This meeting has been convened for the purpose of the consideration of Committee Stage of the European Parliament Elections (Amendment) Bill 2003. I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gallagher, and his officials. We will now proceed with our consideration of the Bill.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, before section 1, to insert the following new section:
1.—In this Act, save where the context otherwise requires,
‘Act of 1997' means European Parliament Elections Act 1997;
‘Minister' means Minister for Environment and Local Government.".
This amendment proposes to insert a new section 1 and is consequential on amendment No. 6 in my name.
This amendment would add the definition of Minister to section 1. However, I am of the opinion that this is unnecessary because the Minister is defined in section 2 of the 1997 Act, which we are amending. Acceptance of the amendment would be mere duplication. Section 2 of the 1997 Act defines Minister as the Minister for the Environment. Consequential legislation with change of names of Departments has a knock-on effect so it will now be the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I am advised by the legal people that the current provision is more than sufficient.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, before section 2, to insert the following new section:
2.—Section 6 of the Act of 1997 is amended—
(a) in subsections (1)(b) and (2) by the deletion of ‘statutory declaration’ and the substitution therefor of ‘statement pursuant to this section’;
(b) in subsection (2) by the deletion of ‘said declaration’ and the substitution therefor of ‘said statement’;
(c) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (4):
"(5) A person who furnishes a statement pursuant to this section which is false or misleading in a material particular shall be guilty of an offence and on summary conviction shall be liable to a fine of not more than €3000 or imprisonment for a period of not more than 12 months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.'.".
This amendment involves the right of citizens of other EU member states to be on the electoral register. At present, citizens of other EU member states are entitled to vote in the European Parliament elections in this country, provided they are on the electoral register. However, under section 6 of the 1997 Act, in order to be on the register they are required to furnish a statutory declaration to the effect that they are not on an electoral register or are not in a position to vote in another member state. The requirement to make a statutory declaration goes far beyond the relevant EU directive which requires only that an EU national should make a formal statement to the effect that he or she is not on an electoral register or in a position to vote somewhere else in the same election.
I understand that the requirement to make a statutory declaration is having the effect of discouraging EU nationals who might wish to vote here from going on to the electoral register. It makes going on the register more difficult than it is for Irish citizens. For example, an Irish citizen returning from another EU member state would only be required to make the normal formal statement that they are not on an electoral register in that or another member state. In effect, this is discriminatory against citizens of other EU states. I am asking that the requirement be changed from a statutory declaration, under which a citizen of another EU member state must approach a solicitor or a person empowered to authorise such declarations, to, as is normal under our electoral law, a formal statement, whereby someone merely indicates that they are not on a register in another country.
I have also included in the amendment that if someone makes a false formal statement it will be an offence which will be punishable by a fine or a term of imprisonment. This is in line with what is contained in the existing body of electoral legislation.
I am sure all Members would wish to facilitate citizens of other EU states who wish to vote in the European Parliament elections here. We should not have a requirement in respect of their registration which is more stringent than that which applies to our own citizens.
Since Deputy Gilmore raised this matter on Second Stage I gave it some consideration because I immediately associated statutory declarations with commissioners for oaths. As members are aware, commissioners for oaths have the right to charge for such declarations. The EU directive that sets down the requirements in this area specifies that resident EU citizens wishing to vote in their member states of residence must certify their nationality, which would require some documentation, by way of formal declaration. If such a declaration is inaccurate, the person concerned is liable to penalties in accordance with the national laws applicable. Deputy Gilmore inserted a subsection in his amendment to deal with the latter point.
Statutory declarations have been required in this country since 1938 when the Statutory Declarations Act was passed into law. This procedure has been used extensively since then in all types of legislation. Electoral law already provides for such declarations to remove any doubt in the case of registered individuals as electors. I do not see much point in duplicating an electoral law system which has been used not just for electoral but also for other purposes during the past 60 years. This procedure is exactly what the EU requires and there have not been any difficulties in other member states where similar arrangements apply. If an Irish citizen is resident in one of the other member states, a statutory declaration must be supplied. I do not believe that this presents a major problem for EU citizens who wish to exercise their franchise in this country.
I recall one election, it may have been the local elections of 1985, when there was an opportunity for a wide range of people to apply for postal votes but where also statutory declarations had to be provided. It was not sufficient to send a letter to the effect that one was abroad working on the day of the elections and required a postal vote. Statutory declarations had to be supplied.
The term "statutory declaration" may send out the wrong signal. I associate it with commissioners for oaths and notaries public. In this case, however, peace commissioners may also sign statutory declarations. As far as I know, there is no need to pay a peace commissioner to sign the declaration but, as already stated, there is a fee if a commissioner does so.
A bottle of whiskey would usually be enough.
The Irish electorate may have to provide statutory declarations in the event of requesting postal votes. I recall clearly that in 1985 everyone had to submit statutory declarations signed by peace commissioners. I do not believe that the provision is as onerous as Deputy Gilmore suggests. I thought it might have been but I changed my view when I perused the application form relating to statutory declarations and discovered that they can be signed by peace commissioners.
There must be some form of declaration witnessed by a second party because it brings with it serious penalties. Deputy Gilmore has not ignored that fact and has included a fine of €3,000 or imprisonment in his amendment. It is as much in the interest of EU citizens resident in Ireland as in the interest of the authorities.
It is based on legislation enacted in 1938, long before Ireland's membership of the European Community and that tells its own story. EU citizens resident in Ireland are still required to provide a more detailed declaration than anybody else. They must produce proof of nationality, usually a passport. The declaration is only required to prove they cannot vote in another member state and its purpose is to prevent double voting. The entitlement of EU citizens resident in Ireland to register to vote in the European elections is based on their passport, which must be produced anyway. That is fine but the purpose of the declaration is to prevent the unlikely possibility that somebody will vote in the European Parliament elections in Dublin in the morning and fly to Madrid to vote for the Spanish Socialist Party in the afternoon. It is an unlikely scenario but that is the purpose of the declaration.
I do not understand why this declaration needs to be stricter than that used for every other election, under which the voter makes a formal statement that he or she is not on the electoral register elsewhere and that is accepted. For example, somebody from Belfast may wish to register in Tallaght and he or she can make a formal statement that he or she is not on the electoral register in Belfast and does not intend to vote there in the afternoon. If he or she makes a false statement, it is prosecutable anyway because it is an offence. I do not see why a greater requirement is placed on a Spanish passport holder, for example, than on an Irish passport holder who lived in Belfast up to two months ago.
I support Deputy Gilmore. It is unlikely that an individual would vote in two different countries on the same day. It is a little severe to provide for a statutory declaration to avoid such a scenario. It is sometimes difficult for Irish people who know their way around to find a peace commissioner and it is much more difficult for citizens of other EU member states resident in Ireland to do so. An obstacle is being put in their way as they try to get on the register so that they can vote in an election. It is not comparable with registering for a postal vote if one is away from one's normal residence on the day of an election. Strict regulations are needed regarding such votes because it is much easier for Irish voters to travel from Galway to Dublin, for example, and vote in both locations than it is for citizens of other member states.
This is in the interest of the individual. If Irish people travel to other member states, they must comply with the EU directive. The EU directive provides for harmonisation of procedures. Voting regulations are not more onerous in Ireland than in other member states. If the amendment were accepted, it would be less onerous on an EU citizen to register than on an Irish citizen to request a postal vote. Ireland must comply with the directive, which harmonises procedures throughout the Union.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, to delete lines 39 to 47 and in page 5, to delete lines 1 to 18.
The amendment refers to the abolition of the dual mandate as it relates to Oireachtas Members serving in the European Parliament. The legislation proposes the St. Augustine solution, which is to end the dual mandate but not yet. It is proposed the dual mandate will be ended but, if an Oireachtas Member is elected to the European Parliament on 11 June, he or she may hold both seats until the next general election. The same principle has not been applied to the termination of the dual mandate in respect of local authorities. The dual mandate relating to local authorities ends on 11 June. The Government thinks it is fine if an Oireachtas Member wants to travel to Brussels or Strasbourg to attend a week long meeting but it is not fine for him or her to attend a meeting at Dublin City Hall that might last a few hours in the afternoon.
I tabled amendments on Committee Stage of the Local Government (Amendment) Bill relating to how the dual mandate might be abolished and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government stated: "I am not in favour of a watered down version of the abolition of the dual mandate". He referred to consistency and said he did not want to create various disqualifications for different people, yet under this legislation a different approach is being taken by him to the abolition of the dual mandate in respect of the European Parliament.
If the abolition of the dual mandate is good for local authority members, it will also be good for MEPs and it should apply in the same way. Oireachtas Members from all parties will contest the European elections. There is no reason to take a different approach to the abolition of the dual mandate between the European Parliament and local authorities. When the practical implications are considered, there is a stronger argument for the abolition of the dual mandate relating to the European Parliament than that relating to local authorities. It is accepted across the political spectrum, with a number of exceptions, that membership of the national Parliament is not compatible with membership of a local authority or the European Parliament. There should not be a different application of abolition of the dual mandate for the European Parliament than for local authorities. My amendment would mean Oireachtas Members who are elected to the European Parliament on 11 June would cease to be a Member upon their election as an MEP.
I strongly support this amendment — I referred to it on Second Stage — on the basis of many of the points made, which I will not rehearse. Given the way the Progressive Democrats are behaving it is unlikely the Government could last for three more years. However, it may do so, therefore, if we are to deal with the issue of the dual mandate we should deal with it now. If the Government had a potential life span of a month or two I would understand its position on this aspect but as things stand it is totally unacceptable.
I also wish to address a brief point regarding the section because I am considering proposing an amendment dealing with the category of person who can contest European elections to the effect that Ministers who hold office should be required to resign for a period of months before a European election if they intend to contest that election because of the unfair advantage they would have through holding that office.
I might have a solution to the problem raised by Deputies Gilmore and Morgan and, indeed, the Minister of State. In the interests of consistency, and notwithstanding the outcome of Deputy Ring's High Court case, could we not postpone the removal of the dual mandate at local level until the next general election? That would solve the problem. We would have consistency in both matters as Members of the Oireachtas would be allowed to be members of local authorities up to the next general election. They would then have the opportunity of continuing to be members of local authorities while stepping down from being Members of the Oireachtas.
I appreciate the points made by the various Deputies, particularly DeputyGilmore, who notes that one cannot be a member of Dublin City Council and Dáil Éireann but can be a member of the European Parliament. Let us be honest by recognising that this is a practical issue. We have had to request a derogation to allow for Members of the Oireachtas who stand as candidates in the June 2004 European Parliament elections to hold a dual mandate until the next general election. As far as Europe is concerned it will apply.
