notissued export certificates for horses for slaughterin recent times. All horses certified by myDepartment are intended for breeding, racing,jumping and sport use. I should however pointout that trade in horses for slaughter is coveredby relevant EU regulations and, subject tocompliance with animal health and welfarelegislation, is a legitimate trade. Regarding theapplication of a rule prohibiting the export ofhorses under a certain value, I am advised thatthis would constitute an unlawful barrier to freetrade.

The European Communities (Trade in Animalsand Animal Products) Regulations, 1994, (S.I.No. 289 of 1994) provide that a person whoexports live animals other than in compliancewith the veterinary and zootechnical legislationof the European Community may be liable, onsummary conviction, to a fine not exceeding\1,000 or to imprisonment for a term notexceeding 12 months or both.

Landslide Relief Fund.

127. Mr. Ring asked the Minister forAgriculture and Food, further to the

announcement from his Department for fundingof \100,000 for the farming victims of thelandslide of September 2003 in north Mayo, theway in which his Department proposes todistribute this funding; the persons which willreceived it; and when the money will be givenout. [10317/04]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mr.Walsh): The position is that I have already askedmy officials to draw up formal scheme terms andconditions and an application form with a viewto allocating the funds as quickly as possible. Myintention is that the fund will be targeted to thosefarmers whose holdings have been most affectedby the landslide.

Decentralisation Proposals.

128. Ms B. Moynihan-Cronin asked theMinister for Finance the number of applicationsreceived in regard to the provision of facilities,that is, site buildings and so on, for thedecentralisation of the Department of Arts, Sportand Tourism to Killarney, County Kerry; and ifhe will make a statement on the matter.[10154/04]

Minister of State at the Department of Finance(Mr. Parlon): The number of propertydecentralisation proposals received by the Officeof Public Works in respect of Killarney is 16 andthese proposals are currently being assessed.

Tax Code.

129. Mr. Timmins asked the Minister forFinance if the tax office in Mount Street canforward the tax details of a person (detailssupplied) in County Wicklow to the tax office inGrattan House; and if he will make a statementon the matter. [10272/04]

Minister for Finance (Mr. McCreevy): I amadvised by the Revenue Commissioners that thisperson’s tax affairs are currently being dealt within the Kildare Meath Wicklow customer servicesdistrict of the Revenue Commissioners in GrattanHouse, Lower Mount Street, Dublin 2, and hertax details are held there.

I understand that the query relates to a requestfor a statement of nil net liability. I am informedthat reviews of the taxpayer’s affairs have beendealt with under the PAYE system for the years2000-01, 2001 and 2002 under the income taxnumber of the taxpayer’s spouse on a jointassessment basis. Joint assessment requires thatthe income of the taxpayer and her spouse beaggregated to establish the net liability for eachyear. These reviews show the taxpayer and herspouse to be liable for income tax for the years inquestion. Consequently, it is not possible to issuestatements of nil net liability for the years inquestion.


130. Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Foreign


[Mr. Sargent.]Affairs if he will report on the progress in theimplementation of the Government’scommitments undertaken in the JointDeclaration, April 2003, section on rights,equality, identity and community; if he believesthat action on these issues remains a priority formaintaining confidence in the Good FridayAgreement; and if he will make a statement onthe matter. [7787/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Inrecognition of the priority which the twoGovernments attach to these issues, the JointDeclaration by the British and Irish Governmentscontained a number of commitments on the partof both under the headings of rights, equality,identity and community.

The British-Irish IntergovernmentalConference has provided a number ofopportunities for discussions on progress to datein relation to the commitments by the BritishGovernment. The communiques issued after theconference meetings on 2 July 2003 and 22January 2004 reflect the encouraging progressmade across a broad range of issues. I agree thatpositive advancement on these areas is vital fordeveloping the threshold of confidence that isrequired in order to ensure that progress is madeon the broader political and institutional front.

The Irish Government also made a number ofcommitments under these headings in the JointDeclaration. Arising from consideration of therecommendations of the report of the VictimsCommission, the Government announced inOctober 2003 the creation of an independentcommission to administer a remembrance fundwhich is being established to address the needs ofthe victims of the conflict and their families in thisjurisdiction. The Government has approved theexpenditure of \9 million over the lifetime of thecommission, including a donation to the NorthernIreland memorial fund.

The Department of Foreign Affairs alsocontinues to disburse moneys from thereconciliation fund. Its purpose is to assistorganisations involved in reconciliation work andefforts to create better understanding betweenpeople on the island of Ireland and betweenIreland and Britain. Since 1999, the fund hasdisbursed \12.3 million for this purpose.

The Government also committed itself in theJoint Declaration to working with the relevantregulators and broadcasting authorities to addressthe technical and other barriers with a view toincreasing substantially the reception of TG4 inNorthern Ireland. Encouraging progress has beenmade over the last year in addressing the variousrights, spectrum, regulatory and financial issuesinvolved, and this work continues to be advanced.

On human rights, the legislation providing forthe incorporation of the European Conventionon Human Rights, ECHR, into Irish law waspassed by the Oireachtas in June 2003 and the

European Convention on Human Rights Actcame into effect on 30 December 2003.

Advancing the rights, equality, identity andcommunity aspects of the Joint Declaration is acentral part of realising the fresh start envisagedby the Good Friday Agreement. The nextmeeting of the British-Irish IntergovernmentalConference on 21 April will provide a furtheropportunity to review and, where necessary, giveadditional focus and momentum to the progressbeing made in these important areas.



132. Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister forForeign Affairs his views on the involvement ofIrish companies in the construction of the securitywall in Palestine (details supplied). [8119/04]

133. Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister forForeign Affairs his views on whether theparticipation of a company (details supplied) inthe construction of the wall in Palestine is incontravention of the UN Norms on theResponsibilities of Transnational Corporationsand Other Business Enterprises with Regard toHuman Rights 2003. [8118/04]


I am advised that CRH own a minority sharein a company which owns a company, NesherCement, which supplies cement to concretemanufacturers. Nesher is not directly involved inthis construction project. Nevertheless, it seemslikely that Nesher, which is the main supplier ofcement in Israel and the Occupied Territories,may supply cement to the concrete manufacturersinvolved in the construction of the barrier. Iwould not accept that this constitutesparticipation by an Irish company in theconstruction of the separation barrier andconsequently I do not see that the question ofconformity with the UN norms referred to arisesin this case.



Military Neutrality.

136. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister forForeign Affairs Ireland’s position in relation toparticipation in EU defence and securityoperations; and if he will make a statement onthe matter. [10289/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): Irefer the Deputy to my reply to Priority QuestionNo. 1 of 29 May 2003.


Since its inception, Ireland has sought to playa positive and constructive role in the evolutionof European Security and Defence Policy, ESDP.It is an inclusive project and it has been conceivedand elaborated with the engagement of allmember states. We will continue to participateactively in its ongoing development.

Ireland, in association with other EU memberstates, especially the other neutral and non-aligned countries, has helped to influence theoverall parameters within which ESDP operatesby placing particular emphasis on the primaryrole of the United Nations Security Council forthe maintenance of international peace andsecurity. Conflict prevention has also been at thecore of the Union’s approach and Ireland hasworked to ensure that this centrally importantdimension to ESDP is given prominence. In termsof ESDP operations, military and civilianpersonnel can only be deployed under EUauspices to undertake humanitarian,peacekeeping and crisis management tasks,known as Petersberg Tasks. Participation byIreland in EU military crisis managementoperations requires a Government decision andUN authorisation for the mission in question. Aresolution by Dail Eireann is also required wherethe proposed number for deployment of Irishpersonnel exceeds twelve. These conditions areset out in the Defence Acts and were reflected inthe national declaration made by Ireland at theSeville European Council in June 2002, inadvance of the referendum on the Nice treatyheld in October of that year.

To date, Ireland has participated in one EUmilitary crisis management operation. Fivemembers of the Defence Forces took part lastsummer in Operation Artemis, a temporarystabilisation force in the north-eastern provinceof Ituri in the Democratic Republic of Congo.This mission was undertaken by the EU inresponse to a request by UN Secretary-GeneralKofi Annan and in light of UN Security CouncilResolution 1484 of 30 May 2003.

In the civilian crisis management area,members of the Garda Sıochana haveparticipated in UN missions as well as missionsorganised by the Organisation for Security andCo-operation in Europe, OSCE and by the EU.Assistant Commissioner Kevin Carty of theGarda Sıochana is currently serving as head ofmission of the EU’s police mission, EUPM, inBosnia-Herzegovina. A further three gardaı alsoparticipate in this mission. Any futuredeployment of Irish military or civilian personnelon EU crisis management operations willcontinue to be in accordance with relevantlegislative and constitutional requirements.

Foreign Conflicts.

137. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister forForeign Affairs the way in which Ireland intendsto influence the ongoing situation in Iraq; and if

he will make a statement on the matter.[10290/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): AsPresident of the EU, Ireland participates in theUnited Nations ’Group of Friends’ and the IraqiCore Group. This participation furthers the EUaim of contributing towards the political —Group of Friends — and economic — Iraqi CoreGroup — reconstruction of Iraq.

Ireland also seeks to influence the situation inIraq through bilateral contacts with key players.In this regard, the Government has recently hadexchanges with the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and his special adviser,Lakhder Brahimi, Iraqi human rights Minister,Abdelbaset Saaed and United States Secretary ofState, Colin Powell, senior figures in theGovernments of other permanent members ofthe UN Security Council, the Secretary Generalof the Arab League and Governments of theregion as well as important NGOs. In thesebilateral contacts, we have stressed our keypositions that we support as rapid a transfer ofpower as possible to a democratically electedIraqi Government and that the UN should play astrong and vital role in the transition process.

We will also continue to raise the issuesinvolved with EU partners and seek to achieveconsensus on the situation and the way forward.As a result of such work, the recent EuropeanCouncil adopted an important declaration whichwelcomed recent positive political developmentin relation to Iraq, including the signing of theTransitional Administrative Law and the UN’sacceptance of the invitation received from thecurrent Iraqi authorities to assist with theformation of an interim government and with thepreparation for elections. The council also notedthe European Union’s determination to assist theIraqi people as they enter a new era in the historyof their country.

Ireland’s humanitarian assistance to Iraq thisyear will be channelled through trusted partnerssuch as UN agencies, international organisationsand trusted NGOs. At the Madrid donors’conference in October 2003, Ireland pledged upto \3 million in further assistance to Iraq. Thiswas in addition to the \5 million funding packagewhich had already been delivered in 2003.

Overseas Development Aid.

138. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister forForeign Affairs the position in regard to the fightagainst starvation on the African continent; theextent to which this country can offer unilaterallyor in conjunction with others, urgently requiredassistance; and if he will make a statement on thematter. [10292/04]

140. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister forForeign Affairs if he has satisfied himself that thestructures currently in place are adequate toprevent overseas development aid from getting


[Mr. Durkan.]into the wrong hands; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [10294/04]

Minister of State at the Department of ForeignAffairs (Mr. Kitt): I propose to take QuestionsNos. 138 and 140 together.

I am deeply conscious of the enormity of thechallenges facing African nations as they seek tobuild the foundations of economic and socialdevelopment, often in a climate of hunger,disease and conflict. The reduction of poverty,hunger and insecurity is one of the mostimportant tasks to which the internationalcommunity can dedicate itself in the 21st century.

