Order of Business - 5th July 2006

Order of Business - 5th July 2006
Mr. Norris: I was against electronic voting from day one. There was never any public demand for it. In fact, the public did not want it and the Minister accepted that on the wireless yesterday. He said the Irish public never asked for electronic voting and did not want it. It was a gimmick that simply did not work. It was a failure. As a result, the Irish people have lost confidence in electronic voting. The report states that something could be cobbled together and perhaps that is so. However, I heard an IT specialist say yesterday that because of the relationship between the software and the hardware, which I do not understand because it is very complex, they do not know what new problems will emerge.
In light of the fact that the Irish people have lost confidence and that increased participation was not demonstrated anywhere because of electronic voting, why not return to the old system which worked and gave people a human interest in politics? It was also indicated on the radio yesterday that the machines could be sold to the city of New York, where they could be used.
Mr. Dardis: If they are good enough for New York, they are good enough for us.
Mr. Norris: Let us urge the Government to sell these blasted things to the United States of America, get some money back from them and have a decent, old-fashioned election which we can all enjoy.
Mr. Dardis: They are good enough for New York, but not for us.
Ms O’Rourke: Who in New York would buy them?
An Cathaoirleach: Does the Senator have another point?
Mr. Norris: Yes I do.
Mr. Norris: #I want to ask about the situation regarding Aer Lingus because I agree with my colleagues that it would be good if the Minister came to the House because he has attended a meeting of the Joint Committee on Transport. However, this is our responsibility. We passed this legislation, neutering ourselves. It is the responsibility of Members on the Government side because the Government has a majority. There was nothing we could do. We could vote against it but the legislation would still go through. I hope Members on the Government side will never again abrogate their responsibility to the Irish people by allowing legislation on important matters like this to go through only one House of the Oireachtas. This is an appalling matter.
#11 o’clock
#
An Cathaoirleach: #I asked Members to be brief as a number of members are offering.
#
Mr. Norris: #Yes, but a matter in which I have been consistently involved has been raised, namely, An Taisce. When an Irish Independent columnist starts writing about a columnist from The Irish Times there is only one reason I have ever seen for that and it is to cause mischief. In this case I would say that the use of the words “infection” and “criminal” was very unwise by An Taisce but it may well have had good reason to object. Mr. O’Toole was quite reasonable in his response. He might not welcome all the allies on this side because he is one of those people who has consistently defended An Taisce against the attacks by politicians. He said that his one regret in this case is that An Taisce itself might be discredited by the use of widely misreported language. He is right and I support him on that but I also support the statutory role of An Taisce.