The derogation, which was negotiated during the 1998 to 2002 discussions, allowed for a rolling derogation because of the requirement for by-elections to fill vacancies in this country. There is no difficulty in terms of having to fill the Upper House by way of by-election but there is one with the Dáil. The derogation was given to Ireland and Northern Ireland. It was designed to facilitate two MEPs who had dual and triple mandates. As it turns out, as a result of yesterday's decision by John Hume — I take the opportunity to pay tribute to him and wish him, his wife Pat and family good health and happiness in retirement — it is no longer a requirement in Northern Ireland.
However, it is still a requirement here. Deputy Morgan put his finger on it when he said that it is not necessary this time because of the formation of the Government, but one never knows. It was also not necessary from 1998 to 2002, but in 1979, some 13 MEPs were also Members of the Oireachtas. It could have a knock-on effect but at least a lead-in time is given to all of those who wish to contest European Parliament elections. After this election there will no longer be a dual mandate.
The change in regard to the dual mandate for local authorities and the Oireachtas has been flagged for a considerable time. To repeat, where we have a minority Government or one with a small majority, the holding of a dual mandate could lead in some cases to a general election. Sometimes governments or even the Opposition might not welcome this. It creates uncertainty.
To flag the position regarding the European Parliament elections two or three years in advance — well before another election in 2009 — makes the position abundantly clear. There is no ambiguity whatsoever.
As one who has experience of working in Europe and given developments with IT and new communications, I do not consider that the people of my constituency were at any loss during my time there, but that is an individual opinion. However, the Government has decided there will be no more dual mandates at local level and, in view of this, it would be foolish to think that it would have a different view in regard to the European Parliament. I am expressing a practical view.
While my party is in government, other parties could be in government in the future when there will be no dual mandate. I do not dismiss Deputy Gilmore's point, but the approach taken is dictated by practical considerations.
I thank the Minister of State for clarifying that the dual mandate for the European Parliament elections will not be abolished on this occasion because the Government is concerned it will lose all the by-elections resulting from it. The Government could possibly fall as a result. That is the Minister of State's point.
Deputy Morgan apparently did not hear what the Minister of State said.
I do not think Deputy Morgan would welcome——
He said that the Government would lose a by-election——
I do not think Deputy Morgan would welcome a by-election in Donegal North-East.
I would welcome one anywhere. I wish we could have a general election in the morning.
Let us stick to the Bill. Has Deputy Morgan something relevant to add?
That was relevant.
To refer to Deputy Morgan's point about Ministers having an unfair advantage, there is no amendment down and I wish to comply with the regulations. If such an amendment appears I will have an answer.
Is there any room for the same lead-in time for the local authorities? I feel strongly about this. To give an example, suppose there are Members of the Oireachtas who intend not to contest the next general election. There are some Members who would wish to retain their interest in public representation at local level. They are being severely disadvantaged in that they have to remove themselves from the local authority and have no opportunity of getting back onto it. If the same lead-in time was provided to the abolition of the local authority dual mandate we would then have consistency in this matter and there would be no problem.
The decision has been made in that regard and a number of Members have resigned——
I only ask whether there is room for having a look at that.
I thank the Minister of State for telling us why the dual mandate issue is being treated differently in regard to the European Parliament and the local elections. If I understand him correctly, he has said it is because if a vacancy arises in the Oireachtas it has to be filled by way of a by-election. To put it bluntly, the Government cannot be sure, if a number of Members of the Oireachtas are elected, that the results of the by-elections will leave the same configuration in the Dáil.
Two issues arise here. First, it is not sufficient justification for not proceeding immediately with the abolition of the dual mandate. Second, it is a justification for leaving it in place in perpetuity. There is no proposal to end the by-election system, therefore, when the dual mandate expires at the next general election, the same principle will apply. It is not a reason for not implementing it. It is extraordinary that the Government has sought a derogation on this issue. The same Government that is insisting on this in respect of town councils, seeks a derogation from its application to the European Parliament on no basis other than the fact that it is worried about its survival as a government. This is not a sufficient reason for taking this step. It is about the Government's survival, not anything to do with the principle of the issue, the practicality of the dual mandate and so on.
I do not want to elaborate on the local authority issue because it is before the courts. However, what is good for a member of a town council should be good for a Member of the European Parliament or vice versa. It is not acceptable to have one rule for one type of election and another for another. Curiously, the two elections will take place on the same day. The Government is saying that a Deputy or Senator cannot even stand for election to their town council or county council, that the job of a national parliamentarian is so demanding that they could not possibly serve on a town council or local authority. However, there is no problem if they are gone for three weeks out of four to attend European Parliament business in Brussels and Strasbourg.
This approach is inconsistent. It has nothing to do with the principle of the dual mandate or the election of Members to the European Parliament but everything to do with the present Government's survival. It is a political consideration which is capable of being addressed by the political parties in government when they come to choose and select candidates for the European Parliament. They should not ask everyone else to accept that because they want to——
They chose not to run——
Yes, that is what it comes down to. Fianna Fáil wants to be able to let Ministers run for the European Parliament, which is fair enough, but it wants the law of the country to be specially adapted to facilitate this. Not only that, it wants a derogation from European law to enable it to stand Ministers and other high profile candidates in the European elections. That is fair enough, but it is a bit much to ask the Oireachtas to make a special law to facilitate this, which is what is happening, and to ask the entire European Union to give the country a derogation so that it can do this. It is nonsense.
Deputy Gilmore does not appreciate the size of the Government's majority. Even if there were to be by-elections, the results would not destabilise the numbers.
The Deputy's by-election result was not the most——
I am still here. On the issue of by-elections, is the Government considering the possibility of a constitutional referendum on by-elections caused by the death or resignation of a Member, or a Member being elected to the European Parliament? This would require constitutional change; it is not simply a matter of legislation. It is inherently unfair that a Member elected to another Parliament by the will of the people should have to resign. It could change a Government if one person resigned and, following a by-election, a vacancy was filled by a member from a different party. This would go against the democratic will of the people in an election. This issue should be looked at in the long term. Oppositions like by-elections but, if in government in the future, they will understand the difficulties by-elections create by destabilising governments which have been elected de facto. Resignations, deaths or otherwise could destabilise a government, thereby undermining the will of the people.
The same thing will happen after the next general election when the dual mandate for Europe will end. If a Member of the Oireachtas is elected in future European elections, there will have to be a by-election. This is a temporary measure to get over something Northern Ireland sought in the context of John Hume being a dual mandate candidate. This eventuality no longer exists.
Perhaps I am off-beam in what I am saying. Notwithstanding the outcome of Deputy Ring's court case, if Oireachtas Members are allowed to remain in the European Parliament up to the next European elections, local authority members should also be allowed to remain in the Oireachtas up to the next general election.
I apologise to Deputy McCormack who raised the issue earlier. I want to make it clear that if that were to happen — I believe it will not happen — it would require a new local government Bill. Let me be blunt. We might make a lot of enemies if we announced today that all the conventions are null and void.
I am not arguing against the case made by Deputy Gilmore. It is a question of the practicality of the situation. Deputy Kelleher is correct that a by-election would require a constitutional amendment. It may have been considered at one stage by an all-party committee on the Constitution but there were no recommendations. When the dual mandate to the European Parliament is abolished a list system will operate. If one resigns, the person next on the list will be a matter for the party concerned. I do not think too many people might favour this system. By-elections also serve a purpose. While they may not have an impact on a particular Dáil constituency, they may have reverberations throughout the country.
It is not a question of asking the Oireachtas to agree to something in perpetuity, it is simply a derogation. There will be no question of me or any other Minister coming back in a number of years looking for a further derogation. We are flagging the issue now. At the next election, there is nothing to stop an MEP standing for Dáil Éireann, but at that stage they will have to opt for one or the other. Anyone who opts for the Dáil would encounter the wrath of their constituents if they decided to stay in Europe and cause a by-election here. At that stage the choice is up to individuals.
I do not disagree with the principle of Deputy's Gilmore argument. We are flagging the issue on time. The issue can be dealt with in the next two years. I can now give an assurance — I cannot speak for other governments — that there will be no further derogation. First, I do not believe it would be sought and, second, I do not believe we would get it.
Presuming a vested interest——
The Deputy will know after Sunday.
What will happen in regard to the dual mandate when the next general election takes place? Members of the European Parliament who are Members of the Oireachtas will have to opt for one or the other at that stage. They do not stand again for the Dáil or resign their seat in the European Parliament if they intend to contest a Dáil election. That is the position as I understand it.
What happens in regard to the argument made by the Minister of State? The position regarding by-elections will not change, I presume, or is the Minister of State hinting that the Government is considering changing or seeking to change the Constitution so that vacancies in the Dáil will not be filled by by-election? The Labour Party would be opposed to that and, since the issue has been raised, I seek an assurance that there is no intention to end by-elections for vacancies in the Dáil. If a Member of the Oireachtas decides to stand for the 2009 European Parliament election——
It probably will not be as appealing to parties to run Oireachtas Members in the European elections.
That is nonsense because all that is being done is that we are abolishing the dual mandate in theory but postponing the abolition to facilitate Fianna Fáil. That is what this is about — facilitating Fianna Fáil selection conventions.
Fianna Fáil is not the only party running candidates who are sitting Members of the Dáil.
No, that is true, as I said at the beginning, but it should apply equally. Let us get——
The rule will apply equally——
It should apply immediately and apply in the same way as for local authority elections.
I do not have a clue what goes on in terms of the internal workings of Fianna Fáil but I would like Seán Ó Neachtain to get a nomination because he is a good MEP. It would be ironic——
I am sure he will be delighted to have the Deputy's good wishes.
I would not mind if Deputy Fahey went to Europe either, and if Deputy Michael D. Higgins went to the Phoenix Park as well I would have things to myself.
Let me make it clear that there was no question of the 1998 to 2002 discussions being designed just to facilitate Fianna Fáil. It has worked in the past for other parties. We all recall the February election of 1982 and the European election of 1979. At that time, 13 Members of the Oireachtas were elected to Europe and many MEPs were returned to the Dáil in the election of 1981. They made a tremendous contribution to Government even though they were not from my party. The country may have been at a loss without them, and some within their parties would say it would.
We are where we are now. The question of by-elections was raised by Deputy Kelleher and maybe Deputy Morgan, but is not on the agenda. Of course, if an all-party committee makes a recommendation it is only right that it be considered, but the issue of by-elections is not even on the Government's agenda. By-elections serve a useful purpose in the normal course of events. The matter is over now, and I am convinced that no matter who is in government in 2006 or 2007, there will be no question of seeking a derogation.
To make it clear, if one is a Member of the European Parliament and the Dáil is dissolved, one will no longer be a Member of Dáil Éireann. At that stage one is a Member of the European Parliament only. People have every right to stand for the Oireachtas, but if they are elected they cease to be an MEP under the terms of section 2 of the European Parliament Elections (Amendment) Bill 2003. We have a short derogation that does not extend into perpetuity. I rest my case.