The challenges facing the internationalcommunity can only be overcome when donorssuch as Ireland, the EU and others work hand inhand with United Nations agencies dedicated torelieving poverty, tackling famine and reducingconflict.

Ireland responds in two ways to thehumanitarian and development needs of Africa.In the short term, we focus on saving lives in themost effective way possible, through directassistance via the UN system and internationalagencies as well as non-governmentalorganisations, NGOs. In the longer term,Ireland’s development programme tackles thestructural reasons underlying endemic poverty.

Last year the Government’s humanitarianassistance to African countries amounted to morethan \20 million. Humanitarian interventionswere designed to reduce the effects of famine,disease and conflict on some of the mostvulnerable populations in Africa, with aparticular emphasis on women and children. Ourdirect humanitarian assistance is complementedby ongoing political action. In relation to foodinsecurity, we have been working closely with ourpartners in the EU and the UN to developstrategies on how immediate needs can best bemet at national and regional level.

In November last, Ireland hosted the launch ofthe 2004 UN humanitarian appeal. The appeal isa key instrument for the humanitariancommunity and acts as the principal vehicle forstrategic planning and resource mobilisation. Itfacilitates effective and efficient responses tofamines and other emergencies by fosteringcollaboration among key humanitarian agenciesincluding NGOs, donors and host governments.In hosting the launch, I highlighted chronichumanitarian emergencies, particularly in Africa,which have faded from public consciousness orindeed have never been funded sufficiently.

At EU level, Ireland hosted an informalmeeting of the Humanitarian Affairs Committeein Dublin last week. This meeting broughttogether senior representatives from thehumanitarian offices in member states and theCommission to share information in relation tothe effective management and implementation ofhumanitarian aid.

The underlying structural problemscontributing to poverty and instability must beaddressed if we are to break the cycle of foodinsecurity, disease and conflict in the Africancontinent. The main geographical focus ofIreland’s bilateral programme is sub-SaharanAfrica, the poorest region in the world. Withinthe framework of three-year country strategypapers, CSPs, Development Co-operation Irelandprovides long-term development assistance to sixprogramme countries in Africa — Ethiopia,Lesotho, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda andZambia — as well as South Africa. In line withother donors, we operate in partnership with thegovernments of these countries and agree ourstrategies with them to ensure that ourinterventions respond effectively to theirdevelopment needs. We help to build up thecapacity of these governments to manage theirown affairs, which in turn strengthens their senseof ownership of the whole development process.

Obviously a key issue, when one is operatingin an environment of dire poverty and thecorruption usually associated with it, is to haverobust processes for oversight and accountability.In line with best practice, the Development Co-operation Ireland programme provides thisthrough a rigorous system of evaluation,monitoring and audit. All accounts andexpenditure are audited. There is a strong,comprehensive monitoring process, which acts asa quality control on the programme. Theevaluation approach allows for a forensicexamination of interventions to measureeffectiveness and identify lessons learned. Thesesystems are reviewed regularly and updated asnecessary.






143. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister forForeign Affairs the ten most sensitive locationsworld-wide in which serious human rights abusesoccur on an ongoing basis; his plans duringIreland’s EU Presidency to focus on and dealwith these situations; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [10297/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): AsI have made clear on previous occasions, it is notthe policy of the Government to draw up a leaguetable of countries deemed guilty of the worsthuman rights abuses.


Together with our EU partners, theGovernment monitors the human rightssituations in many countries throughout theworld, on the basis of information obtained froma variety of sources including non-governmentalorganisations. Where the situation warrants, wemake known our concerns about human rightsviolations to the governments in question, eitherdirectly or through action at the UN GeneralAssembly and the UN Commission on HumanRights. At these bodies, the EU regularly makesstatements on the human rights situations in anumber of countries from all regions. The EUalso introduces or supports resolutions dealingwith specific countries.

At the 60th session of the UN Commission onHuman Rights, which is currently ongoing inGeneva, Ireland as Presidency of the Council, onbehalf of the EU, will present a significantnumber of country-specific initiatives, includingresolutions on the human rights situations inBurma/Myanmar, North Korea, DRC, theRussian Federation (Chechnya), Sudan andZimbabwe, as well as the question of Israelisettlements in the Occupied Territories. Inaddition, it will propose initiatives onTurkmenistan and Belarus jointly with theUnited States. The EU will also initiate Chair’sstatements on Colombia and Timor Leste.

Active participation in multilateralorganisations such as the EU, UN and theCouncil of Europe, provides an occasion whereIreland can voice its concerns regarding humanrights abuses. Through these organisations,international pressure can be brought to bear onthose responsible for the violation of humanrights. The Government will continue to use thesemechanisms as a means of highlighting violationof human rights and furthering their protection.

144. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister forForeign Affairs the extent to which he proposes,during Ireland’s Presidency of the EU, to focuson human rights abuses throughout Africa; thepossible remedies under consideration; and if hewill make a statement on the matter. [10298/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen):Africa is a continent beset by often seeminglyinsurmountable problems including conflict, debt,poverty and HIV/AIDS. The EuropeanCommission and member states collectively arethe largest global donors of developmentassistance to Africa and the EU is thus in aposition to play an important role in helpingAfricans address the problems of the continent.

There are two overarching themes which theIrish Presidency has decided to address duringthis Presidency which are of crucial relevance toAfrica: poverty reduction and conflict prevention.

The Deputy will also be aware of the prioritythe Government has attached to children andarmed conflict and human rights defenders aspart of the EU Presidency. The issues of childrenand armed conflict and slavery are closely linked

and the role of human rights defenders inhighlighting instances of slavery and bondedlabour is vital in focusing national andinternational attention. We are currentlyoverseeing the satisfactory progress of theimplementation of EU guidelines on children andarmed conflict and EU partners have beencirculated with a paper on draft EU guidelines forthe support of human rights defenders. The EUconducts a process of political dialogue withAfrican, Caribbean and Pacific countries whobenefit from the Cotonou Agreement. HumanRights is a central theme of political dialogue.

While poverty can never be accepted as anexcuse for human rights abuses, the IrishPresidency believes that poverty eradicationshould be the overriding objective of EUdevelopment policy, to be achieved by attainingthe millennium development goals, MDGs.

It is the Presidency’s belief that the EU shouldwork towards the goal of poverty eradication byimproving the effectiveness of its developmentassistance, strengthening the coherence of itspolicies that affect developing countries, workingto enhance the voice of developing countries inmultilateral institutions such as the UN, theBretton Woods Institutions and the WTO andmaking further progress towards meeting theMDGs.

Conflict prevention is another overarchingtheme that Ireland has decided to prioritise in ourrelations with Africa during the Presidency.There can be no development without peace.Many African countries continue to experienceor are gradually emerging from conflict, includingLiberia, Cote d’Ivoire Burundi, the DRC, Sudan,Somalia and Ethiopia-Eritrea.

Ireland also supports the Special Court inSierra Leone, established in order to prosecutepersons bearing the greatest responsibility forserious violations of international humanitarianlaw and certain crimes under national law. TheSpecial Court has an important role in ensuringthat there is no impunity for those who havecommitted grievous crimes in Sierra Leone.

Africa will also be a core theme in ourengagement at the UN Commission on HumanRights in Geneva which is currently under way.Ireland, on behalf of the EU, will be tablingresolutions on the situation of human rights in theDemocratic Republic of Congo, Sudan andZimbabwe. In addition, the Irish Presidency willtable thematic resolutions on the death penaltyand on the rights of the child, with the LatinAmerican-Caribbean grouping, GRULAC, whichhas particular relevance to Africa. Ireland willalso support Italy’s technical resolution onSomalia regarding assistance on human rights.Ireland’s traditional resolution on religiousintolerance, which has universal application, hasnow been taken up by the EU and is beinghandled by our Dutch partners.


Foreign Conflicts.

145. Aengus O Snodaigh asked the Minister forForeign Affairs if he will report on the AttorneyGeneral’s advice and opinion provided to theGovernment on the Iraq intelligence dossier; ifthe Government followed this advice; if not, thereason therefor; if the Attorney General’sposition will be published; and if the dossier willbe published. [10311/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): TheAttorney General’s advice and opinion has notbeen sought in relation to an Iraq intelligencedossier.

Security Council Representation.

146. Aengus O Snodaigh asked the Minister forForeign Affairs the investigations theGovernment made into whether the Irishrepresentation to the UN Security Council wasbugged in view of recent revelations that severalhigh level UN officials were bugged including theUN Secretary General and High Commissionerfor Human Rights. [10312/04]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): I amvery conscious of the importance of maintainingadequate security arrangements in all the officesof my Department, including in respect ofcommunication facilities.

The Permanent Mission of Ireland to theUnited Nations is housed in a separate buildingto the UN headquarters and there is no evidenceto suspect that this office was bugged during thetime when Ireland held a seat in the SecurityCouncil or at any other time.

Third Level Fees.

147. Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Educationand Science the grant aid available to a person(details supplied) in County Mayo that wishes totake up teacher training in Scotland. [10140/04]

Minister for Education and Science (Mr. N.Dempsey): The third level student supportschemes were extended to provide maintenancegrants to eligible students pursuing approved full-time undergraduate courses of at least two yearsduration, pursued in a university or a third levelinstitution which is maintained or assisted byrecurrent grants from public funds, in other EUmember states with effect from the 1996/97academic year. The extension of the schemes atthat time did not include courses at postgraduatelevel and, accordingly, there is no grant aidavailable under the schemes for students pursuingpostgraduate studies outside of Ireland.

An approved undergraduate course in theabove context is defined as a full-timeundergraduate course of not less than two yearsduration pursued in a university or third levelinstitution, which is maintained or assisted byrecurrent grants from public funds in another EUmember state, with the exception of thefollowing: courses in colleges of further and

higher education other than courses which are athigher national diploma level or higher; coursesprovided in a college which are offered in privatecommercial third level colleges in the State andwhich are validated by that college; and coursesin colleges akin to private commercial collegesin Ireland.

Any extension of the current arrangements toprovide for students pursuing postgraduatecourses outside of Ireland could only beconsidered in the light of available resources andother competing demands within the educationsector.

At present, there are no plans, to expand theprovisions in the grant schemes in respect ofstudy abroad. With regard to tuition fees, there isa provision for tax relief at the standard rate inrespect of approved courses at approved collegesof higher education including approvedundergraduate and post graduate courses in otherEU member states. Further details and conditionsin relation to this relief are available from theRevenue Commissioners.

The decision on eligibility for the third levelstudent support schemes is a matter for therelevant local authority/vocational educationalcommittee who administer the schemes.

School Curriculum.

