Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 29 Jun 2004

Vol. 588 No. 2

Commission on Electronic Voting (Further Reports) Order 2004: Motion.

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. Cullen)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the Commission on Electronic Voting (Further Reports) Order 2004, which was made on 24th June, 2004 under section 22(5) of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2004.

This motion arises because of the wish expressed to the Government by the Commission on Electronic Voting in a letter received last week that an order should be made under section 22(5) of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2004 to ensure and put beyond doubt the commission's continued mandate. The possibility of such a request to extend the work of the commission was provided for under the recent legislation and is to be effected by a Government order with the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

The Government considers that it is proper and reasonable to accede to this precautionary request from the commission. Therefore, I am pleased to bring this order before the House. It will provide further assurance and amplification for the commission in respect of its continuing role and equip it with an explicit mandate to continue to assess the secrecy and accuracy of the Nedap-Powervote system and issue a further report or reports for this purpose.

Apart from its technical content, the order before the House is an important affirmation of the work of the commission which has already shown itself to be entirely independent. Its standing is above reproach. Moreover, the Government has acknowledged the importance of the commission's initial findings and accepted its main recommendations on further testing requirements. This demonstrates that the security, accuracy and integrity of our electoral system are of the highest importance to it.

In parallel with the continuation of the commission's work, my Department is establishing, in consultation with the commission, an extensive testing programme intended to address the concerns raised by the commission with regard to the secrecy and accuracy of the electronic voting system. This testing regime will also provide further validation of the system, building on, and where necessary adding to, the comprehensive set of tests and certifications carried out to date by the independent testing agencies.

To progress this work, my Department will shortly appoint an independent project manager from the private sector to oversee its work programme and ensure the speedy and efficient presentation of outputs to the commission. The project manager will be tasked with developing an appropriate testing and validation programme in response to the commission's concerns, overseeing prompt execution by relevant contractors and ensuring the work programme is implemented to best practice standards.

The Government is also requesting the commission to include in its assessment a comparative study of the secrecy and accuracy of the current paper based electoral system with the electronic voting and counting system. In this way, the commission will be able to focus more closely on the relative merits of the two systems and consider practical improvements and efficiencies that electronic voting can bring to the electoral process.

I thank members of the commission for their intensive work since its establishment in March this year and their continued efforts in providing the necessary assurance and confidence in the electronic voting system.

Mr. Allen

I am glad we have the opportunity to discuss this motion this evening. I do not mean to be confrontational but the Minister never seems to be able to learn from his mistakes. He put himself in a deep political mire recently by not consulting, seeking advice or, most importantly, listening when advice was given. As a result of his reluctance to take advice and listen to those who held different views, he was forced into a U-turn on electronic voting which we have since learned has cost the taxpayer €65 million, a conservative estimate.

I have heard the Minister state from time to time that the machines in question will be used and that the money spent will not be wasted because most of the faults lie with the software, not the actual machines which he insists will be used for 20 years. They are not accessible to the blind and cannot be retro-fitted by any means I can see. Is it seriously contended that no accessibility improvements will be made for the next 20 years? No provision has been made for the blind to vote in secret. Moreover, the fundamental problem lies with the machines as a paper trail is most necessary.

I thought that the Minister, in extending the terms of reference of the commission, would take into account some of the content of the report published by it in April. The order proposed by him endorses paragraph 4.4 of the report, namely, that there needs to be a final definitive version of the software and all related hardware and software components to be used in elections; there needs to be a full independent review and testing of the source code of the final system to be used and any subsequent software modifications will necessitate a further full system retest. The commission report also said there should be independent parallel testing of the system, including, where possible, in a live electoral contest; that there should be independent end-to-end testing of the system; and that there should be testing and certification by a single accredited body of the suitability of each new version of the entire system for use at elections in Ireland.