Would it be possible to seek a derogation again in 2007? I know it is not on the agenda, but if it is possible to do it now would the same possibility not arise then?
Compare the logic of being a Deputy here, within a ten-minute walk of City Hall, and being an MEP and having to travel to the airport — and God knows how long that would take — for the journey to Brussels. Where is the logic in making that parallel? I simply do not see it. If members of the Government parties think that if Fianna Fáil were to win all 13 seats — assuming the provision of the Bill is adopted to reduce the number of seats to 13 — and that the Opposition would win all 13 by-elections, they would still have a majority in the House.
Perhaps I was not listening attentively to the start of the Deputy's contribution but I presume he was making the same point as Deputy Gilmore. I am not arguing against that. I know the facts——
It is the logic of the Bill.
We are living in the real world and I know the physical factors involved. It is much easier to walk to the local authority offices in Dublin——
Ten minutes.
——than it is to fly to Brussels. I am not trying to be poacher-turned-gamekeeper, and I also realise that one can provide a service, but that is behind us now. I was asked whether the request for a derogation will happen again. It may happen, but I can assure the committee that this Government——
It is possible?
It is not possible for us to make the case. It would be necessary for Europe to review this type of legislation and for it to be decided by a General Affairs Council. Anything is possible.
Since I came into the Dáil I have been hearing about the abolition of the dual mandate for Europe, yet now we find that it is not being abolished until 2007, with the possibility of it being extended beyond that again. I do not know if there is a will to abolish the European dual mandate, as there seems to be to abolish the local authority-Oireachtas one.
I do not know if I am getting anywhere but all I can say is — and I cannot remember if it has been spoken of — that this is the first time a genuine effort has been made by the Government to remove the dual mandate. Parties have had in-house rules, and I was the victim of one in 1997, when I was an MEP and a Deputy. I was anxious to stand for Dáil Éireann and, without being bombastic about it, I am confident that I would have been elected and would have continued to give a service.
However, we are living in the real world now, so my party is implementing the in-house rule that it had in the past. There is nothing devious about this. We are being realistic, and after the next election, whenever it happens to be, the dual mandate is over.
How stands the amendment?
Can I ask the Minister of State one question before dealing with the amendment? It arises from a reply that I think he gave to two comments made by Deputy McCormack. Is the Minister of State considering being a candidate himself in the European elections?
It is not relevant.
Perhaps I am not up to speed with the selection process but——
Generally, the Members concern themselves with their own selection conventions.
If the Minister of State is considering being a candidate himself in the European election he will have to declare an interest before we put this amendment.
I would not regard that as being necessary but——
I firmly believe that Deputy Gilmore is being facetious about this. He would know from his close contacts in Donegal where I stand. He knows that if I were elected I would have gone back to Europe. I——
Where do we stand for Sunday?
I am sure the committee members know the rules, but I have not been nominated, unless something mischievous happens between now and then. Let me answer the Deputy's question——
There are mysterious things happening already. There are two people going for a nomination from my constituency.
I can only speak for my own party and for myself. I gave an assurance to the people of south west Donegal back in 1981, and I reaffirmed that in 2002. There is great media interest in the matter, but if the people of south west Donegal have not heard it already, I tell them now that I am home to stay.
We are relieved.
Am I correct in saying that the derogation about which we are speaking also applied to dual mandate holders in the Dáil, Seanad and county councils who were asked to give up their seats at the next election? Some of them, by choice, have chosen to give them up before the next election but they are all entitled to sit on their council seats until then. The same provision is in this Bill.
As far as I am aware, all of the major Opposition parties have presented candidates for the European elections who will be dual mandate holders, candidates who are currently Members of the Oireachtas. How, therefore, does this provision give a big advantage to Fianna Fáil when the same applies to the other parties?
The difference is that we want it to apply immediately. I wish to press the amendment but because we lost some time this morning I do not propose to divide the committee on it. However, I intend to re-enter the amendment on Report Stage and I will ask for a division on it then, if the Government is not prepared to accept it.
I have been silent on the matter but I declare that I will not be a candidate either.
Section 2(c)(ii) and (iii) refer to “a Minister of State, or” and “the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the Dáil or the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the Seanad” respectively. Would it be possible to change these terms to Ceann Comhairle and Leas-Cheann Comhairle and Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach — terms synonymous with the Oireachtas? Most people are aware of what the terms we use mean. This would should show a commitment to our teanga náisiúnta, a commitment dear to the Minister of State’s heart.
It would also clarify the situation because other Members act as deputy chairpersons to the Dáil.
It would be appropriate and would indicate support for the language. Most people would be more aware of the Ceann Comhairle as opposed to the Chairman of Dáil Éireann.
We would support such an amendment on Report Stage.
I will propose an amendment if it is practical. I am not aware of the legal situation and whether it can be done.
We are transposing what is in the 1997 Act but even if that Act was right, it does not mean that this one is. I take the Deputy's point and would like time to consider it. The only defence I can make at this stage is that this is an English translation of the Bill.
If that is the case, the Seanad should be termed the Senate.
I accept that. If the Deputy allows me the opportunity, then between now and Report Stage I will take advice from the Parliamentary Counsel and will make the change if recommended or provide good reasons otherwise.
The Minister of State should take into account that the term "Deputy Chairman of the Dáil" refers to more than the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. It also refers to Members who act as Deputy Chairmen, such as myself and others. The person who takes the Chair is a Deputy Chairperson. If the section is passed with the present wording, it will eliminate many more than the Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
That is a fair point. The Deputy's position when he takes the Chair is Acting Chairman but I am not sure of the distinction. I will get clarification on the matter because it would rule people out. The principle of this is to only rule out the office holders. I will come back to this on Report Stage.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 6 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 5, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
"3.—Section 48 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2001 shall not apply to European Parliament elections held in the year 2004.".
The purpose of this amendment is to postpone the introduction of electronic voting. It is the Government's intention to proceed unilaterally with the extension of electronic voting to all constituencies and to the entire local and European Parliament elections to be held on 11 June.
I do not wish to repeat ad nauseam the arguments that have been made at this committee previously with regard to electronic voting, other than to make the following points. First, the Government’s actions are extremely dangerous to democracy. It is proceeding to extend an electronic voting system on which there is no agreement across the political spectrum. For a variety of reasons, all the Opposition parties have expressed reservations and concerns on the universal use of electronic voting at the next European Parliament and local government elections. This does not mean there is opposition in principle to the introduction of electronic voting, certainly not as far as the Labour Party is concerned. Our concern is that issues raised in respect of the system to be used next June have not been adequately addressed. Amendments need to be made to the system but these have not been put in place. There is no rush and no necessity to proceed with electronic voting in June and it is in everybody’s interest that it is postponed.
I get many emails on this matter every day. One I got this morning included the editorial of TheNew York Times of 31 January. It mentioned a study done in the state of Maryland on a system similar to the one to be used here which does not generate a paper record of the votes cast and does not have a voter verified paper trail such as the one we have talked about previously. In order to test the system in Maryland, computer hackers were invited to hack into it. The editorial states that they were disturbingly successful and that it was an easy matter for them to reprogram the access cards used by voters and to vote multiple times. They were able to attach a keyboard to a voting terminal and change its vote counts, and by exploiting a software flaw and using a modem, they were able to change votes from a remote location.
The editorial went on to report another case which arose in Boone County, Indiana last autumn where there was a particularly colourful example of unreliability. The electronic voting system initially recorded more than 144,000 votes in an election where there were fewer than 19,000 registered voters. The system can go wrong. The problem here is that——
Was there personation?
The problem here is that the Government is proceeding to implement this in an arrogant fashion. I refer, in particular, to the approach being taken by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, who, I regret is not present for this debate. His display of arrogance yesterday was breathtaking. We are not concerned here about the opening of a landfill somewhere, or of many of the other issues on which he feels particularly bullish. We are concerned about changing the way people vote. The Minister is talking about doing that without the political level of consensus he should have.
He is also wrong to argue that the Opposition somehow agreed to this in the past. We agreed on the principle of the introduction of electronic voting, we agreed to the use of trials in a number of constituencies in the last general election and we agreed to the use of the extension of those trials in the last Nice referendum and I have no regrets about that. We never agreed to the extension of electronic voting in this manner to every constituency and every election.
There is a second reason why we need to take a little more time. I received this envelope this morning and I thank the committee secretariat for sending it to me. I presume it was sent at the request of the Department. The accompanying letter states: "Re European Parliament Elections (Amendment) Bill. Please find enclosed information in relation to the subject matter of the above Bill." The envelope also contains a report on Irish STV software testing; the functional specification Nedap voting system ESI 2 power vote; a document, some of which is written in German and which obviously is the result of some test; code review from Nathian Technologies; another German document; a test report on voting machine software for elections in Ireland; the tender documents from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government; security and audit features of the election management system; software requirements for voting machines in use; electronic voting and counting system information paper; test report concerning the compliance of a voting machine; test report concerning the compliance of programme reading; test report concerning the compliance of a voting machine for use in elections; and a third test report.
The joint Oireachtas committee examined electronic voting before Christmas. Why were members not supplied with this documentation when the committee was examining the issue? Why did the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government hold on to this wad of material until the morning there is an amendment tabled to postpone electronic voting at the next European and local elections and then shower it down on our heads in this fashion? It is so the next time the Minister gives the kind of arrogant interview he gave yesterday he will be able to say he provided all the information and documents.
When this committee is provided with documentation by the Department, at the very least, we are entitled to some time to consider it. When each member has had time to examine the wad of documentation and to ask technical people to tell us what it means, we may well form a view with regard to electronic voting but we are at least entitled as legislators and as the committee responsible for overseeing this process to have that opportunity. We are not being given that opportunity because the Government is proceeding bull-headed with the introduction of this system on 11 June. That is a second reason I think at the very least we should postpone debate and be given an opportunity to consider this.
There is a third reason. The statutory instruments which are required under section 48 to enable electronic voting to be used at the European Parliament and local elections have not yet been made. I was under the impression that they needed to be made and to confirm my view I tabled a Dáil question before Christmas which was answered on 18 December. In a written reply the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government stated that regulations would have to be made to enable the system to be used in the next local and European elections. I asked the Taoiseach about it last week. He did not seem to know anything about regulations. He relied on prompting from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government who told him that no regulations were required. We know now that regulations are required and that was confirmed by letter yesterday from the Taoiseach to my party leader. This gives rise to two problems. The first problem is one to which we will return.
The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has no statutory authority as of now to spend public money on the electronic voting system for use everywhere next June because the statutory instrument enabling and empowering the Department to do so has not yet been laid before the Dáil. The expenditure of money by the Department on the electronic voting system in advance of those statutory regulations being laid before the Dáil is illegal. The expenditure of money on advertising and promotion of the system by way of a public relations campaign before the statutory instrument has been laid before the Dáil and the procedures followed is illegal and it should be ceased immediately.