148. Mr. Neville asked the Minister forEducation and Science the plans his Departmenthas to invest proper resources into teachingscience subjects at second level, the absence ofwhich has resulted in only 14% of students takingchemistry or physics as a leaving certificatesubject. [10141/04]

Minister for Education and Science (Mr. N.Dempsey): A range of actions are being taken topromote an increased uptake of science in secondlevel schools, in line with the recommendationsin the report of the task force on the physicalsciences. In particular, important progress isbeing made in regard to curricular reform and in-service support, with new syllabi alreadyimplemented in leaving certificate biology andphysics and chemistry; revised syllabi in primaryscience and junior certificate science beginning inschools in 2003-04; work under way on a newleaving certificate physical sciences syllabus toreplace the physics and chemistry combinedsyllabus. All of these developments are being orhave been supported by national in-serviceprogrammes for teachers; resourcing, withsubstantial grants issued to schools at primarylevel in 1999, 2001 and 2002; an additional percapita grant for physics and chemistry at leavingcertificate; a capital grants programme for seniorcycle science ICT and science equipment; alliedwith the announcement in 2003 of a once-offgrant scheme, likely to cost of the order of \12million, to support the implementation of the newjunior certificate science syllabus. To date some614 schools in the free education scheme haveopted to provide the revised junior certificate


science syllabus from 2003-04. Grants of \5.1million were issued to these schools at the end ofJanuary 2004 and a further tranche of paymentsto certain schools is currently being processed.The revised junior certificate science syllabusprovides for a more investigative approach toscience education with some 30 experiments andinvestigations which have to be carried out overthe period of the programme. This hands-onapproach is seen as critically important toenhance the attractiveness of the subject andencourage more students to choose the physicalsciences at senior cycle; ICT integration projectsin teaching and learning under the schools ITinitiative, and the new TV scope programme inpartnership with RTE, NCCA and the NationalCentre for Technology in Education; provision ofmaterials and publications to schools to promotethe attractiveness and relevance of science forstudents as a subject option and career path;reviews on mathematics, grading of subjects inthe leaving certificate, gender equity issues inscience, and initial reports on teacher trainingundertaken; awareness measures supported byindustry and third level colleges linking withschools; the launch of the new discover scienceand engineering programme in October 2003bringing together all the existing awarenessactivities in a unified strategy; the announcementby the Tanaiste in December 2003 of plans forIreland’s first interactive learning centre forchildren and adults, designed to give visitors ahands-on experience and understanding ofscience and to be an education and outreachcentre for teachers and pupils. The explorationstation is due to open in 2006 and will be situatedin the OPW Heuston Gate development inKilmainham, Dublin.

This work continues to be progressed andenhanced as resources permit in collaborationand consultation with the Department ofEnterprise, Trade and Employment, Forfas andindustry. My Department is fully committed tostrengthening the quality of science teaching andlearning, promoting increased scientific literacyand encouraging more students to choose sciencesubjects at senior cycle and progress to third leveloptions in this critical area as a vitally importantpart of the national strategy to supportcompetitiveness and employment.

Vocational Training Opportunities Scheme.

149. Mr. Stagg asked the Minister forEducation and Science if, in view of the fact thatthe budget and allowances for VTOS have notincreased since 1989, he will now considerincreasing the travel and child care allowances toa level where they will meet the actual costs; andif he will make a statement on the matter.[10147/04]

Minister for Education and Science (Mr. N.Dempsey): A participant on a VTOS programmereceives free tuition and is entitled to a trainingallowance in lieu of an unemployment payment,

equivalent to the maximum rate ofunemployment benefit. VTOS students withother eligible social welfare entitlements, such asone-parent family payment, continue to receivetheir payment from the Department of Social andFamily Affairs.

VTOS students receive books and materialsfree of charge, and may be entitled to a travelallowance if they reside more than three milesfrom a centre. The rates of the travel allowanceare equivalent to those paid to participants onFAS training courses. A training bonus of \31.80per week is also paid to students who have beenin receipt of their social welfare payment for atleast 12 months directly before joining VTOS.

VTOS participants are also eligible to receiveassistance towards child care costs. Grants arepaid annually by my Department to thevocational education committees for this purpose.The local administration of the child care serviceis a matter for the individual VECs. The grant isintended as a contribution to costs. The overallfinancial provision for child care assistance forparticipants on these programmes for 2004 is \4.8million. This compares with the initial budget in2003 of just under \3 million.

Vocational Training Opportunities Scheme.

150. Mr. Stagg asked the Minister forEducation and Science if, in the context of budgetpreparation for 2005, he will consider increasingthe capital funding for VTOS in that year; and ifhe will make a statement on the matter.[10148/04]

Minister for Education and Science (Mr. N.Dempsey): Adult education programmes ingeneral are not provided in purpose-builtaccommodation. Programmes such as VTOS areprovided either in emerging spareaccommodation in schools or in rented premisesand are equipped on an ongoing basis throughtheir non-pay budgets.

Within the constraints of available resourcesand in view of the prospect that accommodationwill increasingly become available through adecline in mainstream enrolments in the schoolsystem, it would not be practical or cost effectiveto develop a general system of capital provisionfor adult education.

As a result of a recent initiative, limited capitalfunding for premises for adult education can bemade available in cases where special difficultiesarise through, for example, the unavailability ofaccommodation for rent. Such funding comesfrom within the provision for first, second andthird-level institutions, rather than from VTOSfunds and is subject to the priorities governingthe use of capital funds. I envisage that thisarrangement will continue. I also envisage thatadult education will for the most part continueto be provided in existing school buildings or inrented premises.



151. Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister forEducation and Science when he will sanction theconstruction of a new school for MonkstownEducate Together national school in view of thetotally inadequate current accommodation andthe fact that two suitable sites already zoned foreducational use have been identified; and if hewill make a statement on the matter. [10149/04]

Minister for Education and Science (Mr. N.Dempsey): The property management section ofthe Office of Public Works recently submitted areport to my Department on the issue of siteacquisition for Monkstown Educate Togethernational school. However, due to the commercialsensitivity of the process involved, it would beinappropriate for me to comment on anyindividual aspect of the report at this time.However, my Department will continue to grant-aid the use of temporary accommodation by theschool at a rate of 95% of the cost pending thedelivery of permanent accommodation.

152. Mr. Crawford asked the Minister forEducation and Science if he will provide anupdate on the application for a extension to HolyFamily School, Cootehill, County Cavan; and ifhe will make a statement on the matter.[10150/04]

Minister for Education and Science (Mr. N.Dempsey): The proposed extension to the HolyFamily primary school, Cootehill, County Cavan,is listed in section 8 of the 2004 school buildingprogramme which is published on myDepartment’s website at www.education.ie. Thisproject has been assigned a band one rating bymy Department in accordance with the publishedcriteria for prioritising large-scale projects. It isplanned to progress this project to advancedarchitectural planning during 2004.

Indicative timescales have been included forlarge-scale projects proceeding to tender in 2004.The budget announcement regarding multi-annual capital envelopes will enable me to adopta multi-annual framework for the school buildingprogramme, which in turn will give greater clarityregarding projects that are not progressing totender in this year’s programme including theHoly Family primary school. I will make a furtherannouncement in that regard during the year.

School Absenteeism.

153. Mr. Neville asked the Minister forEducation and Science the progress on theelection promise that the Government will ensurethat reducing absenteeism in early school leavingis a core priority over the period ofGovernment. [10156/04]

Minister for Education and Science (Mr. N.Dempsey): My Department’s commitment totackling absenteeism and early school leaving isreflected in the national anti-poverty strategy, the

National Action Plan Against Poverty and SocialExclusion 2003-2005 and the latest socialpartnership agreement, Sustaining Progress,which contains a special initiative on tacklingeducational disadvantage: literacy, numeracy andearly school leavers. My Department’s approachcomprises legislative and curricular reforms aswell as preventative interventions. The Education(Welfare) Act was fully commenced on 5 July2002. Under the Act, the National EducationalWelfare Board, NEWB, was established toensure that every child attends school regularlyor otherwise receives an education. To dischargeits responsibilities, the board is developing anationwide service to provide welfare-focusedservices to children, families and schools. At thisstage of its development, the aim of the board isto provide a service to the most disadvantagedareas, including areas designated under theGovernment’s RAPID programme and most at-risk groups. Five regional teams have now beenestablished with bases in Dublin, Cork, Limerick,Galway and Waterford and staff have beendeployed since early December 2003 in areas ofgreatest disadvantage and in areas designatedunder the Government’s RAPID programme.

Thirteen towns with significant school-goingpopulations also now have an educational welfareofficer allocated to them. These towns areDundalk, Drogheda, Navan, Athlone, Carlow,Kilkenny, Wexford, Bray, Clonmel, Tralee,Ennis, Sligo and Letterkenny. In addition, theboard will follow up on urgent cases nationallywhere children are not currently receiving aneducation.

Section 21 of the Education (Welfare) Actrequires the principal of a recognised school toinform an educational welfare officer in writingwhere a student is absent from school for morethan 20 days or where the officer is of the viewthat a student is not attending school regularly.This covers the situation in which a student underthe age of 16 drops out of school entirely and theNEWB has put procedures in place to classify allsuch cases as urgent and prioritise themaccordingly. The board issued an informationleaflet to 330,000 families and 4,000 schools inearly March 2004. The leaflet targeted parentsand guardians of children aged between six and16 years of age and young people aged 16 and 17who have left school early to start work. Itoutlines the role that parents and guardians playin ensuring that their children do not miss out oneducation and training and also gives informationabout the National Educational Welfare Board.In addition, the board launched a new lo-calltelephone number to inform parents andguardians about their legal role andresponsibilities under the Education (Welfare)Act 2000.

As provided for under section 10 of theEducation (Welfare) Act 2000, my Department isworking with the board to ensure that anyopportunities for integrated working between


educational welfare officers and staff on othereducational disadvantage programmes whosework involves a school attendance element, suchas the school completion programme, the home-school community liaison scheme and the visitingteachers for Travellers service, are exploited tothe full.

My Department operates a number ofprogrammes, including the Giving Children anEven Break programme and the home-schoolcommunity liaison scheme, which provideadditional supports for children in primary andpost-primary schools from disadvantagedbackgrounds who are most at risk of educationaldisadvantage and early school leaving. MyDepartment’s main programme for tackling earlyschool leaving is the school completionprogramme which was launched in 2002.

The school completion programmeincorporates the learning, experience and bestpractice derived from previous early schoolleaving initiatives and assimilates the eight to 15early school leaver initiative, ESLI, and the stayin school retention initiative at second level,SSRI. It is a key component of my Department’sstrategy to discriminate positively in favour ofchildren and young people who are at risk ofearly school leaving. The programme is based onan integrated cross-community approach totackling early school leaving. There are currently405 schools, 295 primary and 110 post-primary,participating in the school completionprogramme.

With regard to curriculum reform, myDepartment’s strategies have included wideningthe educational experience available to students.These strategies aim to achieve a greater level ofinclusiveness in curricular provision through suchprogrammes as the junior certificate schoolsprogramme, JCSP, the leaving certificatevocational programme, LCVP, vocationalpreparation and training, VPT, and the leavingcertificate applied, LCA.

Site Acquisitions.

154. Mr. Fleming asked the Minister forEducation and Science the situation regarding anapplication for a site for a new school forGaelscoil Phort Laoise in the Kilminchy area ofPortlaoise in view of the fact that planningpermission for the site is being processed at themoment by Laois County Council; and when theDepartment will approve this application forGaelscoil Phort Laoise for their site for their newschool. [10160/04]

Minister for Education and Science (Mr. N.Dempsey): Gaelscoil Phort Laoise wasestablished with provisional recognition inSeptember 1998 to cater for the demand in thearea for primary education through the mediumof Irish. The school was granted permanentrecognition by my Department in September2000. The Gaelscoil is currently housed intemporary accommodation on the grounds of

Portlaoise GAA Club. My Department grant-aids95% of the rental costs on these premises.

The securing of interim accommodation,pending the availability of resources from myDepartment to provide permanentaccommodation for the school, remains theresponsibility of the patron body. I am aware thatthe Gaelscoil is seeking alternativeaccommodation for September 2004. The schoolauthorities have submitted a proposal, whichwould involve the rental of a site in the Kilminchyarea of Portlaoise and the placing of temporaryaccommodation thereon, as a solution to itsimpending accommodation problems.

