Jim O'Keeffe
Ceist:49 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for the Environment Heritage and Local Government the arrangements now in place in relation to electronic voting; and if he has satisfied himself with the security thereof. [28378/03]
Other Questions. - Electronic Voting.
Kathleen Lynch
Ceist:59 Ms Lynch asked the Minister for the Environment Heritage and Local Government if his attention has been drawn to the serious concerns expressed by a number of computer and software experts regarding the security and integrity of the electronic voting system; if he will consider postponing the extension of the new voting system to all areas of the country until such times as these issues have been addressed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28438/03]
Bernard Allen
Ceist:68 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for the Environment Heritage and Local Government the amount spent to date on the electronic voting system; the tendering system used to acquire the technology involved; and the reason none of the political parties were consulted on the proposed system before a decision was made to purchase. [28468/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 49, 59 and 68 together.
Detailed planning for the use of countrywide electronic voting and counting at the 2004 polls is proceeding, including the delivery of voting machines and ancillary hardware, ongoing software testing, training of returning officers and their staff and preparation for an extensive education and awareness programme. To date some €19 million has been spent on the system which is being supplied by Nedap-Powervote which were appointed in 2001 following an international tender competition.
While I am aware of concerns expressed in a number of recent reports, I am satisfied that the system is secure, that it maintains the integrity of the voting process and that it counts votes accurately and quickly. Both hardware and software have been subjected to an extensive testing regime by a range of independent Irish and international test institutes and companies and by my Department.
In addition, my Department is considering measures, both technical and procedural, which will further enhance the level of security. The PCs which will be used for the election set up and the counting of votes are stand alone and will not be connected to the Internet or to any internal or external network. They will also be security hardened before delivery.
As regards consultations with political parties on the system, electronic voting and counting was considered during Oireachtas debates on the Local Elections (Disclosure of Donation and Expenditure) Act 1999 and the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2001. Demonstrations of the system were given at parliamentary party meetings in 1999 and 2000 and to officials of political parties in 2001. The use of the system has been the subject of numerous parliamentary questions and an Adjournment debate. It has also featured in the print and broadcasting media. Reports on the pilot use of the system in 2002 are available on request and copies of all similar reports relating to the use of the system in June 2004 will be posted to a specific website and will be sent to the Library.
The issue of security will continue to be of paramount importance and all aspects of the system will be kept under review. However, I am satisfied that the system meets the key criteria for an electoral system in terms of ease of use, maintaining the secrecy of the ballot, accurately recording and counting votes and security. The introduction of electronic voting and counting is a desirable modernisation of the electoral system and I look forward to its successful implementation in 2004. As colleagues know, I appeared before the committee yesterday on this matter.
I am in favour of electronic voting but I want to see that it is secure. Is the Minister giving an absolute guarantee to the House that the system being put in place will be secure? I noted the Minister said at the committee that he would consider new legislation after next year's elections to allow for the creation of paper records at the same time votes are cast. If the Minister admits new legislation is necessary to achieve that effect, why is he waiting until after the elections next June to introduce it? Would it not be more wise to introduce the legislation before the European Parliament and the local elections?
I apologise. I lost my train of thought on the questions.
There are two issues – an absolute guarantee of security and the legislation the Minister is considering introducing after next year's elections.
I do not know that I said I was introducing legislation after the elections next year.
The Minister is quoted as saying that in today's edition of The Irish Times.
That might be different from what I said here. I had extensive discussions about this matter yesterday and the Deputy's colleagues were at the meeting. I am sure the Deputy was busy elsewhere and was, unfortunately, unable to be there. We had a good discussion on the security system. I have to trust, as all of us do, that the system is absolutely secure and it is my intention that it will be. We can all draw much confidence from the referenda and from the pilot phases during the general election.
Issues have been raised by the Deputy's colleagues and by outside consultants on some aspects of the system. They have been looked at and if anything can be improved, it will be. I emphasise that these systems have been tested internationally by recognised European institutes and in this country. I will do anything I can to ensure confidence in the system.
What about the legislation?
I am not so sure about the question on legislation.
Today's edition of The Irish Times reported the Deputy as saying the Government would consider new legislation after next year's elections to allow for the creation of paper records at the same time votes are cast. The immediate thought which occurred to me was that if such legislation is in the offing, why wait until after the elections? Would it not be more prudent and wise to introduce it before the elections?
I do not recall saying that in those terms. I did not read that article today but somebody has connected two things wrongly. I said that if we were to change the system to get the maximum out of the electronic voting system – this is complex and I do not think I have time to explain it in the House – new legislation would be required to change the basis of the distribution of the votes. It has nothing to do with paper. That is a wrong connection in the article and I now recall about what I was talking. This system has the capacity to distribute every paper in the distribution of votes. As Members will know, in the case of surpluses, we only take the particular portion of those that were transferred. We are maintaining the traditional system in the election next year. If there is a view that we should go much deeper, legislation will be required to change the situation. That is what I said.
The Minister agreed at yesterday's committee meeting that there would be an examination by respective technical or IT experts from different parties, and I thank him for that. However, he will be aware that the committee has not yet concluded its examination of this issue. Following from Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's question, can the Minister give a guarantee to the House and the public that the electronic voting system he is introducing next June is 100% secure, safe and not capable of being corrupted in any way and that the voting machines and the software in them cannot be tampered with or corrupted and that the software to be used for the count cannot be tampered with?
I am perfectly satisfied on all those counts.
The Minister may be satisfied but I am not satisfied on a number of points. Yesterday's meeting was quite inconclusive and unsatisfactory because issues relating to the source code and the audit trail, particularly the paper audit trail, were not dealt with adequately. I still have serious reservations about the security of the system.
Will the Minister allow an independent election commission to sit on this issue so that we may get the considered views of experts on these conflicting views? Will he stall the introduction of the process for the local and European elections next June until all parties are satisfied with its security? It does not just concern the Minister but also the parties and individuals who will contest the elections and, most importantly, the public. I am not satisfied with the process and I ask the Minister to put a freeze on all spending on its development until such time as we have a full and detailed investigation.
The source code and paper audit trail are issues about which I am unhappy. It is wrong of the Minister to say that the introduction of a paper audit trail would be unconstitutional.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
We are over time and must go on to the next item.
Will the Minister stall the process until we have a full and detailed review? Will he refer it to an electoral commission and stop all spending? To date, €19 million has been spent on the process and the Minister spent a further €4.5 million yesterday. The total cost will be over €40 million and there has been no agreement in the House on this issue.
And we got no guarantee on the matter.
As the Minister said, it is a difficult issue to debate on the floor. However, can he take into account that he is asking the public to accept a huge amount on trust? It is as if he is saying to people that the people counting the votes are honest and there is no reason to doubt them, but they will do the counting in another room and will not be subject to scrutiny as was the case previously. Will he agree that a paper trail would get over that difficulty?
I dealt with this matter extensively yesterday. This process has been subject to the highest independent international scrutiny. I added that I have no difficulty with Deputy ilmore and others bringing in all the independent people they want and having all the discussion they wish on the issue.
Written answers follow Adjournment Debate.