I understand the statutory instrument will be made under section 48 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2001. I will read the relevant passage. It states:
Subject to subsection (3), the Minister may by order make such adaptations of, or modifications to, the Presidential Elections Act 1993, the European Parliament Elections Act 1997, the Local Elections Regulations 1995, the Referendum Act 1994, Seanad Electoral (University Members) Act 1937 and Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Acts 1947 to 1972, as will enable voting and counting of votes at the relevant election or referendum under the said enactment or enactments, to take place using equipment approved for use under this part.
The Supreme Court issued a judgment last week in respect of the orders which the Minister made amending sections of the National Monuments Act to allow the M50 motorway proceed at Carrickmines. The Supreme Court found it is not constitutional to amend primary legislation or to modify primary legislation by using statutory instruments. That is precisely the procedure which will have to be used under section 48, in other words, the making of a ministerial order which as it states makes adaptations of or modifications to primary legislation. My advice is that the effect of the Supreme Court decision in the Carrickmines case means that it would be unconstitutional to do that. Whenever the Minister gets around to laying these regulations before the Dáil, they will be open to challenge in the courts.
At the last general election, a challenge in the courts resulted in the judgment not being given until the day before polling. I do not know whether there will be a challenge to this in the courts but court challenges are not that unusual in respect of electoral matters and if this matter is challenged in the courts, we could find ourselves with the Minister proceeding and spending millions of euro of taxpayers' money telling the public there will be electronic voting at the next European Parliament and local elections. A challenge could be made to the regulations and the courts could strike them down. What will we do if this happens a week before the election is due to take place? What is the contingency plan? What kind of public relations campaign will then have to be run to tell the people that electronic voting is off and it is back to pencil and paper? For all those reasons I am proposing to the Minister that whatever the arguments about electronic voting and whoever is right or wrong about whether the software can be corrupted, whether it has been tested adequately or whether there should be an independent monitoring system, issues which need to be addressed, at the very least this plan should be put on hold for this election. If the dual mandate for Oireachtas Members can be put on hold for a few years, then this system can be put on hold when it causes such a degree of political difficulty.
I put it very strongly to the Minister that this amendment should be accepted, which would then result in a longer period of time. I have said before at this committee that I would like to be in a position, as I am sure would Deputies Allen and Morgan, to tell voters that across the political spectrum we have confidence in the system. It would be much healthier for the electoral system and for democracy if all the parties were happy to say the agreed changes would work. It is not healthy for our democracy that the entire Opposition is questioning the way in which people will vote. This is not about trying to score political advantage over the Government. We are not convinced of its security and safety. The Government is wrong to proceed unilaterally with its implementation. My amendment proposes putting this on hold for the European and local elections. This may prevent greater embarrassment for the Government at a later stage if, for example, there is a successful legal challenge to the constitutionality of orders made under section 48.
My amendment No. 6 requires that electronic voting be referred to an electoral commission, that no system of electronic voting be adopted until the commission has reported and that there be all party agreement. Much of what I intended saying has been mentioned by Deputy Gilmore. On the Order of Business in the Dáil this morning the deputy leader of my party asked whether this required regulations or legislation. There are major questions over the High Court judgment on Carrickmines last week. If a statutory instrument is presented in the Dáil will it stand the test in the courts?
On 18 December this committee spent a number of hours asking questions of a panel of experts. The experts who gave of their own time in the public interest posed 41 questions to the officials in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and their own experts on hardware and software, which could not be answered on the day. We were told answers would be provided as quickly as possible. Following a short break we resumed in the afternoon and suddenly everything had changed. Obviously there had been a directive from above, a whip was imposed and the Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats members of the committee voted to approve a proposal to accept electronic voting as presented by the Department. This represented jackboot tactics of the worst kind on an issue that is fundamental to our democracy.
Yesterday morning saw the massive launch at the taxpayers' expense in the Mansion House. On Tuesday night in the Dáil, I asked the Minister to yield in his winding up speech and I asked about the 41 questions that had been posed. He told me that the answers had not been supplied and used the excuse of Christmas and that the officials were busy. The circus went on yesterday in the Mansion House.
I listened to a very probing interview of the Minister by Seán O'Rourke on radio, the transcript of which I have. Seán O'Rourke said; "What about this voting experts who reportedly put 40 questions to Government officials at a meeting on 18 December and there is still no sign of a reply according to Fine Gael, at least, to all of these questions?" The Minister said:
All the questions, Seán, I've been to the committees on numerous occasions myself. My staff have been. The experts have been. All of the questions that have been posed have been answered
I am not supposed to call it a lie. What will I call it?
In numerous speeches in recent days the Minister has also tried to give the impression that there is agreement on this matter. There is no agreement on this matter. Every Opposition party, which has done its homework, has major questions over the workings of this. This is only a side issue — one could call it a sideshow. Yesterday, I received one of the leaflets at the launch of electronic voting and I also looked at the website. I discovered major discrepancies in the leaflets. The leaflet that will be circulated throughout the country shows a finger pointing to a Fianna Fáil candidate. What does that imply?
Coincidence.
The Deputy says coincidence. It is stupidity, in my view. The website shows the sample European parliament ballot paper with no Fine Gael presence. This was the product of a company that was awarded a €4.5 million contract. I would like to see the tender procedure and the terms of that contract. We got the details of the tender process for the hardware and software. I would like to see the tender documents for this contract, as there are close links to Fianna Fáil in the successful company. While I am making no allegations, I would like to make sure everything was above board.
Will all these documents that have been printed at taxpayers' expense be withdrawn immediately and will the website be amended? This should be done in the interests of justice and fairness. If an electoral commission had dealt with this and not a political figure from a political party pushing this through, this would not have happened. I agree this is a minor matter. If these people cannot be trusted with the printing of a leaflet, how can we trust them in dealing with a serious issue such as electronic voting?
We have been told that everything has been checked. Last night I got the biggest brown envelope I ever received. I immediately phoned an expert whom I respect and asked what was the significance of these reports. I was advised this was done to confuse me and to give the impression that I was being given information. Some of the documentation relates to the need to change the format and weight of the machines to comply with health and safety lifting regulations. There are German standards regarding the durability of the box, which contains the machine. Has all the software to be used in the system next June been finalised?
On 18 December when the experts were here, suddenly everything changed and a directive came from above that a whip would be imposed. The committee, by a majority vote——
I have allowed the Deputy some latitude. The Deputy needs to stick to the terms of your amendment.
When was the contract signed for the equipment that was imported many months ago?
That has nothing to do with the Deputy's amendment.
It has everything to do with it. The committee took a decision on 18 December to convenience the signing of the contract later that day or within a matter of days. I established this following a request under the Freedom of Information Act. I ask the Minister to confirm the date on which the contract was signed. Chairman, you have asked me to be relevant and I believe I am being relevant. I will not repeat Deputy Gilmore's questions on the statutory instruments, etc. even though my party also has serious questions about those matters. I will press this amendment to a vote because I believe an electoral commission, and not a political party, is the appropriate body to deal with these matters.
My questions about the verifiable paper audit trail have not been answered. The Minister tried to mislead us again in the Dáil this week when he said there will be, post factum, an audit trail to the electoral process in the count centre. That is not the question, however. The key question is what happens in the disc and the machine when somebody presses a button. Will the will of the voter be reflected in what happens in the software? The only way this can be confirmed is by means of a paper printout. The Minister told this committee that this cannot be done because of cost factors. We must have a printout which can be inspected by a voter before being deposited in a ballot box in the present manner.
We need to know more about the source code. We have not received answers about the ownership of the code. Who will possess the code? I understand that somebody in Holland possesses it. If there was a constitutional test in respect of the code, for example, could we subpoena the relevant Dutch person to answer questions about it in our courts? The advice I have received is that we would have grave difficulties in that regard. It is unacceptable to have the source code outside the country. We need answers to the 41 questions. I question the misleading statement made by the Minister on RTE radio yesterday.
As Fine Gael's spokesman in this area, I am not trying to use this issue as a political football. My party accepts the principle of electronic voting, but only if adequate and absolute safeguards are put in place in respect of transparency and security. Our questions are being drowned by the arrogance of the Minister, who has made misleading statements. He expects that a publicity campaign costing €5 million will bury the Opposition's rightful protests and questions. We will take this matter all the way if we do not get the answers we deserve. I refer not only to the domestic Parliament and courts, but to their equivalent institutions at European level. The European Commission has a role in this regard. It should show an interest in the fact that elections to the European Parliament are being conducted by a potentially defective system. This matter does not end here, but we should start today by being given answers to our valid questions. I will press my amendment.
The Minister of State used the phrase "we live in the real world" on a couple of occasions earlier. In the real world, we hear each week about computer hackers and things that happen in the area of software. Computer hackers are increasingly successful.
I ask the Minister to accept that we are not objecting for the sake of it but because we have major concerns about the system being advocated in this Bill. Given that all Opposition parties favour the concept of electronic voting, we do not object to its introduction simply to oppose the Government, as Deputy Gilmore said. We have a fundamental interest in getting it right. I refer not only to political parties but also to those who exercise their franchise by voting. Such people have an interest in electronic voting being introduced in a verifiable way. Our experience of using cash registers, ATMs and paid parking machines shows us that such a system can be achieved easily. The failure to offer a verifiable system mystifies me and many other people. I do not understand it.
The Minister should either send this Bill back to an all-party group or try to achieve a consensus on it among technical people who are objecting to it. He should sit down with the experts in the field to try to work out a consensus. I strongly appeal to the Minister to postpone this measure until the next general election, rather than pursuing it at this year's elections. If we need to try a system on a temporary basis, we should try a verifiable system in this election and see how it works out. The cost of pursuing it would be minimal. Such a measure would reassure not only the Opposition political parties, but also the voters. The people deserve such reassurance. A consensus is achievable in this regard — we are not talking about the peace process in the North. This matter is considerably less intricate than those disputes people have in political life. I appeal to the Minister to re-examine this matter, so that we can all live happily ever after.
It is important to note, as all speakers have done, that all parties favour electronic voting if certain doubts are eliminated. The crux of this problem is that serious doubts have arisen in respect of electronic voting. We live in an age when proposals driven by politicians are treated suspiciously. We are held in low esteem as a result of recent events concerning politicians and Governments. People need absolute assurance that everything is above board in respect of a matter being pursued by a politician. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is single-handedly trying to push through electronic voting. I understand that he is Fianna Fáil's director of elections and I think there is a conflict of interest in that regard.