There are significant costs attached to thisproposal in terms of site development, annualleasing of site and temporary portacabins and thefinancial implications will be carefully examinedbefore a final decision is made.

Officials from the planning and building unitof my Department are currently examining thisproposal and are in regular communication withthe school authorities in the matter. The schoolauthorities will be advised of my Department’sdecision on the proposal as soon as possible.

Special Educational Needs.

155. Mr. Wall asked the Minister forEducation and Science the methodology used byhis Department in sanctioning funding to providespecial needs assistants for pupils; the criteria thatparents of pupils in need of such assistance has tomeet or supply in obtaining a successful decisionfrom the Department; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [10161/04]

156. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Educationand Science the methodology used by hisDepartment in assessing applications for theprovision of special needs for children; thecriteria that must be met by the pupil and theschool to ensure a successful decision; and if hewill make a statement on the matter. [10162/04]

157. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Educationand Science the guidelines the Department hasin relation to resource teaching; the number ofpupil/teacher ratio; the method of allocation ofhours for the pupil; the criteria a pupil or a schoolmust meet to obtain such resource hours; and ifhe will make a statement on the matter.[10163/04]

Minister for Education and Science (Mr. N.Dempsey): I propose to take questions Nos. 155,156 and 157, together.

A special needs assistant, SNA, may beapproved to assist a pupil who has a significantmedical need for such assistance, a significantimpairment of physical or sensory function orwhere behaviour is such that the pupil is a dangerto himself or herself or other pupils. The currentcriteria used in connection with the allocation ofSNA support are outlined in circular 07/02.

Any application received will be considered inthe context of the criteria set out in the circular


[Mr. N. Dempsey.]and the existing level of SNA provision in theschool. The various levels of resource teachingsupport for pupils with special educational needsare outlined in my Department’s circular 08/02.The numbers of hours available range from 2.5hours per week to five hours per week. Eachpupil allocated resource teaching provision mustmeet the criteria laid down in the circular.

Both circulars referred to, 7/02 and 8/02, maybe accessed in my Department’s website underthe heading, children with special needs.

My Department is at present reviewing existingarrangements for the allocation of specialeducational supports to primary schools. In thatcontext, my officials have initiated discussions onthe matter with representative interests. At thisstage, it would be premature to anticipate theoutcome. I wish to point out, however, that thebasic purpose of that review is to ensure that eachschool has the level of resources required to caterfor its pupils with special educational needs.

158. Ms B. Moynihan-Cronin asked theMinister for Education and Science when hisDepartment proposes to deal with an applicationsubmitted in May 2003 for a special needsassistant for a person (details supplied) in aschool in County Kerry; the reason for theextraordinary delay in dealing with theapplication; and if he will make a statement onthe matter. [10248/04]

Minister for Education and Science (Mr. N.Dempsey): The school referred to by the Deputycurrently has the services of one shared learningsupport post, based, and one resource teachingpost. I can confirm that my Department hasreceived applications for special educationalresources, SER, from the school referred to bythe Deputy, including an application for the pupilin question.

SER applications received between 15February and 31 August 2003, including the onefor the pupil in question, are being considered atpresent. In all, more than 5,000 such applicationswere received. Priority was given to casesinvolving children starting school last Septemberand all of these cases were responded to beforeor soon after the commencement of the currentschool year.

The balance of more than 4,000 applicationshas been reviewed by a dedicated teamcomprising members of my Department’sinspectorate and the National EducationalPsychological Service. These applications arebeing further considered in the context of theoutcome of surveys of SER provision conductedover the past year or so. Account is also beingtaken of the data submitted by schools as part ofthe recent nationwide census of SER provision.

The arrangements for processing applicationsreceived after 31 August 2003, will be consideredin the context of the outcome of discussions on aweighted system of allocation of resource

teaching support. A further communication willbe sent to schools in this regard.

The processing of the applications is a complexand time-consuming operation. However, myDepartment is endeavouring to have thiscompleted as quickly as possible and my officialswill then respond to all applicant schools.Pending a response, schools are advised to referto circular 24/03, which issued in September 2003.This circular contains practical advice on how toachieve the most effective deployment ofresources already allocated for specialeducational needs within the school.

School Transport.

159. Mr. N. O’Keeffe asked the Minister forEducation and Science if he will clarify hisDepartment’s guidelines in relation to propervehicular access to a primary school (detailssupplied), particularly in relation to emergencyvehicles; and if his attention has been drawn tothe fact that many primary schools do not havevehicular access to their yards. [10249/04]

Minister for Education and Science (Mr. N.Dempsey): The planning guidelines for primaryschools are intended as guidance to assist in theplanning of a proper response to the educationalneeds of individual schools.

In the case of existing school buildings whereit is proposed to extend, convert, or renovatethem a flexible pragmatic approach would berequired regarding the application of theguidelines.

The guidelines outline that where a suitabledrop-off point for pupils from buses and cars isnot available within a reasonable distance,provision for a lay-by to facilitate buses and/orcars should be made. This lay-by should not belocated within the school grounds andarrangements should be made if necessary tocede the appropriate land to the local authority.Provision of turning circles and drop-off pointson-site should be avoided. The scope of worksrequired at the school referred to by the Deputy,are appropriate for consideration under thesummer works scheme. While the school’sapplication under the summer works scheme for2004 was unsuccessful it

is open to the school’s management authorityto apply when the 2005 summer works scheme isannounced later this year.


160. Mr. Murphy asked the Minister forEducation and Science when the new schoolpromised for Cullen, Mallow, County Cork willbe built. [10250/04]

Minister for Education and Science (Mr. N.Dempsey): When publishing the 2004 schoolbuilding programme, I outlined that my strategyfor the future will be grounded in capitalinvestment based on multi-annual allocations. Myofficials are reviewing all projects which were not


authorised to proceed to construction as part ofthe 2004 school building programme, with a viewto including them as part of a multi-annual schoolbuilding programme from 2005 and I expect to bein a position to make further announcements onthis matter in the course of the year. Theapplication from the school referred to will beconsidered in this regard.

School Staffing.

161. Mr. Timmins asked the Minister forEducation and Science the position with regardto a person (details supplied) in County Wicklowwho will commence schooling in a school (detailssupplied) in County Wicklow in September 2004and needs resource teaching support and a specialassistant in order to be able to attend; if this canbe sanctioned as a matter of urgency in order thatthe necessary personnel can be recruited in viewof the fact this person cannot attend the schoolwithout these being in place; and if he will makea statement on the matter. [10251/04]

Minister for Education and Science (Mr. N.Dempsey): I can confirm that my Department hasreceived applications for special educationalresources, SER, from the school referred to bythe Deputy, including an application for the childin question.

SER applications received between 15February and 31 August 2003 are beingconsidered at present. In all, more than 5,000such applications were received. Priority wasgiven to cases involving children starting schoollast September and all of these cases wereresponded to before or soon after thecommencement of the current school year.

The balance of more than 4,000 applicationshas been reviewed by a dedicated teamcomprising members of my Department’sinspectorate and the national educationalpsychological service. These applications arebeing further considered in the context of theoutcome of surveys of SER provision conductedover the past year or so. Account is also beingtaken of the data submitted by schools as part ofthe recent nationwide census of SER provision.

The processing of the applications is a complexand time-consuming operation. However, myDepartment is endeavouring to have thiscompleted as quickly as possible and my officialswill then respond to all applicant schools.Pending a response, schools are advised to referto circular 24/03, which issued in September 2003.This circular contains practical advice on how toachieve the most effective deployment ofresources already allocated for specialeducational needs within the school. Thearrangements for processing applicationsreceived after the 31 August 2003, including theapplication for the child in question, will beconsidered in the context of the outcome ofdiscussions on a weighted system of allocationof resource teaching support. A further

communication will be sent to schools in thisregard.

School Accommodation.

162. Mr. Stagg asked the Minister forEducation and Science if his attention has beendrawn to the fact that a school (details supplied)in County Kildare has established a new scienceclassroom to meet the requirements of the newcurriculum; if his attention has further beendrawn to the fact that the furnishings have arrivedand are stacked in the room but that the schoolauthorities cannot get approval for providing thenecessary services like heating, water and gas forthe new science room; if clearance will be givenas soon as possible to proceed with the work; andif he will make a statement on the matter.[10252/04]

Minister for Education and Science (Mr. N.Dempsey): I wish to advise the Deputy that myDepartment has recently authorised CountyKildare VEC to carry out the additional works atthe school in question.

Schools Refurbishment.

163. Mr. Stagg asked the Minister forEducation and Science if he has received anapplication for funding from a school (detailssupplied) in County Kildare to repair the roof onthe older part of the building; when he expects toprovide the funding required; and if he will makea statement on the matter. [10253/04]

Minister for Education and Science (Mr. N.Dempsey): The scope of works, required at theschool referred to by the Deputy, is appropriatefor consideration under the summer worksscheme. While the school’s application under thesummer works scheme for 2004 was unsuccessful,it is open to the school’s management authorityto reapply for the key priority works

required at the school as part of the 2005summer works scheme, details of which will beannounced later this year.

Education Welfare Service.

164. Mr. Stanton asked the Minister forEducation and Science if he will remove therestriction in force by his Department that makesit difficult, if not impossible, for educationalwelfare officers to travel to schools more than tenmiles from their offices; the budget available tothe National Education Welfare Board; and if hewill make a statement on the matter. [10279/04]

Minister for Education and Science (Mr. N.Dempsey): The Education (Welfare) Act wasfully commenced on 5 July 2002. Under the Act,the National Educational Welfare Board wasestablished to ensure that every child attendsschool regularly or otherwise receives aneducation. To discharge its responsibilities, theboard is developing a nation-wide service toprovide welfare-focused services to children,


[Mr. N. Dempsey.]families and schools. It has appointed a chiefexecutive officer, directors of corporate andeducational services together with a further eighthead office staff. To date, 53 educational welfarestaff have been appointed. In December 2003, the

board advertised a competition to fill a further15 vacancies which will bring the total staffcomplement to 84. The board will shortly bemaking eight educational welfare officerappointments from this competition.

At this stage of its development, the aim of theboard is to provide a service to the mostdisadvantaged areas and most at-risk groups. Fiveregional teams have now been established withbases in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway andWaterford and staff have been deployed sinceearly December in areas of greatest disadvantageand in areas designated under the Government’sRAPID programme.

Thirteen towns with significant school-goingpopulations, 12 of which are designated under theGovernment’s RAPID programme, also nowhave an educational welfare officer allocated tothem. These towns are Dundalk, Drogheda,Navan, Athlone, Carlow, Kilkenny, Wexford,Bray, Clonmel, Tralee, Ennis, Sligo andLetterkenny. In addition, the board will follow upon urgent cases nationally where children are notcurrently receiving an education.

My Department has allocated \6.5 million tothe National Educational Welfare Board for 2004which represents an increase of 20% on the 2003provision. Discussions are ongoing betweenofficials of my Department and the board inrelation to its planned activities for 2004 and norestrictions have been placed on the board by myDepartment in this regard.

Student Councils.

165. Mr. Stanton asked the Minister forEducation and Science his views on the existence,work and role of the Union of Secondary SchoolStudents; his plans to support the work andfurther expansion and development of theorganisation; the funding that he has madeavailable or intends to make available in thisregard; and if he will make a statement on thematter. [10280/04]

Minister for Education and Science (Mr. N.Dempsey): I met with representatives of theUnion of Secondary School Students in March2003. I asked at that meeting that the USS wouldsubmit a business plan and details of how theUSS would operate and spend the fundingsought. To date, my Department has not receivedthe information requested. On its receipt, furtherconsideration will be given to the work andproposed role of USS and its request forfinancial assistance.

