Has the Taoiseach sought advice from the Attorney General following yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on the intoximeter that, since the machine is not susceptible to independent analysis or confirmation of findings, struck down the cases before the court? Has he sought advice on the obvious implications of that decision for electronic voting? If he has taken advice, will he tell us what it is? When will the legislation come before the House? Is it still the intention of the Fianna Fáil director of elections to proceed with the appointment of what he calls an "independent panel"? Does the Taoiseach accept that the electoral system is not the property of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats and that, therefore, if an independent panel is to be established, it ought to be done by decision of this House and the Opposition ought to be involved in it?

Does the Taoiseach think it is appropriate or fair to dragoon the Clerk of the Dáil and the Clerk of the Seanad into what is now manifestly a partisan row about something as fundamental as the electoral system? Is it appropriate that for the first time in the history of the office, the Ombudsman should have been shafted, presumably because she delivered herself of an opinion that did not recommend itself to the Minister, who is making these decisions?

What are the terms of reference for the independent panel and when will we see them? Will the Opposition parties be consulted about them?

The Supreme Court issued a judgment yesterday on the intoximeter. It was a criminal case with no bearing on electronic voting. I briefly discussed the matter not in conjunction with electronic voting but because we have recently seen a number of cases related to the enforcement of road safety issues and the judgment is being examined in that light.

I am not sure if the Deputy is trying to draw a similarity in the case, but I cannot see how any similarity could be drawn between the two — it would be very tenuous. In this case there is a machine and it records on its memory. If need be, a High Court petition can be sought if there is a difficulty. It is an entirely regulated area that will be operated under electoral legislation so I cannot see any similarities. Yesterday's judgment is important, however, because it finds an area of our legislation wanting on a legal point and we are looking at it because it is serious.

The Government is about to appoint the independent commission and has cleared the terms of reference. The legislation is being prepared as a matter of urgency. I do not see including members of the Standards in Public Office Commission or the Clerks of the Dáil and Seanad as anything unusual. Most are from independent bodies, and while there is an argument about this issue, I am not sure that it is significant.

As far as I am concerned, people want to move on with electronic voting. I am sure Deputy Rabbitte would have noticed that in India, a country with many difficulties and a large middle class, which has 850 million voters, they use electronic voting in a few hundred thousand polling areas. We want to keep away from counting a haon, a dó, a trí on paper in this day and age. I hope that we are not arguing about that. We will not have that political argument when everyone in the House uses such technology every day of the week.

It is not Indians that worry me but the cowboys opposite, who are trying to impose a change on the electoral system unilaterally, as the Taoiseach did twice with the PR system. He tried to change that, but now he is pushing ahead despite the myriad representations being made to us all and the sheaves of academic articles written by heavyweight experts and academics on the subject. With all due respect to the Taoiseach, as a decent man, rolling out the Tánaiste's director of elections for the past 25 years for ten minutes on "This Week" to tell us why it is safe is hardly an antidote to the academic work prepared on the subject.

I ask the Taoiseach once more if he intends to press ahead with this. How can he discount yesterday's decision by the Supreme Court? On whose advice did he base his meandering about whether it has implications for the electronic voting system? The reason the machine in question was struck down was that it was not susceptible to independent confirmation of its findings. That is the issue. I do not know how the Taoiseach can dismiss that as having no relevance. When will we see the terms of reference? Will the Taoiseach involve the Opposition in agreement of the terms of reference? Will he insist on officers of this and another House being dragooned into what is now a partisan situation? What is the hurry? Why can we not implement this at our convenience, when all sides of the House are satisfied?

Yesterday's case was a Supreme Court decision overturning a District Court's refusal to allow seven people convicted of drink driving to have their cases adjourned so that an evidential breath-testing instrument could be inspected. The Supreme Court found that the application to inspect the intoxilyzer was unfairly refused. We are talking about people going into a polling booth to vote in a regulated election where there is modern technology in an entirely regulated area.

The intoxilyzer is modern technology.

The Deputy had his minute.

Allow the Taoiseach without interruption, please.

Perhaps Deputy Rabbitte is worried about people being intoxicated when going to vote electronically. They might fall over themselves and that might be a problem, but that is not what we are talking about. We are trying to deal with a system that 400,000 people have already used to vote. The system has been internationally tested.

The Taoiseach is the salesman.

We are told by those who advise on such matters, who are the experts in this area, that they allowed their system to be subject to thorough examination. We are appointing——

Allow the Taoiseach without interruption, please.

We are appointing an independent group.

How could they be independent if the Taoiseach is appointing them?

Mr. Justice Matthew Smith, a judge of the High Court and chairman of the Standards in Public Office Commission, will chair the commission. The Clerks of the Dáil and Seanad, the former president of Dublin City University and former chair of the Government task force on physical sciences and the expert group on future skills needs, Dr. Danny O'Hare, and Mr. Brian Sweeney, chairman of Siemens Limited, Dublin, who is also currently chairman of the technology foresight group, will make up the committee. It will have satisfactory terms of reference.

How do we know?

Allow the Taoiseach without interruption, please.

The members were announced today, and I hope we will get over our fixation with trying to block the advancement of technology.