My suspicions about this proposal were first raised by the undue haste with which the Minister tried to push this measure through. My suspicions were compounded and confirmed when IT experts from NUI Maynooth and officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government attended a meeting of this committee on 18 December last. We had a good debate that morning when the Chairman allowed the experts from Maynooth to directly question the representatives of the Department and the promoters of the system. We seemed to be going well and the famous list of 41 questions was circulated by Mr. Joe McCarthy. We agreed, more or less, that we would meet on the Tuesday or Wednesday of the following week, or that we would have an emergency meeting over Christmas or early in January, when the answers to the questions had been received. As Deputies Gilmore, Morgan and Allen have said, if answers had been received the committee could have been in a position to say that it supports the introduction of electronic voting. There would have been fewer doubts in such circumstances, but serious doubts remain.
This issue was featured yesterday on "The News at One" and Joe Duffy's "Liveline" on Radio 1. Some people rang in because the doubts that exist have become apparent as a consequence of the way we are acting. The major mistake in this regard was made on 18 December. Doubt would not have arisen if we had been allowed to get answers to the questions that were posed then. We have to face the reality that the doubts are there. We cannot proceed with the elections in June if people continue to have doubts about the system. We were told on 18 December that the Minister was pushing through this, which is what I had very much feared. We were told a commitment had already been made to enter the contract arrangements arrived at on 18 December. We were informed that the contract was not signed that day. It is a pity everything was not called off then. If it had been, the problem would probably have been solved by now. We cannot go back on it now. However, it is not too late to call off what will become a farce of an election. Fundamentally in a democracy one must have confidence in the system one is using. If the general public does not have confidence in the system, it cannot work. I support the amendments strongly. I go further and ask the Minister of State to hold an afternoon meeting with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
It is obvious that on 18 December the Minister met the Government members on this committee to tell them not to wait. Their tune changed after lunch on that date. Immediately on their return from lunch, there was a proposal by DeputyCregan that the committee proceed with the contract. The meeting finished after ten or 15 minutes of argument because the committee was pressed to a division and voted seven members to four in accordance with the Government majority. That morning and several days before it there were strenuous arguments from one of the Independent members of this committee, Deputy Healy-Rae, who said he would not trust the electronic voting machines for any reason. Yet, when it came to a vote, Deputy Healy-Rae sent Deputy Fox to vote in his place to proceed with the purchase of the machines. There was a strong Whip to ensure that the contract to purchase the machines was signed immediately after 18 December.
We should steady ourselves before we do any further damage. The Minister of State should consult with the Minister and, if necessary, the Cabinet to halt the process. The seeds of doubt have been sown in what was said at the meeting on 18 December by members and the experts in attendance. Matters will only worsen between now and June if we do not stall the process. I suggest strongly to the Minister of State that he tell the Minister to call off electronic voting for the June elections to provide us with time to get answers to all the questions which were asked and to remove any doubt about the electoral system. It is the most sacred thing the people have. If one can get a printed receipt when one purchases a litre of milk, I cannot understand why one cannot get a receipt on using the sophisticated voting machine we saw yesterday in the Mansion House.
There was a good crowd at the Mansion House yesterday. I saw a great many Government local authority members from all over the country. It is extraordinary that no questions were allowed after the Minister made his presentation. There would have been enormous——
We do not want points of view. The Deputy should speak to the amendments.
The Chairman is missing the point.
The Deputy is missing the point. There are two amendments before us. The Deputy should be relevant in his contribution. I have allowed him some latitude over a fair amount of time and the Deputy will have a vote in the House at 3.30 p.m. If the Deputy could be relevant, it would be helpful.
I beg to differ with the Chairman. All of this is relevant to the confidence the electorate will have in the IT system. That is what my argument concerns. It is about nothing else. Therefore, what I am saying is relevant. Everything that has happened on "Liveline", television or at the Mansion House is relevant to the lack of confidence voters have in the system being introduced. We must correct that and the only way to do so is for the Minister and the Minister of State to cut their losses and abandon the system for the European elections. They may continue to spend the €5 million. I received the large envelope this morning also but, needless to say, I have not read any of it. All parties on this committee should be able to go to the public and state they are happy with the system. Only then will we be able to sell it to the electorate.
A few points have been raised in the discussion of this amendment. I am disappointed that the Opposition is trying to muddy the waters. There are conspiracy theorists all over the place. Talking about trials in Maryland, USA, Deputy Gilmore stressed that from terminals elsewhere modem access could be used to tamper with the system and that there is potential for hacking. All the experts have pointed out that the system's modem is not connected to the Internet or any outside terminal which could facilitate tampering. While there might be genuine concerns, the facts must be discussed. What happened on 18 December was that some people were not willing to listen to the explanations put forward by experts. We could have gone around and around forever.
The Deputy is incorrect. The Dáil system collapsed last year. Despite the fact that it was closed and secure, a virus infected it and it was closed for weeks. If a simple, closed system can be infected by a virus, how can it be said the system being introduced cannot?
All experts who spoke here, including those who were very concerned about the lack of a voter-verifiable paper trail, accepted the principle that the modems could not be tampered with. In the event of a modem breakdown, two full back-up systems are in place to cope. Everybody has accepted that. Some 400,000 people used the system in the last general election in Meath and some Dublin constituencies. The general public overwhelmingly endorsed the electronic voting system. Is the Opposition saying to the people in these areas that they should revert to ballot papers?
It will be a local election as well.
We are discussing the European Parliament Elections (Amendment) Bill and Deputy Gilmore has an amendment down on it. This is one election in respect of which we should really encourage people to support electronic voting simply because it takes place on a mass scale. If there were any error, it would not have the same impact as it would in a local election in which a smaller margin would elect someone. There are huge margins involved in the European elections and any mistake would be less likely to have an impact on the result of the elections. The experts have said there is no way there will be mistakes in the first place. Germany and The Netherlands have used the system.
The issue of conflicts of interest was raised in the context of Deputy Allen's amendment. Deputy McCormack alluded to it also. Are the Deputies implying that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, is in some way able to tamper with the modems to change the outcome of an election?
That is not what I said.
The Deputy specifically stated that the Minister had a conflict of interest and could in some way undermine the result of the election. It is pure nonsense and conspiracy theory at its best. We have travelled around the block on this issue for a long time. The Opposition has decided to muddy the waters as much as possible and to make the glass opaque to ensure that nobody sees the real benefits of this efficient electronic voting system. People in a number of constituencies have already expressed confidence in the system and I am sure they will embrace it in others. The Opposition should support this move to ensure we have more accurate elections and speedier results. We should get on with the business of encouraging people to take part in the democratic process and increasing turn-out which up to now has been dropping steadily. Rather than try to undermine the system through the amendments before us, the Opposition should support and embrace this very positive step in our electoral law.
Mention has been made of the meeting on 18 December. I record that neither the Minister nor any of his officials spoke to me or instructed me to put the issue to a vote. The Government representatives on the committee made a decision having heard the evidence provided by officials on a number of occasions and been satisfied with the manner in which the election was run previously. We were also conscious of the satisfaction of the voters and candidates who used electronic voting at the last election. There was a difficulty with the presentation of the results, which has been improved upon. It was absolutely cynical that the main thrust of the debate yesterday seemed to be that we should be helping people to spoil their votes. Nobody is entitled to spoil his or her vote. In a democracy people are entitled to choose whether to vote, but parliamentarians should not be encouraging people to spoil their votes. This view was aired for 20 or 30 minutes yesterday on a station of the national broadcaster. People rang in to suggest they should be entitled to spoil their votes, and parliamentarians were suggesting that we put in place a system whereby they could do so. I totally disagree with this.
Neither the Minister nor his staff contacted me, as convenor of the committee, on 18 December to encourage a vote to be taken.
The Minister to reply.
Does the Deputy believe the public is satisfied with it now and that there is no doubt?
I am very pleased there is no question of a vested interested and no question concerning the Minister's integrity. The Minister is not the director of elections for the European elections — he is director of elections for the local elections.
They are electronic——
That may be the case but I am dealing the accusations that have been made.
He is not director of elections for European elections. I will not split hairs on this——
He is director of elections——
Please, the Minister to reply.
The Minister does not have responsibility for directing European elections.
We are dealing with European legislation.
Local elections——
It leaves one with only half the conflict of interest.
——will be a lot closer than the European election.
On the suggestions made about machines being stored in Waterford, I do not know where they are stored. The Minister answered in a very general way in the very short time available to him yesterday. Many questions, much more than 41, were raised by Deputy Allen. In the Department, we are trying to extract information from the various reports to provide answers to those questions. A number of companies were referred to in the questions and we have asked these companies to respond also. We are trying to do this in a very comprehensive way.
All the answers to the questions Deputy Allen asked are in the various reports——
Sign the contracts——
——and we are now streamlining them for the Deputy. The Department officials are working on the information.
I want to be specific about the amendment tabled by Deputy Gilmore on section 48. If we were to accept it, it would remove the Minister's power to make an order under section 48 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2001 applying the electronic voting and counting provisions of the Act to the 2004 European elections. It would prevent the use of electronic voting and counting at the forthcoming European elections but not, it would appear from the terms of the amendment, at the local elections. This may be an inadvertent consequence. I accept the principle involved by I take issue with the wording.
The issues that have been raised are not critical to the operation of the system and they have been considered on three occasions by the committee. Detailed planning and preparations for the use of countrywide electronic voting and counting of the European and local elections are already well advanced. There are almost 5,000 voting machines.
On the contract, I believe the letter of intent was dated either December 2002 or January 2003. The contract was signed at the beginning of the year after the last meeting of this committee.
When was it signed?
In December 2003.
After 18 December.
After 18 December, we had 41 questions outstanding.
All the machines and hardware have been delivered to returning officers. Software testing will be completed shortly. Training of returning officers and their staff is continuing and a major public awareness campaign is under way, as the Deputy knows because he referred to it.
Electronic voting will improve efficiency, speed and accuracy and, in the longer term, it will possibly be less costly, bearing in mind that there is a major, front-loaded capital investment. It will also eliminate the democratic waste associated with spoilt votes. One can spoil one's vote, but this should not be the intention. It is not the intention of any Member of this House.
Ireland is to the fore in electronics and IT. Electronic voting represents a desirable modernisation of the electoral system and we can look forward to its successful implementation in June 2004.
I understand some of the arguments one would make if we were coming from a greenfield situation. Deputy Gilmore supported and acknowledged the trials of electronic voting in the general election in Meath, Dublin North and Dublin West and in the second Nice referendum in seven constituencies. The trial was not a feasibility study but a real study. Approximately 300,000 people availed of the opportunity to vote electronically and this was very successful. Questionnaires to ascertain people's opinions after voting electronically demonstrated that they were very satisfied with the system. I have no more experience than anybody else, but I believe one cannot make a mistake on one's first vote after voting electronically on a trial basis.
Are amendments Nos. 4 and 6 being discussed together?