166. Mr. Stanton asked the Minister forEducation and Science the funding available toassist in the development and promotion of

school student councils; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [10281/04]

Minister for Education and Science (Mr. N.Dempsey): Funding is provided to schools on aper capita basis which affords schoolsconsiderable flexibility in the use of theseresources to cater for the needs of their pupils.This is in my view, in general, a preferableapproach to putting in place grants for specificitems such as student councils.

A recent survey by my Department reveals thatstudent councils have already been established in558 of the 743 post-primary schools in the State.Officials of my Department are participating ina working group on student councils, which wasestablished in June 2003 by the NationalChildren’s Office. The working group, as part ofits brief, will seek to identify the barriers, if any,to the establishment of student councils and themeasures needed to encourage the establishmentof student councils, including supports for studentcouncil structures at national and local level. OnTuesday, 23 March, as part of the ongoing workof the working group, my colleague, the Ministerof State with special responsibility for children,Deputy Brian Lenihan, launched a website and anational leaflet and poster campaign toencourage and support the establishment andoperation of student councils.

The working group will report on theirfindings, including a proposed three year strategyto support the establishment and development ofstudent councils, by December 2004.

School Staffing.

167. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Educationand Science the progress that has been made inrelation to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 165,166, 167, 168, 170, of 17 December 2003 inrelation to special needs, resource hours, specialneeds assistants, resource teachers and the resultof the general resource audit in regard to theschool concerned; and if he will make a statementon the matter. [10282/04]

Minister for Education and Science (Mr. N.Dempsey): I wish to inform the Deputy that theneeds of the school in question are still underconsideration and, as soon as the review iscomplete, the school authorities will be informedof the outcome.

Adult Education.

168. Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister forEducation and Science when he will establish theNational Adult Learning Council on a statutorybasis; and if he will make a statement on thematter. [10284/04]

Minister for Education and Science (Mr. N.Dempsey): The National Adult Learning Councilwas established in March 2002 on an ad hoc basispending the making of an order under section 54of the Education Act 1998 to establish it as a


statutory body. The role and functions of thecouncil were outlined in the White Paper onAdult Education, Learning for Life.

Since the establishment of the ad-hoc council,concerns have emerged that its functions are toowide-ranging and not sufficiently focused.Additionally, a number of developments haveoccurred which will impact on the work of thecouncil. Accordingly, my Department hasundertaken a strategic review of the role andfunctions of the council to address these concerns.A decision with regard to the statutory functionsof the National Adult Learning Council will bemade in the light of the recommendations of thereview.

Harbours and Piers.

169. Mr. McGinley asked the Minister forCommunications, Marine and Natural Resourcesif arrangements can be made to provide a powerpoint at Portnaglagh Pier, County Donegal.[10151/04]

Minister for Communications, Marine andNatural Resources (Mr. D. Ahern): PortnaglaghPier is owned by Donegal County Council andresponsibility for any maintenance anddevelopment work rests with the local authorityin the first instance. The county council has notbeen in touch with my Department in relation tothe provision of a power point. Accordingly, Isuggest that the Deputy might wish to contactDonegal County Council on the matter.

Broadband Technology.

170. Mr. Kehoe asked the Minister forCommunications, Marine and Natural Resourcesthe company that was awarded the contract tomanage the main hub and services associatedwith the introduction of broadband to Wexfordtown; and if he will make a statement on thematter. [10240/04]

Minister for Communications, Marine andNatural Resources (Mr. D. Ahern): Themanagement services entity, MSE, is theindependent body, which will be engaged tomanage, market and maintain the fibre opticmetropolitan area networks, MANs, currentlybeing constructed under the regional broadbandprogramme, on a basis which is consistent withthe Government’s strategy of providingbroadband infrastructure on an open access andcarrier-neutral basis.

It is intended that this open-access principlewill be enshrined in a code of practice for the useof the metropolitan area networks thus ensuringthat access to the infrastructure is administeredon fair, transparent and non-discriminatory termsto all interested parties.

Notice of my Department’s intention tocommence a competitive tender process for theengagement of an MSE was published in theOfficial Journal of the European Communities on19 June 2003. Responses received by the tender

deadline of 15 August 2003 have been evaluated,and it is anticipated that the MSE procurementprocess, as outlined in the instructions to tenderdocument which issued on 19 June 2003, willreach a conclusion shortly. It is not proposed tomake any public comment on the identity ofparticipating parties prior to such conclusion.

Fisheries Protection.

171. Mr. Stagg asked the Minister forCommunications, Marine and Natural Resourceswhen he proposes to set the drift net totalallowable catch for salmon for the coming season;and if he will make a statement on the matter.[10241/04]

Minister for Communications, Marine andNatural Resources (Mr. D. Ahern): On 5 March2004, my Department published a draft of thewild salmon and sea trout tagging schemeregulations, which, inter alia, limit the totalallowable commercial catch, TAC, of salmon forthe 2004 season for all fishery districts to 161,951fish. This is a reduction of 11% on the 2003 TAC.The TAC has been proposed on the advice of theNational Salmon Commission and the regionalfisheries boards’ managers and is consistent withtheir recommendation last year that a three-yearstrategy should be put in place aimed at reachingthe scientific advice on precautionary catch limitsover the period 2003-05.

The draft regulations have been published inaccordance with the requirements of the FisheriesActs, which provide for a 30-day period duringwhich interested parties have an opportunity tosubmit any objections they may have. This periodexpires on 4 April 2004. Following considerationof any objections received, I expect to make afinal decision on the scheme as soon as possibleafter that date.

172. Mr. Stagg asked the Minister forCommunications, Marine and Natural Resourcesif, in view of the provisions of the UNConventions on the Law of the Sea, he hasreceived a submission from the North AtlanticSalmon Fund on the netting in Irish waters ofmigrating salmon from other States; when thesubmission was received; when it is proposed torespond to that submission; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [10242/04]

Minister for Communications, Marine andNatural Resources (Mr. D. Ahern): MyDepartment has received a number of items ofcorrespondence from the North Atlantic SalmonFund, NASF, in recent years and my colleague,the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, met withthe chairman of that organisation, Mr. OrriVigfusson, in 2003, to discuss the organisation’sgeneral concerns about the netting of wild salmonby Irish commercial fishermen.

One of the key concerns expressed by NASFrelates to the interception, in Irish home waterfisheries, of wild salmon not destined for Irish


[Mr. D. Ahern.]waters. While the Irish Governmentacknowledges this concern, NASF will be fullyaware that the Government does not accept thevalidity of the argument that its salmonmanagement regime does not comply withinternational legislation or best practice. Nor dowe accept that there is any sound or agreedscientific basis for the allegations made that theIrish salmon drift net fishery has an unacceptableimpact on salmon stocks in other Europeancountries.

Salmon Stocks.

173. Mr. Stagg asked the Minister forCommunications, Marine and Natural Resourcesif, in view of the Irish Presidency of the EU, hehas received representations from other memberstates, in particular the UK, Germany, Franceand Spain, concerning the netting in Irish watersof migrating stocks of salmon which originated inrivers in these EU countries; his views on whethersuch affected countries have the right to a majorrole in the management of their migratory fishstock, salmon, while the fish are in the waters ofanother country, in this case Ireland; if he hasresponded to the representations referred to, andthe content of his response; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [10243/04]

Minister for Communications, Marine andNatural Resources (Mr. D. Ahern): I am advisedthat my Department has no specific record ofreceipt, since the commencement of Ireland’sPresidency of the EU, of any representationsreceived from other member states concerningthe netting of migrating stocks of salmon in Irishwaters.

174. Mr. Stagg asked the Minister forCommunications, Marine and Natural Resourcesif he has recently studied a report of IDECONwhich was commissioned by the Government toreport on the survival of the Atlantic salmon; hisviews on whether the report supports the policyof the North Atlantic Salmon Fund in the matterfor buying out or setting aside the commercialnetting of salmon in Irish waters; his views on theIDECON report; when he proposes to implementthe report; and if he will make a statement on thematter. [10244/04]

Minister for Communications, Marine andNatural Resources (Mr. D. Ahern): The reportto which the Deputy refers, An Economic/Socio-Economic Evaluation of Wild Salmon in Ireland,by INDECON International EconomicConsultants, was commissioned and published bythe Central Fisheries Board.

Following publication, the report was thesubject of a detailed consultation process,undertaken by the Central Fisheries Board,among stakeholders and interested parties toascertain the degree of consensus that existedabout its findings. The results of the process are

still being analysed prior to submission to myDepartment.

I am advised that what is evident from theconsultation process at this stage is that there arewidely divergent views among stakeholders notonly on the findings but also on the methodologyadopted to carry out the study.

Until such time as the Central Fisheries Boardsubmits the results of the consultation exercise, Iam not in a position to make any judgement onthe report.

EU Directives.

175. Mr. Stagg asked the Minister forCommunications, Marine and Natural Resourcesif his attention has been drawn to the fact thatthe EU Commissioner for the Environment isinvestigating complaints from the Wessex Salmonand River Trust, UK and WYE Foundation, UK,that by killing salmon from their CSAC rivers,Ireland is in breach of the EU habitats directive;when the complaints were submitted to hisDepartment; the reason no response has issuedto date; when it is proposed to make a response;and if he will make a statement on the matter.[10245/04]

Minister for Communications, Marine andNatural Resources (Mr. D. Ahern): Thecomplaint to which the Deputy refers wasforwarded by the EU Commission in July 2003 tothe Department of the Environment, Heritageand Local Government, which has primaryresponsibility for the implementation in Irelandof Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation ofnatural habitats and of wild flora and fauna. Asthe complaint concerned drift net fishing in Irishhome waters my Department prepared acomprehensive submission detailing our responseto the specific issues raised. I am advised that thisresponse was issued by the PermanentRepresentation of Ireland in Brussels on 4November 2003, in accordance with the timetableagreed with the Commission. I understand theCommission has yet to respond to our reply.

Harbours and Piers.

176. Mr. Coveney asked the Minister forCommunications, Marine and Natural Resourceswhen funds will be allocated towards dredgingcosts at Buncrana on Lough Swilly, in CountyDonegal. [10278/04]

Minister for Communications, Marine andNatural Resources (Mr. D. Ahern): BuncranaHarbour is owned by Donegal County Counciland responsibility for its repair and maintenancerests with the local authority in the first instance.

In November 2003 the county councilsubmitted a proposal to my Department forfunding to dredge Buncrana Harbour at anestimated cost of \200,000. The question ofproviding funding for this project in the 2004-06period will depend on the amount of Exchequer


funding available for works at fishery harboursgenerally and overall national priorities.

The foreshore licence application by DonegalCounty Council in respect of dredging atBuncrana is also currently being finalised by myDepartment.

Telecommunications Services.

177. Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister forCommunications, Marine and Natural Resourceshis views on whether information andcommunications technologies afford theGovernment an opportunity to redress ageneration of neglect and marginalisation withregard to infrastructure, investment and socialinclusion on the Inishowen peninsula. [10318/04]

178. Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister forCommunications, Marine and Natural Resourceshis views on whether broadband access forcommunities and actual and potential investorscan contribute significantly to overcoming themarginalisation and impoverishment of peopleliving on the Inishowen peninsula. [10319/04]

179. Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister forCommunications, Marine and Natural Resourcesif he will set out a precise schedule for theprovision of an efficient network capable ofbringing broadband to domestic and businessconsumers in Inishowen. [10320/04]

180. Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister forCommunications, Marine and Natural Resourcesif his Department will conduct an economic riskassessment for Inishowen, measuring the negativeeconomic impact, for example, investmentdisincentive, of further delays in deliveringbroadband to Inishowen. [10321/04]

181. Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister forCommunications, Marine and Natural Resourceswhen the regional broadband investmentinitiative will be rolled out in Inishowen.[10322/04]

182. Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister forCommunications, Marine and Natural Resourcesthe current state of Eircom’s telephoneinfrastructure and carrying capacity forbroadband in Inishowen. [10323/04]

Minister for Communications, Marine andNatural Resources (Mr. D. Ahern): I propose totake Questions Nos. 177 to 182, inclusive,together.

The provision of and investment intelecommunications services, includingbroadband, is a matter in the first instance forthe private sector companies operating in a fullyliberalised marketplace, regulated by theCommission for Communications Regulation,ComReg.

Recognising, however, that the market hasbeen slow to respond to demand for broadband,an indicative \200 million in Government andERDF funding was set aside under the National

Development Plan 2000-2006 for regionalbroadband investment.

Since 1999 my Department has invested almost\170 million in regional broadband projects, inpartnership with private sector companies. Theseprojects include the ESB Telecom national fibrebackbone, which extends to Buncrana, and alsothe Eircom regional fibre project and theLetterkenny MAN, both in Donegal.

Currently, my Department is grant aiding theconstruction of 19 fibre optic metropolitan areanetworks, in conjunction with local authorities, inkey regional towns and cities. This investment of\65 million will enable the delivery ofcompetitive, open access broadband services inthese towns.

On 12 December last I announced a broadbandaction plan. This plan aims to roll out open accessbroadband infrastructure to over 90 towns with apopulation of over 1,500, including Carndonaghand Buncrana. In addition, a group broadbandscheme will enable smaller communities to pooltheir broadband demand and secure high-speedconnectivity from a range of service providers.This group scheme will be supported by grant-aidof up to 50% from the Government.

Furthermore, I have secured a commitment of\35 million each year from now until 2007 for thebroadband action plan.

Swimming Pool Projects.

183. Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Arts,Sport and Tourism when he received anapplication from South Dublin County Councilfor grant aid for the development of a newswimming pool in west Tallaght; when theDepartment will be in a position to make apositive decision in respect of this application sothat the local authority can invite tenders for thedevelopment; and if he will make a statement onthe matter. [10155/04]

Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism (Mr.O’Donoghue): South Dublin County Councilapplied for approval of contract documents for aproposed new swimming pool in Jobstown in westTallaght under the local authority swimming poolprogramme last year. The council has also appliedfor grant aid for the replacement of the swimmingpool at Clondalkin. The contract documents forthis project is under consideration in myDepartment.

Hospital Accommodation.

184. Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Healthand Children if adequate funding has beenprovided to the South Eastern Health Board forthe urgently required opening of 19 extra beds atWexford General Hospital; when it is expectedthat these beds will be opened; and if he willmake a statement on the matter. [10144/04]

Minister for Health and Children (Mr. Martin):My Department has received tenderdocumentation from the South Eastern Health


[Mr. Martin.]Board for the provision of an additional 19 bedsat Wexford General Hospital. This proposal isbeing considered in the context of the CapitalInvestment Framework, 2004-2008, which is thesubject of ongoing discussions with theDepartment of Finance.

Hospital Staff.

185. Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Healthand Children if he has satisfied himself with thecurrent number of consultant obstetricians andgynaecologists at Wexford General Hospital; ifhis attention has been drawn to the fact that thebirth rate at Wexford General Hospital in 2003was 1853, several hundred births more thanhospitals with much larger staffing complements;the plans he has for maternity services at thishospital; and if he will make a statement on thematter. [10145/04]

Minister for Health and Children (Mr. Martin):The provision of hospital services, including theappointment of staff at Wexford GeneralHospital, is a matter for the South EasternHealth Board.

An application for a third permanentconsultant obstetrician/gynaecologist post forWexford General Hospital has been received andis being considered by my Department.

Smoking Ban.

186. Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Healthand Children the proposals he has to providebrochures or information leaflets in the Irishlanguage regarding the workplace smoking baneffective from 29 March 2004; and if he will makea statement on the matter. [10146/04]

Minister for Health and Children (Mr. Martin):The www.smokefreeatwork.ie website, whichprovides information and guidance on the smoke-free workplaces measures, was launched on 18February 2004. A number of documents in Irishare available to download from this site athttp://www.smokefreeatwork.ie/downloads/irish.asp:these are the ’Na Caitear Tobac’ sign, the smoke-free at work poster ’Ionaid Oibre Saor o GhalTobac’, the public information leaflet ’BileogEolais don Phobal’ and the employers’information leaflet ’Bileog Eolais d’Fhostoirı’.

Hospital Staff.

187. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Healthand Children the number of nurses enlisted as aresult of the media campaign of advertisementsby SWAHB seeking the recruitment of nurses forhospitals within their region; the number actuallyemployed as a result of the procedure; and if hewill make a statement on the matter. [10169/04]

190. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Healthand Children the number of meetings he or hisDepartment has held with the INO in regard tothe major problems being encountered in

employing the extra nurses needed to overcomethe problems being encountered by hospitalmanagement staff within the SWAHB region; thedecisions made as a result of such meetings; if hehas plans to recruit overseas; if so, when will suchplans be implemented; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [10172/04]

Minister for Health and Children (Mr. Martin):I propose to take Questions Nos. 187 and 190together.

Neither I nor officials from my Departmenthave met with the INO for the purpose ofdiscussing nurse staffing in the SWAHB region.

Responsibility for the recruitment andretention of staff rests with the healthboards/ERHA. My Department has thereforerequested the CEO of the Eastern RegionalHealth Authority to investigate the matter andrespond directly to the Deputy.

Hospital Accommodation.

188. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Healthand Children if his attention has been drawn tothe ongoing difficulties being encountered bypatients at Naas General Hospital in regard tothe lack of beds; if his attention has further beendrawn to the fact that over the past number ofweeks up to 30 patients were on trolley chairs andso on in the hospital; the urgent need to providefunding to the SWAHB to permit the board todeal with the problem; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [10170/04]

189. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Healthand Children if his attention has been drawn tothe grave concerns being expressed by thenursing staff at Naas General Hospital in regardto the over-crowding and unacceptable conditionsat the hospital for the past number of weeks; theefforts he is making to overcome these problems;and if he will make a statement on the matter.[10171/04]


Responsibility for the provision of services atNaas General Hospital rests with the EasternRegional Health Authority. My Department has,therefore, asked the regional chief executive ofthe authority to examine the matters raised bythe Deputy and to reply to him directly.


Health Board Services.

191. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Healthand Children the number of orthodontistsemployed by the SWAHB; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [10173/04]

192. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Healthand Children the number of children on thewaiting lists for orthodontic treatment in the


SWAHB region; the plans his Department has toovercome this list; and if he will make a statementon the matter. [10174/04]


The provision of orthodontic services is amatter for the health boards/authority in the firstinstance. I am pleased to advise the Deputy thatI have taken a number of measures to improveorthodontic services in the South Western AreaHealth Board, SWAHB, of the Eastern RegionalHealth Authority, ERHA, and on a nationalbasis.

The grade of specialist in orthodontics has beencreated in the health board orthodontic service.In 2003, my Department and the health boardsfunded 13 dentists from various health boards forspecialist in orthodontics qualifications at trainingprogrammes in Ireland and at three separateuniversities in the United Kingdom. These 13trainees for the public orthodontic service areadditional to the six dentists who commencedtheir training in 2001. Thus, there is an aggregateof 19 dentists in specialist training fororthodontics, including five from the ERHA.These measures will complement the otherstructural changes being introduced into theorthodontic service, including the creation of anauxiliary grade of orthodontic therapist to workin the orthodontic area.

Furthermore, the commitment of theDepartment to training development ismanifested in the funding provided to both thetraining of specialist clinical staff and the

Treatment Waiting List

Area Health Board Category A Average waiting time (months) Category B Average waiting time (months)

South Western 644 < 10 474 < 12

The recruitment of orthodontic staff is thestatutory responsibility of the authority.Therefore, my Department has asked theregional chief executive of the authority toprovide the Deputy with the information inrelation to personnel in the orthodontic serviceas requested.

The regional chief executive of the authorityhas informed my Department that at the end ofthe December quarter 2003, there were 4,656children receiving orthodontic treatment in thepublic orthodontic service in the ERHA.

193. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Healthand Children the number of occupationaltherapists employed by the South Western AreaHealth Board; the number employed in theKildare region of the board; if there is a shortfallin the area of occupational therapists; the planshis Department has to overcome such difficulties;

recruitment of a professor in orthodontics for theCork Dental School. This appointment at theschool will facilitate the development of anapproved training programme leading tospecialist qualification in orthodontics. The chiefexecutive officer of the Southern Health Boardhas reported that the professor commenced dutyon 1 December 2003. In recognition of theimportance of this post at Cork Dental School myDepartment has given approval in principle to aproposal from the school to further substantiallyimprove the training facilities there fororthodontics. This project should see theconstruction of a large orthodontic unit andsupport facilities; it will ultimately support anenhanced teaching and treatment service to thewider region under the leadership of theprofessor of orthodontics.

Orthodontic initiative funding of \2.044 millionwas provided to the ERHA in 2001 and this hasenabled the authority to recruit additional staffand build additional orthodontic facilities.

In June 2002, my Department providedadditional funding of \5 million from thetreatment purchase fund to healthboards/authority specifically for the purchase oforthodontic treatment. This funding is enablingboards to provide both additional sessions forexisting staff and purchase treatment fromprivate specialist orthodontic practitioners. TheERHA received \1.815 million for the treatmentof cases in this way.

The regional chief executive of the ERHA hasinformed my Department of the followinginformation on the SWAHB treatment waitinglist at the end of December 2003:

and if he will make a statement on the matter.[10175/04]

194. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Healthand Children if his attention has been drawn tothe major backlog of occupational therapyreports in relation to the assessment by the SouthWestern Area Health Board of DPG for KildareCounty Council; the plan his Department has inrelation to recruiting the extra staff necessary toassist existing staff in overcoming the problems;and if he will make a statement on the matter.[10176/04]

195. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Healthand Children the number of applications foroccupational therapy reports in relation todisabled grants assessment for the local authorityof Kildare County Council with the SouthWestern Area Health Board area of Kildare; hisconcerns in relation to the numbers; the plans he


[Mr. Wall.]has to overcome such numbers; and if he willmake a statement on the matter. [10177/04]

Minister of State at the Department of Healthand Children (Mr. T. O’Malley): I propose totake Questions Nos. 193 to 195, inclusive,together.

The provision of health related services forpeople with physical and/or sensory disabilities isa matter for the Eastern Regional HealthAuthority and the health boards in the firstinstance. Accordingly, the Deputy’s questionshave been referred to the chief executive officerof the Eastern Regional Health Authority with arequest that he examine the matter and replydirectly to the Deputy as a matter of urgency.

Hospital Staff.

