Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 17 Jun 2003

Vol. 568 No. 5

Priority Questions. - Electronic Voting.

Eamon Gilmore

Ceist:

79 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for the Environment Heritage and Local Government if his attention has been drawn to a report prepared by two leading computer scientists based in NUI Maynooth suggesting that the electronic voting system is potentially open to abuse and threatens the integrity of democracy; if he intends to extend electronic voting to all areas for the European and local elections in 2004; the estimated cost of this; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16661/03]

Some 1.5 pages of the 11 page report to which the Deputy referred deal with the electronic voting and vote counting system being adopted here. My Department does not accept the conclusions drawn in the report, for detailed reasons which I will spell out.

It is the Government's intention that the electronic voting and vote counting system will be used in all local and European elections in June 2004 and detailed planning for this is being co-ordinated by my Department. Electronic voting is a desirable modernisation of our electoral procedures and public reaction to the use of voting machines in the pilot constituencies has been extremely positive. I am confident the new system will enhance rather than weaken the integrity and efficiency of the Irish electoral process. The cost of the system is approximately €36 million, plus VAT. As the system has an estimated life of 20 years, most of the cost will be recouped in greater efficiency and reduced staff costs over the life of the system.

My Department's reasons for rejecting the conclusions of the NUI Maynooth report are as follows. First, the report restates four points from a security assessment report which was commissioned by my Department in March 2002 on possible threats to the external physical features of the voting machine and before the system was used at the general election in May 2002. These points were considered by my Department before the use of the system and procedures were put in place to deal, where necessary, with the matters concerned. As indicated in reply to Priority Question No. 75 the authors of the original security assessment report have now indicated that they are satisfied that the action taken and procedures implemented in the use of the system meet any concerns expressed in their report.

Additional InformationSecond, the report questions a survey carried out by MRBI, on the basis that the questionnaire and report is not available. In fact the survey report was and is available, free of charge, from my Department. Third, the report comments adversely on the size and brightness of the preference number display. The preference number on the voting machine display has been increased in size and brightness, having regard to voters' comments in the pilot uses of the machine. Fourth, the authors of the report refer to the need for a voter to be able to amend his or her preferences. The factual position is that the voting machine allows a voter to change his or her preferences in private and in secret before pressing the cast vote button. The details of a preference recorded will also be displayed on the voting machine screen so that it can be viewed by the voter before the cast vote button is pressed.

Fifth, the report lays emphasis on a procedure promoted by an American writer on the need for a system to produce a paper ballot which would be retained in the voting machine and which could be used in a manual count later. This idea, while it may be suitable in other countries, would not be suitable here as it could endanger the secrecy of the ballot and moreover it would not be useful for a recheck on the electronic count result, due to the requirement to mix the votes before the count commences. However, our system will print a ballot paper for each vote if required by a court order in an election petition hearing. The printed ballot paper in such a case would have the details of the movement of the vote at different counts. Sixth, the report refers to the non-availability of the source code for the system especially the count source code. Making available of the source code raises important commercial and security issues and it is a matter under consideration in my Department.

This report does not raise any new issues concerning the security of the electronic system to be used and its conclusions cannot be considered to have been substantiated.

At the time the author received material from the Department. We did not hear from the author afterwards. The report went on the Internet by the tutor and my officials and I will be happy to meet at any time with this person if we can assist in any way.

I note from the Minister of State's reply that the cost of rolling out electronic voting for the next European and local elections in June next year is €36 million, plus VAT, which brings the cost to almost €45 million. What will he say to the parents of children with disabilities for whom funding has been cut this year, to someone who is waiting for a disabled person's grant in a local authority area where this is no longer being made available, to someone who is waiting ten years for local authority housing which they cannot get because of the cuts or to the parent of a child in a school which has not been provided with funding this year? How can he say to these people that there is no funding for these services, yet the Government is prepared to spend €45 million on a system of electronic voting which has been established as being unsafe, insecure, with no traceability, no transparency and which frankly is unnecessary? Is this not a scandalous waste of money? Will he simply cop on and cancel the rolling out of electronic voting for next year, given that spending €45 million is a scandalous waste of money on something which is unsafe, insecure and will make our electoral system less transparent and less open to public accountability.

The cost was correctly quoted at €36 million, plus VAT. As the company will be incorporated in this country the VAT will go into the Exchequer. Therefore, it is a net gain to taxpayers of €38 million.

I appreciate Deputy Gilmore's concerns about people awaiting DPGs, those on disability payments and people on the housing waiting list. However, we must move on. This is a modern system.

We do not need it.

It is a modern system on which we will make savings. It is an investment for approximately 20 years. The money involved will be approximately €1 million or €1.5 million a year, so this will be a major saving. It is a desirable modern system but I do not decry the case made by Deputy Gilmore.

These services are being cut.

However, it does not necessarily follow that if we did not go ahead with the system the money would be made available for the services listed by the Deputy. It is a good investment in information technology. Everyone will appreciate that when it comes to information technology Ireland is well ahead of many other countries.

This is modernity gone mad. I again put it to the Minister of State that the €45 million which will be spent on this unnecessary electronic voting system should be made available to local authorities that are currently refusing disabled person's grants for essential extensions, including bathroom and shower facilities, for people who in many cases are in pain. These people have been refused services by local authorities that are funded by his Department. It apparently has €45 million to spare that it can lash out on a system of electronic voting which we do not need.

I am particularly pleased that Deputy Gilmore has referred to allocations to local authorities, for which the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern has responsibility. This year, despite adjustments, we are maintaining the high levels that exist. As a public representative, I would like to think we could resolve all the problems this year and that there would be no need to come back next year. We are moving on and we have maintained those high levels, which are in sharp contrast with the levels of a number of years ago. As a public representative in west Donegal, I understand what the Deputy is saying. However, I am also being realistic about this. It is an investment over a 20-year period, which will give us—

It is a waste of money.

There will be savings, greater efficiency and reduced staff costs over the lifetime of this system.

Barr
Roinn