Yes.
As with Deputy Gilmore's amendment, amendment No. 6 is defective and does not specify what an electoral commission is. I know what the Deputy is trying to say but——
There is an electoral commission——
There is no such body in this country. There is a Public Offices Commission. I accept the principle of what the Deputy is suggesting but we have to deal with the fact that there is no electoral commission. To set one up would require legislation and could take considerable time.
I do not know how many reports the Deputy wants but there are already reports from independent bodies on the reliability, security, integrity and verifiability of the system. It is coincidental that they were sent out — we did not send them out. We sent them to the committee when they were all available and obviously the committee decided to send them out. All were sent to the Oireachtas Library.
To clarify, the Minister sent the reports to this committee.
Yes, and now they have been sent——
They were acted upon immediately.
This morning.
They have been sent to this committee.
Today.
I did not say otherwise. They did not come directly but through the committee. It is a credit to the committee that it had them sent out so expeditiously.
Part 3 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2001 provides for the use of electronic voting and counting at a Dáil election. Section 48 of the Act provides that the Minister may, by order, make such adaptations or modifications corresponding to the provisions of Part 3 of the legislative codes governing presidential, European Parliament, local and Seanad elections and referendums as may be necessary to enable voting and counting at the relevant election or referendum to take place using equipment approved for use under the legislation.
In the referendum of October 2002, an order made under section 48 was prepared for the use of electronic voting in seven constituencies and was laid before the House. Similar orders will be submitted to the Minister shortly in respect of the European and local elections. Regulations will be laid before the House.
Deputy Gilmore is drawing comparisons with the Carrickmines case. We have looked at the recent Supreme Court judgment on this case. Without going into the detail of it, the case bears no relationship to the making of an order of section 48 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2001. As I have outlined, section 48 explicitly and unambiguously provides that the order may make such adaptations or modifications to the relevant statutory electoral code to enable the election to be conducted by using electronic voting and counting. The section also provides that an election taking place electronically under the order will be subject to the same principles as set out in the 2001 Act for electronic voting and counting at a general election. In passing the 2001 Act, the Oireachtas made a conscious decision to empower the Minister to adapt, by order, the provision of other electoral codes to facilitate electronic voting and counting. This is an entirely separate category from the orders that are subject to the Carrickmines issue. Section 48 stays within the principles of part 3 of the 2001 Act.
Many other issues have been raised about the paper trail and the voter verifiable paper trail audit. Much has been made about the paper trail. The proponents of the voter verifiable paper trail audit are mostly American and this arises from concerns about voting machines used in the US. The Nedap voting machine that will be used here is different from those used in the US. Reference has been made to access cards. However, no access cards will be used.
I did not refer to access cards.
I am not saying that Deputy Allen referred to it; Deputy Gilmore made passing reference to an access card. There are no access cards, neither is there a connection to any network. It is not similar to the voting machines used in the Dáil. There is no question of that.
It was said that the machines are virus proof.
There is no problem of hacking. There is no voting card and it is not comparable to the system used in the Dáil.
A number of arguments can be made about the paper trail. The ballot is visible on the machine. The voter will see the ballot paper on screen and will see the preferences he or she has selected. The voter may amend the preferences before casting the vote and the preferences are detailed on the bottom line of the machine's display screen. The voter's preferences are recorded on the machine. Details are confirmed or amended before voters cast the vote by pressing the button. What we are now saying is that if there is a paper trail, one can take a printout of their vote.
No. One gets the paper, inspects it and deposits it.
One inspects the vote oneself. One has seen the vote and presses the "cast vote" button.
The screen is so small that one cannot see it. I tried it yesterday and could not see it without my glasses.
For anyone in the Customs House yesterday——
I was there.
It is an insult to the Irish people to suggest——
A machine can display something while doing something else.
Leaflets were referred to. Until it was brought to my attention this morning, I did not realise that it pointed at a Fianna Fáil logo.
Is it a pure coincidence?
Deputy McCormack is suggesting that I knew this and was party to it.
The Minister of State's buddies knew though.
Is it pure coincidence that it pointed at Fianna Fáil?
The Deputy is fast at altering his view.
What about the ballot paper?
I do not interfere in that way.
It pointed at Fianna Fáil.
That was not intentional.
Will the leaflets be withdrawn?
This will be rectified. Approximately 1,000 of the leaflets the Deputies referred to were printed. This leaflet will be withdrawn and——
Therefore, all the leaflets will be withdrawn and the website will be changed.
Hold on. The Deputies are asking the Minister of State a question and are interrupting him while he is answering it. Allow him to answer the question.
Maybe the Deputy wants me to give answers that are not acceptable. The leaflets will be withdrawn. I do not want anyone to think this cost thousands of euro. Approximately 1,000 leaflets were printed and they will be taken out of circulation and a new leaflet will be printed. The website will be changed as soon as is practical.
The system was tested in Meath, Dublin West and Dublin North in 2002. It has worked successfully both here and in other countries. I ask the Deputies to consider withdrawing their amendments.
I have no intention of withdrawing this amendment. The intent of the amendment is that electronic voting should not be used for either the European Parliament or local elections on 11 June. I understood that including a reference to local elections in an amendment to the European Parliament Elections Bill would have seen it ruled to be outside the scope of the Bill.
We are becoming increasingly familiar of instances where the courts strike down what the Government thinks is robust legislation. While the Government is advised measures are constitutional, the courts take a different view. If a case is taken, the courts will decide whether regulations made under the Electoral Act are constitutional. I have drawn attention to the implications of the judgment in the Carrickmines case. As I understand it, the issues of law that arose in that case, stem from the relationship between the type of regulations that are made under section 48 and the primary legislation. The Government is now on notice that there is a problem here. If the Minister of State decides to ignore this, and the courts strike down the electronic voting system, I will tell people that the Minister of State was warned of this possibility and he will have to carry the can for it. This issue has been characterised by a failure of the Government to listen. It is a long time since Deputy Allen and I began to raise concerns in our different ways about the extension of this system to European and local elections. As we have said before, we are not opposed to the principle of electronic voting or the extension of trials at next June's elections.
On 18 December I suggested, for example, that next June's elections could be used for an extension of trials of this system. One of the criticisms made of the electronic voting system was that no end-to-end test was carried out and next June's elections could provide an ideal opportunity to do just that. Manual ballot papers marked in a particular electoral area could be run though the system after the election to see if they produced the same result as intended by the voters. Furthermore, the small electoral areas in the local elections are manageable enough to run such tests.
To move from the use of the system in three constituencies in the general election to its use in 42 constituencies in the——
There are seven constituencies.
That is correct. On the last occasion, it was a straightforward "Yes" or "No" vote, whereas this will involve two or three ballots in some areas, which is more complex. Nonetheless, it would be prudent to extend the operation of the trials and such a proposal would find favour with the Labour Party. However, taking a blind plunge with this full extension is unwise.
We have not entered into this issue lightly because I have been conscious that the raising of these concerns has an effect on public confidence in the voting system. For example, the Labour Party asked a number of people from the IT sector to examine the system and give it their considered opinion which we published. These people were before the committee and answered questions about the report. We have no interest in causing a lack of confidence in the voting system but we cannot give our sanction to a system about which we are uncertain.
The Government will either listen to the Opposition on this issue or plough on regardless. So far it has decided to do the latter, which is extremely unwise. There is still time. The world will not end, nor will the Government fall if, as I propose, the electronic voting system is not used in every electoral area and in every constituency at next June's elections. We can use those elections for extended trials and the kind of end-to-end testing which has been recommended. We can have a greater period of time in which to examine the system, get further opinion on it, perhaps refine it and be in a position in which this committee, as representative of the political spectrum, could say it had examined the system, changes were made and it was satisfied to give it its blessing and tell the public it had confidence in it.
However, the process is not being pursued in this way. The Opposition is duty bound to raise questions about the system — it is our job. We are also duty bound to reflect to this committee the kind of questions we are being asked by experts. For example, Deputy Kelleher's point that the modules in the voting machine cannot be tampered with externally by means of the Internet and so on is correct. However, the committee was given evidence that two problems could arise. First, there could be a bug in the system whereby the voter may see his or her vote cast but the module may not read it accurately. The committee was given an example that in some voting systems every 100th vote was recorded wrongly.
It was deleted.
Deleted or recorded wrongly. We were also given evidence that, in the design of the software for those modules, it is remotely possible that someone could design the software in such a way that, based on a certain sequence of votes initially cast, it could be programmed to read the votes inaccurately. For example, the committee was told that it could be programmed in order that every fourth or fifth vote could be recorded automatically for a particular party, depending on how it is performed.
One has no way of knowing those issues by looking at the machines used in the trials in the three constituencies in the general election, which is why a paper trail is needed. We have no way of knowing if the vote, which the voter pushes the button to record, is actually recorded accurately in the module. The module will subsequently print out what the module reads, but that may not necessarily be what the voter inputted in the first instance. This is the difficulty and where the gap arises. Before the total commitment is made to the entire system for every election, we must resolve these issues and I am confident we can do so.
However, if the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Government intend to vote down the Opposition on Committee Stage, ignore what it has to say, carry on regardless and spend the money even though regulations have not been made in the Dáil, it will run the country into a serious crisis of confidence in the way in which we vote. This is extremely serious. I intend to press this amendment. I do not want this seen as a political event in which an amendment was proposed which the Government defeated and which was tabled on Report Stage and so on. Rather, I want the Government to hold off on this voting system for the coming election.
We can agree, on a cross-party basis, to extend the trials and on how the system can be used in the forthcoming elections in a way which will inform us and hopefully add to confidence. However, if the Government proceeds as it proposes and uses the system everywhere without changing it or listening to the Opposition or to expert opinion, it will be going down a dangerous road, which will reflect badly on the Government, although that is the least of my worries. My biggest worry is that it will have a serious impact on confidence in voting.
On the issue of inaccuracies within the present electoral system, electoral law provides inherent inaccuracies in the single transferable vote system. We will all be aware that one cannot get a full re-count; all one can get is a re-check of ballots in the event of a tight voting margin in a constituency. We will also all be aware that if one re-counted, as opposed to re-checked, it is possible that one would get a very different result every time because the percentage transfer of surpluses would vary if one put all the ballot papers back into a bundle and re-sorted them through the current system. There was evidence to point that out and everybody accepts it. If one accepts that premise then if one has an end-to-end system of checks and compares it to the ballot paper system, it is very possible, or more probable than not, that one will get a slightly different result because transfers may come from particular sections of the count in the manual system and come from a different place in the count under the electronic system. We all know how the single transferable vote system works, whereby it is the same bundle of, say, 50 papers that will donate the surplus transferred, whereas if one re-counted it might be a different bundle of 50 which would denote which transfers move on in the case of a surplus.