196. Ms McManus asked the Minister forHealth and Children the progress that has beenmade to fill the post of full-time consultant atBeaumont Hospital which has been vacant fortwo years; and if it will be filled, if it has notalready been filled; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [10195/04]

Minister for Health and Children (Mr. Martin):Services at Beaumont Hospital are providedunder an arrangement with the Eastern RegionalHealth Authority. My Department has, therefore,asked the regional chief executive of theauthority to investigate the matter raised by theDeputy and to reply to her directly.

Health Board Services.

197. Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Healthand Children the steps he intends to take toensure that a person (details supplied) in CountyWestmeath is afforded the appropriate andrequired dental treatment; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [10267/04]

Minister for Health and Children (Mr. Martin):Responsibility for the provision of dentaltreatment to eligible persons in CountyWestmeath rests with the Midland Health Board.My Department has asked the chief executiveofficer to investigate the matter raised by theDeputy and to reply to him directly.

Hospital Services.

198. Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Healthand Children if a person (details supplied) inCounty Westmeath will be admitted to hospitalfor a hip replacement operation; and if he willmake a statement on the matter. [10268/04]

Minister for Health and Children (Mr. Martin):Responsibility for the provision of hospitalservices to residents of County Westmeath restswith the Midland Health Board. My Departmenthas, therefore, asked the chief executive officerof the board to investigate the matter raised bythe Deputy and to reply to him directly.

Care of the Elderly.

199. Mr. Kehoe asked the Minister for Healthand Children if he will consider offering asubvention for those attending community orvoluntary day care centres in order to providefunding for these essential services; and if he willmake a statement on the matter. [10269/04]

Minister of State at the Department of Healthand Children (Mr. Callely): The policy of myDepartment in relation to the care of olderpeople is to maintain them in dignity andindependence in their own home for as long aspossible in accordance with their wishes.Numerous research studies have shown that thevast majority of older people have a preferenceto remain living in their own home for as long aspossible rather than moving into long-stayresidential care. Indeed, the preferred option formost families is to help care for their elderlyrelatives at home for as long as possible with theassistance of local health service staff.

Since my appointment as Minister of State Ihave been encouraging the Eastern RegionalHealth Authority and the health boards tointroduce personal care packages for olderpeople as an alternative to long-stay residentialcare. Personal care packages are specificallydesigned for the individual concerned and couldpossibly include the provision of a home helpservice, home subvention payments,arrangements for attendance at a day centre orday hospital and other services such as twilightnursing. Personal care packages allow olderpersons the option of remaining living in theirown home rather than going into long-stayresidential care. Additional funding of \1.25million was made available to the authority-health boards this year for the introduction ofpersonal care packages. This is on top of thesignificant expenditure currently being incurredon home help and other services aimed atsupporting people at home.

Hospital Services.

200. Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Healthand Children the reason a person (detailssupplied) was left on a trolley in the accident andemergency department for a prolonged period; ifhis attention has been drawn to the way in whichsuch a wait is typical for many patients attendingthe Mater; and the steps he is taking to ensurethere is adequate bed capacity in the MaterHospital. [10315/04]

Minister for Health and Children (Mr. Martin):Responsibility for the provision of services toresidents of Counties Dublin, Kildare andWicklow rests with the Eastern Regional HealthAuthority, and services at the Mater Hospital areprovided under an arrangement with theauthority. My Department has, therefore, askedthe regional chief executive of the authority toinvestigate the matter raised by the Deputy andto reply to her directly.


Motor Fuels.

201. Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister forTransport if he has given consideration tomeasures to promote the wider use of LPG andto encourage the conversion of vehicles to LPGin this regard; and if he will make a statement onthe matter. [10313/04]

Minister of State at the Department ofTransport (Dr. McDaid): I have no plans formeasures to encourage the wider use of LPG inmotor vehicles.

Each new motor vehicle sold within theEuropean Union must be certified by themanufacturer as conforming to the relevant EUemission standards applicable to the particularvehicle. In addition, all vehicles are required tomeet specified in-service emission standards aspart of their periodic roadworthiness tests.

Citizenship Applications.

202. Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister forJustice, Equality and Law Reform the status ofan application for citizenship for a person (detailssupplied). [10283/04]

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform(Mr. McDowell): I am pleased to advise theDeputy that I have recently approved theapplication for a certificate of naturalisation inrespect of the person referred to and a certificateof naturalisation will issue as soon as certainstatutory and other requirements, including themaking of a declaration of loyalty to the Stateand fidelity to the nation and payment of thestatutory fee, have been complied with. Theapplicant has been notified in writing of mydecision.

Electronic Voting.

203. Mr. Allen asked the Minister for theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Governmentthe response his Department made to thecomments (details supplied) of the Zerflowreport of 27 March 2002; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [10127/04]

204. Mr. Allen asked the Minister for theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government if,as recommended in the Zerflow report of 27March 2002, a third party audit was put in placeto test the electronic voting system in the generalelection of May 2002; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [10128/04]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage andLocal Government (Mr. Cullen): I propose totake Questions Nos. 203 and 204 together.

In addition to the reports prepared by twointernational testing institutes on the votingmachine, my Department also commissionedZerflow Information Security in March 2002 toassess the possible threats to the external physicalfeatures of the voting machine in a pollingstation. The comments referred to in the question

were part of the initial discussion betweenZerflow personnel and my Department designedto inform Zerflow of the detailed electoralprocess.

Some recommendations made in the reportwere accepted by the Department andincorporated in instructions to returning officers,while others were assessed by the Departmentand the voting machine manufacturers asimplausible in practice and that the probability oftheir occurrence without detection was extremelyremote. All recommendations were againconsidered in the review of the voting machineafter its initial use in 2002 and, together with userfeedback, the Department introducedmodifications to the voting machine includingstrengthening security aspects such as theprovision of a lock on the voting machine frontpanel. As stated in its updated report of 4 July2003, Zerflow has reviewed the changes made tothe system and protocols and have stated thatthey “are satisfied that the recommendations ofour previous report have been addressed and thevoting machine is now secure”.

While no third party audit was commissioned,the performance of the voting machine wascarefully monitored by the returning officers andtheir staff in the pilot constituencies. In addition,voters’ attitudes to the performance of themachine and voting procedures were assessed inan MRBI “exit” poll commissioned by myDepartment. This “exit” poll of voters at the May2002 general election in the three pilotconstituencies of Meath, Dublin North andDublin West revealed a strong positive rating forthe system with 94% of respondents finding thesystem easy to use and 87% of those polledactually preferred the use of voting machines tothe paper ballot. Issues raised by voters such asthe clarity of preference displays have beenaddressed and the improvements made shouldfurther enhance the user-friendliness of thevoting machine.

Water and Sewerage Schemes.

205. Ms B. Moynihan-Cronin asked theMinister for the Environment, Heritage andLocal Government the proposals his Departmenthas to provide funding to Kerry County Councilfor the upgrading of the sewerage scheme inBallydavid County Kerry; and if he will make astatement on the matter. [10129/04]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage andLocal Government (Mr. Cullen): Proposedsewerage works in Ballydavid have beenidentified in the list of water and sewerageschemes submitted by Kerry County Council inresponse to my Department’s request to all localauthorities in 2003 to undertake freshassessments of the needs for capital works in theirareas and to prioritise their proposals on the basisof the assessments. The Ballydavid proposal isincluded in phase 3 of a village seweragerefurbishment programme ranked as fifth in the


[Mr. Cullen.]council’s priority list. Phase 3 relates to locationswith populations of less than 500.

The council’s assessment of needs will be takeninto account in the framing of the next phase ofmy Department’s water services investmentprogramme in due course. In the meantime, itwould be open to the council itself to considerfunding the proposal, estimated to cost \30,000,under the small schemes measure of the devolvedrural water programme.

Local Government Code.

206. Mr. Murphy asked the Minister for theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government ifthe Local Government Acts 1996 and 2001 willbe amended to allow local authorities to enact by-laws to prevent the drinking of alcohol in parksowned by community councils. [10131/04]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage andLocal Government (Mr. Cullen): I understandthat a number of local authorities have used theirgeneral by-law making powers under the localgovernment code to prohibit the drinking of

Disabled Persons Grant and Essential Repairs Grant 2003

Local Authority Original Allocation in 2003 Total Allocation

\ \

County Councils

Carlow 477,000 477,000

Cavan 3,007,000 3,007,000

Clare 579,000 579,000

Cork (n) 2,417,000 2,417,000

Cork (w) 1,797,000 1,497,000

Cork (s) 1,795,000 2,495,000

Donegal 3,902,000 4,702,000

DL/Rathdown 904,000 1,554,000

Fingal 1,389,000 1,389,000

Galway 2,232,000 2,232,000

Kerry 1,378,000 1,378,000

Kildare 1,642,000 1,642,000

Kilkenny 568,000 568,000

Laois 1,176,000 676,000

Leitrim 1,487,000 1,987,000

Limerick 827,000 927,000

Longford ;834,000 834,000

Louth 1,176,000 676,000

Mayo 949,000 1,449,000

Meath 477,000 1,227,000

Monaghan 1,332,000 1,332,000

North Tipperary 1,072,000 944,000

Offaly 482,000 632,000

Roscommon 1,719,000 1,719,000

Sligo 477,000 477,000

South Dublin 2,340,000 2,340,000

South Tipperary 3,155,000 1,255,000

Waterford 512,000 912,000

Westmeath 687,000 1,087,000

Wexford 943,000 1,043,000

alcohol in local parks or public open spaces. Itmay be, however, that significant furtherextension of this type of regulatory control shouldbest be addressed in the context of public orderlegislation which is the responsibility of mycolleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality andLaw Reform. My Department will accordinglyraise the issue with that Department.

Local Authority Funding.

207. Mr. Fleming asked the Minister for theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Governmentthe allocation to each local authority and theoverall national totals in respect of the disabledpersons grants and essential repairs grantsschemes in 2003; and the final amounts paid toeach local authority in 2003 under theseschemes. [10164/04]

Minister of State at the Department of theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government(Mr. N. Ahern): Details of the allocation to eachlocal authority, the original total and the finalallocation paid to all local authorities are set outin the following table.


Local Authority Original Allocation in 2003 Total Allocation

Wicklow 1,564,000 1,564,000

City Councils

Cork 477,000 977,000

Dublin 8,166,000 9,366,000

Galway 594,000 894,000

Limerick 710,000 510,000

Waterford 752,000 612,000

Borough Councils

Clonmel — 0

Drogheda — 0

Kilkenny — 0

Sligo 981,000 600,000

Wexford 24,000 24,000

Town Councils

Athlone — 0

Bray — 0

Dundalk — 0

Total 55,000,000 58,001,000

Planning Issues.

208. Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Governmentthe grounds for an appeal (details supplied); andif he will make a statement on the matter.[10167/04]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage andLocal Government (Mr. Cullen): Under thePlanning and Development Regulations 2001,planning authorities are obliged to notify certainprescribed bodies of planning applicationsreceived by them. My Department is prescribedas a statutory consultee on any proposeddevelopments which may have an impact on thebuilt or natural heritage.

On receipt of the original planning application,my Department wrote to Roscommon CountyCouncil in October 2003 recommending thatpermission for the proposed development shouldnot be granted because the proposeddevelopment is in the immediate vicinity of oneof the most important archaeological sites in thecountry — Rathcroghan — and the proposeddevelopment site is located within the area ofconstraint of a recorded monument andimmediately adjacent to a registered monument,as published in the register of historicmonuments. Accordingly, it was considered thatthe proposed development would result indisturbance of significant archaeological featuresand the development also represented anunacceptable visual impact on this internationallyimportant site.