There are already inherent inaccuracies evident in the manual system if there are several re-counts involving throwing all the ballot papers back into the pile for sorting again. Therefore, it is a little unfair to compare an end-to-end system with the electronic voting system. All experts would agree that there could be discrepancies between the two results. However, the manual system is protected under law from that point of view in that it does not allow a full re-count but only a re-check. It is a little unfair to say that if we went ahead with an end-to-end system of electronic voting, we would have the same result. The witnesses gave evidence to this effect before the committee in the meeting prior to Christmas.
I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher. We are lucky that he took the legislation the other night and that he is taking Committee Stage today. I have been in this House 23 years and I regret to say that I have never come across a more arrogant Minister than Deputy Cullen, who will, if questions are put to him, talk down to the Opposition spokesperson and everybody else who raises a question. He expects us to make an act of faith where we cannot trust what he tells us. Over the past days we have seen half truths, general statements which set out to mislead the media and the public about verification trails and other issues.
I asked a question earlier of the witness who appeared before an earlier meeting of the committee and who is a software expert or deals with the software of the system. I am depending on the advice I get from civic-minded people who attended the committee for hours on 18 December and then had their questions ignored. These people are being projected as half cranks. I pay tribute to them for their sense of civic duty and for giving of their talents, expertise and time.
Deputy, I do not think anybody——
I am entitled to my opinion. This is the only avenue I have. The Minister can seek to deceive the people with this bandwagon costing €5 million. I must come in here on my own with any advice I can get from civic-minded people, but that is beside the point.
I asked a question earlier and I would like to get an answer. Has all of the software for the elections in June been completed or are we still in a process where the software is being developed and where one does not really know what it is?
The Minister gave us verification certificates and reports, and he was quoted publicly in the past few days on the system being verified by authoritative sources throughout Europe. Will the Minister of State confirm that the system being used is an amalgamation of two different systems — a cabinet fixture and a separate PC system — married together and that they originate from two different companies? It is a made-up system.
The Minister spoke about the system being certified. Was some of the equipment that has been purchased by the Government exported to the United Kingdom for trials in the local elections there to be held in June? In all the certification about which the Minister has spoken, has he referred to the UK's Electoral Commission? I ask that question first because if the answer is "No", the rest is irrelevant.
Ask the question again.
Was some of the Irish equipment exported to the UK for use in pilot trials, either in local elections or in tests?
Some of the machines which came here were sent back for modifications. We were requested, when those were available, if they could be used in a few of the locations in the UK, and they were.
Despite all the Minister's talk about authoritative certification of the system, I will outline what the UK's Electoral Commission stated about our machines. These are extracts from the first document, entitled The Shape of Elections to Come: a Strategic Evaluation of the 2003 Electoral Pilot Schemes. I will quote from the most relevant comments by the UK commission, outlining its concerns regarding further piloting, audit trail and lack of cost-benefit. At paragraph 6.2 on page 51 of the report it states:
In operational terms, the 2002 pilots were a success, with few problems arising. However, the Commission's conclusion was that further piloting was clearly necessary to tease out a number of issues and to establish further the security measures necessary to protect these systems from attack and ensure public confidence.
Page 59 of the report states:
The operation of the electronic voting scheme in relation to important electoral procedures should be documented clearly by the service providers so that electoral administration staff, candidates and agents are clearly informed about the processes that need to be followed. These procedures should include verifiable checkpoints and should result in an audit trail that can be used to verify that the election was conducted in a secure and robust fashion. This audit trail should be analysed and documentation should be produced to provide confidence in the correct conduct of the election. This documentation should be available to candidates and agents for inspection.
Page 84 states:
Future pilots should investigate the use of electronic voting kiosks in a more targeted fashion. Experience to date suggests that kiosks in polling stations do not provide significant cost benefits [that is about cost benefit analysis of the system] and future pilots should therefore not use kiosks simply to replace paper ballots in polling stations.
The second document is entitled Modernising Elections: a Strategic Evaluation of the 2003 Electoral Pilot Schemes. The most important statement appears on page 7:
Technology-based voting has made a good start, but it would be premature to suggest that the [British] Government is well on its way to delivering against its commitment to having an 'e-enabled' election some time after 2006. Further piloting is clearly necessary to tease out a number of issues and to establish further the security of these voting mechanisms.
How have these concerns been met by the Department? I still have to get answers as to whether the software development has been concluded.
I also have been advised that it is possible to interfere with the software in the machines externally. What regulations are being prepared for the storage of the instrumentation between elections? What security is being put in place so that there will be no tampering with the software? The cost for storage of machines in Waterford increased from €25,000 to €50,000 overnight. What regulations and security exist for the storage of machines there? Can we see those regulations? I have not received any answers today that have satisfied me and I must wait for the answers to the 41 questions and all the others before I can pass judgment.
Some people tried to establish today that this committee is only concerned with political matters. The committee is very concerned about this matter, as we can see from the fact that we have skipped lunch to come here. This is so important that the other things are small beer by comparison.
A question posed at a previous meeting by IT experts has not yet been answered. Can the machines be programmed in advance of their arrival at the polling stations so that a party could be eliminated with every 100 votes? That would have a significant effect on the result.
We are looking for something simple — a print out of each ballot as it is cast so it can be put into a separate box to be checked if anything happens, if the result does not tally with the number of people who voted or if the contest is very close. If I buy a litre of milk I get receipt and I know that it cost 48 cent.
I noticed the size of the display screen on the machine. The back of the machine is blank and I do not understand why the display is not enlarged to the size of a television screen and placed there. I could not read the display after voting so what will it be like for a person in a dark rural school? People are tense enough when they go to vote. It will be impossible for the voter to read the screen to verify that it matches his or her intention. Could the machines be redesigned to include a larger display unit? It is a simple matter. If we received assurances today that there would be a receipt for each ballot that could go into a separate ballot box, we might make progress.
It has been pointed out on a number of occasions during our discussions that for security reasons that is not acceptable. There must be privacy in the polling booth and a print-out is a record of a vote someone has cast.
A ballot paper is a record of how a person voted and it goes through all the process at the count where it can be observed. A print-out would be a record and if we could be assured that it was available to verify the electronic system, we would all be confident enough to proceed. It does not matter what we say here or how our amendments will be defeated, it is the confidence of the public that matters. We can help the Minister to present this if we have the confidence to do so but currently we do not.
I refer again to DeputyGilmore's fears of a legal challenge. He is comparing this to the situation at Carrickmines, a point he also made on Second Stage. On that occasion, I sought advice and I am confident that we are staying within the principle of Part 3 of the 2001 Act and that section 48 explicitly and unambiguously provides that the order may make such adaptations. Deputy Allen has said that his party may challenge this in the Irish and European courts if the Bill is passed.
I said that we will send it to the Commission.
That is a matter for the Deputy and he is entitled to do that. From the advice we have been given, this is not a mirror image of the Carrickmines situation. Deputy Gilmore flagged the potential problem. It is our responsibility to take a decision and we are now taking it.
There will not be any programming of the machines in advance of their arrival at the polling stations.
I want to know if it is possible.
I am told that it is not possible.
I have been told otherwise.
It would be possible for someone to get in and get ten ballot papers — anything is possible. There will be a print-out to prove that no one has used the machine to vote prior to the issuing of the instruction by the returning officer.
Nedap was responsible for the manufacturing of the machinery while Powervote developed the software for the electronic management system. It is the best of both worlds because the two companies have been working together for some years. We are aware of the reports of the British commissioners on the e-voting systems tried in Britain, such as Internet voting, which could be hacked, telephone voting, text messaging and this equipment. The reliability of this machine has been tested by international institutes and in real elections in the last ten years, including in elections here. The voting machine has a good track record and has been used successfully in many countries — Holland, Germany and in pilot polls in Britain. The machines were used on their way to be modified, not on their way back, but that is a matter for the British. The voting machine was tested by two international test institutes in Holland and Germany, TNO and PTB, and they have given the machine positive reports. In addition, a number of returning officers and the Department have carried out functional tests on the machine to ensure it works properly.
On the software used, an architectural and code review was carried out by an independent private company and a number of returning officers, the Department and the Electoral Reform Society in Britain have functionally tested the software.
What software expertise do they have?
It is a functional testing and I take it that they have the adequate——
It is only a theoretical checking of 400 votes. They have no expertise in software. Is it not true that the system is used only in Cologne? The impression being given is that this system is used throughout Germany in general, federal and state elections. Is it not the case that it is used in only one city, Cologne?
I said in parts of Germany.
What parts of Germany?
Cologne is one. I am not sure if it is used in Hamburg.
We were told here that it is being used in Germany, giving the impression that all the elections there use this system. I would like to know where in Germany.
I pointed it out in my speech on Second Stage. Deputy Kelleher also made a very pertinent point. The result on a paper ballot could be slightly different to the result from this because of the mixing and taking the last bundle of 50, whereas this system, because of the mix, would be totally accurate. In the last election one vote decided the contest in Limerick West. Spoiled votes can make a difference. This system is more scientific than the system which has served us well over the years. It need not necessarily yield the same result but it can yield a more accurate one.
The first preference results should be the same, as should the distribution of transfers of eliminations. In the next local elections if one took the paper ballots and fed them into the system and saw that the first preference count was the same and a sample of the elimination distributions were the same I would say the system is doing what it is intended to do.
On the balance of probabilities——
I accept the point about the distribution of surpluses, which is a different matter but if it showed the same on first preferences and on distribution of transfers of eliminations I would be satisfied it was operating correctly.
The Minister of State did not answer my question about whether the software programme to be used next June is complete. What regulations are in place to ensure security and to prevent tampering where the machines are being stored, which is one of the vulnerable areas for software?
The software has been completed and is undergoing final testing.
When?
By the end of February.
Is it not completed yet?
It is undergoing its final test.
It is incredible that the software, about which we have so many questions regarding security for the elections in June, is not yet complete.
It has been completed.
The Minister of State says it has not yet been tested.
There are some final tests to be carried out.
How can the Minister of State stand over all the claims being made if the software is not complete? Throughout the debate I have made this point about the difference between the box and the software, about which all the questions are being raised. We have been told that all the answers are there yet now we are told that the software and its testing have not been completed.
The software has been completed. Tests have been carried out and this is just to be sure, nothing more.
How can the system be certified as being all right if tests are not completed on the software? This is incredible. I also asked about the regulations for storage because computers are now stored in Waterford and I know how much that costs for one constituency. What regulations, safeguards and security are in place and can we have sight of the regulations? There should be regulations.
The machines as they are constituted at present are useless. They are stored and days prior to the election the additional software will be included. On the morning of the election the presiding officer will ensure that no votes have been cast, that the system will start from zero. Meanwhile the storage of the machines is a matter for the returning officer in each area. They are in Cork, Donegal, Louth, all over the country.