Roscommon County Council grantedpermission for the development in February 2004and for the reasons already specified, it wasdecided that this decision should be appealed toAn Bord Pleanala. An appeal was lodged withthe board in March 2004.

Water and Sewerage Schemes.

209. Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government ifhe will approve funding for a sewerage scheme(details supplied); and if he will make a statementon the matter. [10194/04]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage andLocal Government (Mr. Cullen): I presume thequestion relates to the Lanesboro Road,Roscommon. An extension of the Roscommonsewerage scheme along the Lanesboro Road wasapproved for funding under the serviced landinitiative of my Department’s water servicesinvestment programme in 2001. However, theapproved proposal has since been modified byRoscommon County Council in favour of a moreextensive and significantly more costly scheme.The revised proposal, which involves an increasein estimated cost from \0.3 million to \1.3million, is being examined in my Department inlight of additional information received from thecouncil earlier this month. It will be dealt with asquickly as possible.

Regional Road Network.

210. Mr. Healy-Rae asked the Minister for theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government iflocal authorities are responsible for the roadnetwork in the first instance; if they are thenresponsible for the cutting of the hedges on theroadside; and if he will make a statement on thematter. [10246/04]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage andLocal Government (Mr. Cullen): Under section13 of the Roads Act 1993 road authorities areresponsible for the maintenance and constructionof non-national roads.

Section 70 of the Act obliges landowners andoccupiers of land to take all reasonable care toensure that hedges growing on their land are not,


[Mr. Cullen.]or could not become, a danger to people using orworking on a public road. If a hedge is, or couldbecome, a danger to those using or working on apublic road, a road authority may serve a writtennotice on the owner or occupier of the landrequiring action to be taken in order to removethe danger or potential danger. The roadauthority may also carry out the works itself ifthe person on whom the notice was served failsto comply with it or may carry out any otherworks which it considers necessary. If the roadauthority considers that a hedge presents animmediate and serious hazard to road users, itmay take immediate action to reduce or removethe hazard without issuing a notice to thelandowner or occupier of land. In either casewhere the authority carries out the work, theauthority may recover the costs from the owneror occupier of the land.

European Parliament Elections.

211. Mr. Noonan asked the Minister for theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government ifresidents in County Clare in the constituency ofEast Limerick are eligible to vote in theforthcoming European elections in the south orwest constituency; and if he will make a statementon the matter. [10247/04]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage andLocal Government (Mr. Cullen): The north westconstituency for the European Parliamentelections includes the entire county of Clare.

State Property.

212. Mr. O’Dowd asked the Minister forCommunity, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs thenumber and location of Udaras properties whichhave been sold since the election of the presentUdaras board; the valuation of these propertiesand the name of the valuer in each case; the saleprice of each property; the name and companyname of all purchasers; if he will give details ofall those who tendered; if he will give details ofthose who were short listed for tender by Udarasofficials and recommended to its board; and thereasons for same and the date of eachdecision. [10260/04]

213. Mr. O’Dowd asked the Minister forCommunity, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if thetendering process for each Udaras propertyoffered for sale since the election of the currentUdaras board was advertised to the public; thepublication in which it was advertised and theadvertised date. [10261/04]

214. Mr. O’Dowd asked the Minister forCommunity, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs thedirectives or guidelines since the Udaras boardwas first established which were given by centralGovernment to regulate the sale of its properties;if such directives were applied to the tenderingprocesses and actual sale of such properties; and

if those tendering for such properties wereobliged to produce business plans and tax-freecertificates as part of the conditions oftendering. [10262/04]

215. Mr. O’Dowd asked the Minister forCommunity, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs thecriteria being used by the board of Udaras inevaluating and determining the successfultenderer for the sale of each Udaras property; ifhe will fully outline the details of these criteriaand the level of priority which Udaras attachesto broader cultural and language considerations,particularly preservation of the Irish language,when making decision on the sale of itsproperties. [10263/04]

Minister for Community, Rural and GaeltachtAffairs (Eamon O Cuıv): I propose to takeQuestion Nos. 212 to 215, inclusive, together.

The Deputy will appreciate that responsibilityfor the disposal of its property is a matter for theBoard of Udaras na Gaeltachta in accordancewith relevant State and EU guidelines anddirectives, which are applicable generally to allState bodies. These include the publicprocurement procedures, 1994 edition, and theCode of Practice for the Governance of StateBodies, 2001.

As I outlined during the Adjournment Debateon the matter on 24 March 2004, section 8 of theUdaras na Gaeltachta Act 1979 sets out thefunctions of Udaras and specifies at subsection8(7): “For the purposes of this section, an tUdarasshall have power to acquire, receive on transfer,hold, sell, mortgage, lease, let or otherwisedispose of land, buildings, markets, premises orplant and to erect, alter or maintain buildings,markets, premises or plant.”

I understand from Udaras na Gaeltachta thatthe disposal of fixed assets can be achieved in anumber of different ways, for example, by thesale or long lease of a premises to sittingindustrial tenants, or by sale on the open market.In respect of the latter, I understand this isnormally handled by auctioneers or estate agentsby way of a tender process, by private treaty orby auction. Where the tendering process wasused, the properties were publicly advertised inthe press and through the estate agent’s office. Iunderstand also that business plans were sought,where appropriate, and that tax clearanceprocedures are not relevant to tenderdocumentation for the sale of assets.

In regard to the criteria being used by theboard of Udaras in evaluating and determiningthe successful tenderer for the sale of Udarasproperty, the Deputy will appreciate that no oneset of criteria can apply to all cases. However,Udaras has confirmed that, in accordance with itsstatutory functions, it attaches a high priority tobroader cultural and language considerations,particularly the preservation of the Irishlanguage, when making decisions on the sale ofits properties.


With regard to the specific details sought inrelation to disposal of Udaras property, theDeputy will appreciate that these are day-to-dayoperational matters for the organisation itself.Accordingly, I have asked the chief executive ofUdaras to provide the appropriate informationdirectly to the Deputy as soon as possible.

Irish Language Place Names.

216. Mr. Kehoe asked the Minister forCommunity, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the wayin which a person can have an incorrect Irishplace name changed; the procedure for such arequest; and if he will make a statement on thematter. [10264/04]

Minister for Community, Rural and GaeltachtAffairs (Eamon O Cuıv): The placenames branchof my Department researches the placenames ofIreland and supports An CoimisiunLogainmneacha in its statutory role of advisingme, as Minister, on the authoritative Irishlanguage forms of placenames. Under section 32of the Official Languages Act 2003, the Ministerhas power, on the advice of An CoimisiunLogainmneacha, to make placenames orders togive full legal effect to that advice.

I understand that the case referred to by theDeputy relates to a specific place name. I haverequested the chief placenames officer in myDepartment to contact the Deputy directly todiscuss the specific issue in this case.

Anti-Poverty Strategy.

217. Mr. Neville asked the Minister for Socialand Family Affairs if he will address the level ofpoverty here as outlined by the Combat PovertyAgency in December 2002-03 outlining that over70,000 households are in consistent poverty and300,000 households are earning less than \175 perweek. [10157/04]

Minister for Social and Family Affairs (MaryCoughlan): The figures quoted by the Deputy aredrawn from the analysis of the results of the 2001living in Ireland survey undertaken by theEconomic and Social Research Institute, ESRI.

These results showed that in 2001, the level ofconsistent poverty had fallen to 5.2%, down from15% in 1994, equating to approximately 71,000households.

The results also showed that in 2001 some23.4% of children — almost 280,000 — were atrisk of poverty by virtue of the fact they wereliving in households where the equivalised adultincome is below 60% of median income. In 2001,that 60% income threshold amounted to \164,roughly equivalent to \175 in

current terms. It must be made clear, however,that this does not mean that 23.4% of childrenwere living in households with incomes below\164 in 2001.

Individuals in a household with one adult andone child would fall below the income thresholdonly where their household income was less than

\218 per week — \164 plus 33.3% for the child.In the case of a family with two adults and twochildren, the household income would have to beless than \380

per week to cause the individuals in thehousehold to fall below the income threshold.

The national anti-poverty strategy, NAPS,together with the national action plan againstpoverty and social exclusion, NAPs/inclusion,provide the framework for the strategic responseby Government to the issues of poverty andexclusion.

The reduction and eventual elimination ofconsistent poverty has been a priority goal of theNAPS since its inception. Latterly, theNAPs/inclusion covering the period from 2003-05, incorporates the commitments made in theNAPS and in the current social partnershipagreement, Sustaining Progress.

The NAPs/inclusion sets out ambitious targetsacross the range of policy areas, includingemployment, income support, health, education,housing and accommodation, which impact onpoverty and social exclusion. It also addresses theneeds of certain groups within society who areparticularly vulnerable to poverty and socialexclusion. These groups include women, childrenand young people, older people, people withdisabilities, travellers, prisoners and ex-prisoners.

Under the partnership agreement, SustainingProgress, a range of special initiatives are beingundertaken, most of which are of direct relevanceto combating poverty, including in particular theinitiatives on ending child poverty, tacklingeducational disadvantage, supports for the long-term unemployed and other vulnerable workers,supports for carers, housing and accommodationinitiatives and migration and inter-culturalism.

Institutional structures have been establishedto monitor and evaluate progress in all areas ofthe NAPS and NAPs/inclusion. These structuresare facilitated and supported by the Office forSocial Inclusion, OSI, in my Department. TheOSI is also involved in co-ordinating the processacross Departments and agencies and inimplementing key support functions related tothe strategy.

The challenge now is to sustain and build onthe progress we have made to date so that we canachieve our overarching objective of eradicatingpoverty and building a fairer and more inclusivesociety.

Consultancy Contracts.

218. Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social andFamily Affairs further to Parliamentary QuestionNo. 505 of 17 February 2004, the name, rank,status and salary of each person employed by herin an advisory, PR or consultative capacity sinceher appointment; if such persons report toestablished civil servants; the names, function androle of their previous employers and their annualsalary while employed by them; if the advisory,consultative or PR positions were publicly


[Mr. Ring.]advertised; if so, the channels through which; andif she will make a statement on the matter.[10314/04]

Minister for Social and Family Affairs (MaryCoughlan): Since I took up office, I haveappointed a special adviser and a press adviser.Both these positions are accountable to my office.

From June 2002 until he resigned on 30 April2003, I retained the services of a special adviser,Mr. Mel Cousins, who had been appointed by mypredecessor, the Minister, Deputy DermotAhern. Mr. Cousins was employed on a contractbasis. The salary for this position in 2003 was themaximum point of the principal higher scale,

\83,465. Prior to his appointment, Mr. Cousinswas a self-employed social policy consultant.

Ms Helen Faughnan, a civil servant in myDepartment, was appointed as special adviser on2 June 2003. Ms Faughnan is an assistantprincipal on principal officer duties. The annualpay scale for principal officer standard scale is\69,194 to \85,589.

I have also appointed, on a contract basis formy term of office, a press adviser, Mr. TomReddy, with effect from 31 July 2002. The currentsalary for this position is the maximum point ofthe principal standard scale, \80,457. Prior to hisappointment, Mr. Reddy was employed in theFianna Fail press office. Neither of these postswas publicly advertised.

vol. 583 wednesday, no. 1 31 march 2004 · than seven days, the latter gave 100% approval for \6.9...

Documents