The inquiry under the Freedom of Information Act 1997 showed only Waterford and one or two other locations, including Castlebar. What expertise does the presiding officer have to ensure that the software has not been tampered with?
The presiding officer will have clear instructions which must ensure and verify to him or her that no votes had been cast prior to the commencement of voting.
This is my final question: have all the issues raised in the report of the UK electoral commission been addressed?
It was not necessary to address all the points because we are aware of the UK commission's report and it included Internet, telephone and text message voting.
I refer to the system we are proposing to introduce next June.
Our system was used in one of the pilots with no problem.
There was a problem.
As far as I am concerned——
As far as the Electoral Commission was concerned there was. There is no point saying that as far as we are concerned there is no problem. Have the issues raised by the commission been addressed?
We are happy that several issues raised in the UK are not necessarily relevant here.
Why is the Minister of State happy?
This has been carried out in some of the pilots where it has worked well. We are Irish. We should not be looking over our shoulders to the UK all the time.
The Minister of State should not play the Irish card now. He has quoted German, Dutch and other European certification but the real test was done in the UK. He spoke about the British electoral reform society, a bunch of whatevers with no software expertise and now he is saying that we should be standing on our own two feet and not worrying about UK opinions.
We have a vote in the Chamber in 30 minutes, perhaps earlier.
We can come back.
I want to ensure that we take our vote before that.
No.
I will ensure that we do. Could the Deputy please conclude, he was going to ask his final question five minutes ago?
How can the Minister of State be happy, or his officials be satisfied, that the concerns raised by the UK electoral commission have been addressed? If he can satisfy me I will be happy.
The Minister of State says he is happy, but we are certainly not happy so there is a gap between us. This comes down to the kernel of the mechanics of the system. The Minister of State referred to presiding officers being responsible for ensuring that the machine is all right at the start of the election. With all due respect to presiding officers, those of us who have participated in many elections have experience of visiting polling booths and observing them. How presiding officers could be qualified to verify the machine is beyond my comprehension. I am not saying anything derogatory about such officers. It is fine for presiding officers to stamp and hand out the ballot paper to Mrs. X if she is on the register——
That is a lot of stamping.
How the same presiding officer will be responsible for verifying that the electoral machine is in order is beyond my comprehension. The Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gallagher, will have to accept that the level of trust is low among the public in anything involving politicians. Serious doubts have been raised about electronic voting. As far as the public is concerned, the Minister is introducing this and, therefore, it starts off with a low level of confidence.
The Deputy does not speak for all members of the public.
I know this from opinion polls and media reports. The only way we can allay some of the fears about the new system would be to have a verifiable paper ballot which can be put into a box. Why that cannot be conceded has not been explained to the committee. Why can we not have a verifiable paper ballot so that the doubt can be dismissed? I am not promoting that doubt because I have not spoken publicly on the issue yet. I would like to be able to defend electronic voting. However, until we get answers to our questions, we will not be able to do so.
When will the lists of candidates be fed into the machine? Who will do that? How long will it be before the election and after nominations have closed?
Which software is still being tested? Is it the software to be used in the voting machine or for the counting?
Regarding the UK Electoral Commission, there may be some questions about other systems, but the Nedap system has been used a number of times in some UK regions. While there may be questions about other systems, it is my understanding from the UK Electoral Commission that there are no questions about the system we will use.
Presiding officers are receiving training. The presiding officer only has to plug in the machine and confirm that no votes have been cast. I would not decry presiding officers; I have every confidence in them. As far as the software is concerned, we have ensured that it has been checked and rechecked. The software being checked is for the management and the count itself. Regarding the software used, an architectural and code review was conducted by an independent review company used by all the international institutes. We are satisfied with this and it worked well in the 2002 elections. It is important that all this equipment is reliable and acceptable.
What about the entry of candidates' names?
There are two extremes. The candidates' names cannot be entered until the close of nominations. It is a matter for each returning officer after that. The names could be entered the following day or a number of days afterwards. I understand that the Department has sent a circular to each of the local authorities on details such as size of photographs. It is a matter for the local authorities to provide that information to the candidates. There is no statutory requirement for the entry of the names.
Is it correct that there are no more tests to be done on the software to be used in the voting machines?
That is correct.
What exactly is being tested in the software to be used at the count? It was already used in three election counts. Why is it being tested again?
We are satisfied with the tests but it is just a repeat of them.
Why is it being tested?
For the application of the count.
An issue raised by one of the experts was that the Microsoft system used to manage the count has only been used in a general election. One argument made at an earlier meeting of the committee was that there is a question whether the software will cope with the much larger count in the European elections. Is there some doubt about the ability of the software to count a European election accurately?
This has all been examined and there is no doubt that the software will be able to deal with the count.
What are the continuing tests for? Where is the area of doubt?
There is no area of doubt. With any machine——
If there is no doubt, why are tests continuing?
There are some continuing tests and all of those will be completed. The experts are happy with the results but they want to be sure.
Can the Minister of State describe the tests?
If one looks at the mathematics and what happens with the various transfers, the votes go into the modules that are brought to the returning officer. They are then placed on compact discs which are encrypted and sent to the count centre. I do not have the macro details of the tests, but if the Deputy wants them, I will provide them.
If I went into a garage with my car, I could ask the mechanic whether he was looking at the lights or the exhaust. All I am asking is what are they testing? We have been led to believe that the system will have 100% certainty. The Government's responses to the system are like the doctrine of infallibility. However, we now learn that tests on the software are continuing and the Minister of State cannot tell us what they are for.
The tests are an application of the count rules. I am continually asked how are we going to be sure to be sure of the system. That is exactly what we are doing with the tests. I acknowledge I am not an expert in computers, but all the details are in the reports available.
We can make a mess of it "to be sure, to be sure".
I accept that the Minister of State, like me, is not an expert on computers. However, the experts to whom I have spoken have said that the ongoing tests are substantial ones to deal with eventualities in the process that have not yet been finalised. Some of the eventualities have not yet been dealt with in the process.
I wish to withdraw my earlier statement on the public relations company which published the information leaflet. I have noted that it was the Minister and his Department that published the leaflets that are now being withdrawn. Will the Minister take political responsibility for that? It would be naïve of me to think that a thousand leaflets are enough for an election. The Minister should accept political responsibility for the leaflet that was issued. I thought it was issued by the PR company. Instead, it was the Minister and his Department.
If they must accept responsibility——
This has been difficult for all of us, and I again express my appreciation that the Minister of State has given as much information as he could. However, this session has generated more questions than answers, and major issues remain to be explored regarding the most fundamental process in our democracy.
I appeal to the Minister of State. He rejects my amendment on a technicality in that it should state "an electoral commission" rather than "the electoral commission". Will the Minister, the Minister of State and their Department put what they are doing on hold in the lead-up to June? We are not happy and, even by questioning, we in effect undermine the confidence of the people. We have a service to perform, but the Minister and his Department have a responsibility to meet us half way. We should establish this electoral commission and hear all views, including those of the public, on this important process.
This section deals with the boundaries, and I have a strong view that the reduction in the size of the boundaries and their construction as presented is not for the best. I therefore submit that, pending an all-island situation where the electorate can vote collectively, which clearly could not be facilitated at present because of British occupation of six of those counties, a constituency across the Twenty-six Counties would render the election result far more representative than the present construction.
The Deputy will appreciate that, since the establishment of the commission, all Governments over the years have accepted its recommendations. I take the Deputy's point about having a Twenty-six Counties or Thirty-two Counties constituency, possibly considering the list system or some other, but we must examine this again after the 2004 European elections in time for the following elections in 2009. As the Deputy is aware, we hope that Bulgaria and Romania will be members of the Union at that stage.
We have already committed ourselves to a reduction from 15 seats to 13 for this election. The first commitment was from 15 to 12 on the basis that there would be 12 accession countries. Now that only ten countries are becoming members, the additional seats have been, by and large, spread pro rata, meaning that we have secured another. When the two other countries become members and our number of seats is reduced to 12, we will then have to consider another revision of the constituencies. Perhaps the Deputy will have views to express then — to the commission rather than the Government.
I have already expressed those views to the commission and it is unfortunate that it chose not to accept them. It would have meant that we would not have had to review this again. The opportunity should be taken now to deal with the constituency boundary issue once and for all, since my suggestion would clear it up. Changing to a list system is also a useful suggestion.
Even if we had changed to such a list system, we would then have been accused of interfering with an independent commission which we established. There are times when one is not happy with the decisions of the commission depending on one's specific constituency, and I am sure that there are many Members of the House who are in that position. However, such commissions have served us well, and anyone interested in another system can make their recommendations at the time. It would require an amendment to the Electoral Acts. However, that will happen, whatever the outcome.
The commission is independent, but the difficulty is that it is subject to legislation passed by the Government, and unfortunately that sets the terms of reference as far as it is concerned.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 7 are consequential and may be taken together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
: I move amendment No. 5:
In page 6, before section 5, to insert the following new section:
"5.—The Schedule to the Interpretation Act 1937 is amended by inserting the following paragraph after paragraph 25:
‘25A.—The expression "representative in the European Parliament" shall be construed as a reference to a member of the European Parliament and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.'.".
Section 5 as drafted makes a non-textual amendment to every Act on the Statute Book. I believe that the same should be achieved by way of an amendment to the Interpretation Acts. That would be the correct approach. AmendmentNo. 7 is consequential on amendment No. 5.
I consulted the parliamentary counsel on the need for this amendment and have been advised that it is unnecessary. This section provides that any reference to a representative of the European Parliament in any Act or statutory instrument shall be construed to be a reference to a Member of the Parliament. The term "representative" has been in use since the 1970s, and the Council's decision of 2002 provides that, in future, those elected will be known as Members of the European Parliament. I have been advised by the parliamentary counsel that the Deputy's amendment is unnecessary.
I will reintroduce the amendment on Report Stage.
It would be wise to suspend, since we are expecting a vote in the Chamber.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 6, before section 6, to insert the following new section:
6.—(1) All aspects of electronic voting shall be inquired into by the Electoral Commission, who shall within six months of the passing of this Act, furnish a report to the Houses of the Oireachtas, detailing the—
(a) reliability,
(b) security,
(c) integrity, and
(d) vulnerability,
of any electronic voting system which is proposed for adoption by the Minister.
(2) No system of electronic voting may be adopted by the Minister for use in elections referred to in subsection (3) unless—
(a) a report under subsection (1) has been furnished to the Houses of the Oireachtas, and
(b) there is all-party agreement on the adoption of a particular system of electronic voting.
(3) Nothing in this Act or any other enactment shall permit the trial, implementation or use of electronic voting in any election to—
(a) the Houses of the Oireachtas,
(b) the Office of the President,
(c) the European Parliament, and
(d) local authorities,
save in accordance with subsection (2).”.