Each of these points contained in paragraph 4.5 of the commission's report has an important impact but not least the first and third points. When one considers that calls are being made from all quarters to add a verifiable paper audit trail, this is a modification to the hardware. If the commission goes ahead and spends time and money verifying a system with no verifiable paper audit trail and one has to be added, which it does, then it is a case of going back to square one. As the commission points out, there needs to be a final definitive version for any testing to be meaningful. Paragraph 4.4 of the report states:

The Commission also makes the following observations in relation to the chosen system which, although not falling strictly within its terms of reference, have a bearing on the successful implementation of the system at elections in Ireland:

Under the system, voters who wish to register an abstention by voting for no candidate cannot do so in secrecy;

The system does not have a voter-verifiable audit trail (VVAT), argued by many to:

Reassure voters that their vote has been correctly recorded,

Create a disincentive to the manipulation of the system by providing an external check on accuracy,

Enable recovery from a serious system failure.

I could continue to read page 23 of the report in full but time does not permit. I thought, in view of what the commission said in its initial report, that in any widening of the terms of reference of the commission that issue would be put to it for its consideration. Instead the Minister continues to bury his head in the sand and continues to ignore the arguments put forward by so many people.

The Government must remove the cloak of arrogance, take its head out of the sand and commence a consultative process with the Opposition parties and the public to ensure the best way forward, even at this late stage. I appeal to the Minister to call a truce and refer the question of electronic voting to a statutory electoral commission, which should be set up and which would take over the role of the endless list of Government-appointed commissions dealing with elections and referendums in Ireland. There is the Referendum Commission, the constituency commission, the Standards in Public Office Commission and the relevant section of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. They would be streamlined once and for all. The commission would also be responsible for the introduction of a safe, secure, transparent and verifiable electronic voting system.

My party supports the principle of electronic voting but only if introduced, following consultation and transparency. I ask that we get together as mature politicians to resolve this problem in a sensible and open fashion because I do not see that the Minister's way will resolve it. In his speech he said he will shortly appoint an independent project manager from the private sector to oversee his work programme and ensure a quick and efficient presentation output to the commission. Any person appointed by the Minister or the Government is not independent. Let us remove the charade and get down to real business. Let us be adults and mature in our political approach to a system that needs to be looked at in a mature way.

The way forward is a statutorily based electoral commission along the lines I have suggested. Otherwise we will continue indefinitely with questions and answers resulting in dissatisfaction and the undermining of confidence in the electoral system on the part of the public. The time has come for mature political reflection on where we stand. Let us get together and make progress in the interests of those we represent.

Mr. Gilmore

The motion seeks to extend the mandate of the Commission on Electronic Voting, an issue I raised here last week. I pointed out it was my understanding that the mandate of the commission was due to expire on 30 June and that an order was required to extend it. I am pleased the Minister has brought forward the necessary motion to do so.

I join in the tributes paid to the commission. It was appointed in unusual circumstances and given a short period in which to carry out its work. It worked to an incredibly strict and pressurised deadline. It also worked in the context of the Government wishing to use electronic voting in the recent local and European elections. Notwithstanding those difficulties the commission produced a comprehensive and independent report. It has done the country and the electoral system a great service in the way in which it carried out its mandate. I understand the commission is to produce a full report and that the report published in April was an interim one. I look forward to examining the full when published.

Mr. Cullen

There are a number of reports. It is up to the commission. It is not being confined to publishing one report.

Mr. Gilmore

I look forward to the report or reports. When one looks at the interim report the commission produced, one wonders what the Government was at in attempting to progress the electronic voting system in the way it was doing. The commission went further in its criticisms of the system than did any Member. It was a thorough and comprehensive critique of a flawed system.

The issue at this stage is not about who was right or wrong on electronic voting but how to ensure public confidence in the voting system is enhanced whatever type is used. All of us, whether on the Government or Opposition side, should apply our minds and energies to that issue. On the Government side in particular there needs to be a resolve that, whatever the outcome from the further examination to be carried out by the commission and the final report that will ensue, any changes in the way in which elections are conducted should only be proceeded with on the basis of general political consensus. The attempt which was made to move unilaterally to electronic voting on the basis of a simple head count in the Dáil or the Oireachtas committee was mistaken. The lesson that needs to be learned from this exercise is that if we want the public to have confidence in the voting system, we need to ensure general agreement and confidence in the House on the system of voting, whatever type that may be.

I am curious as to why the Department is appointing an independent project manager to work with the commission. Why is responsibility for appointing an independent project manger if required not being given to the commission rather than to the Department? It is not clear from the Minister's contribution whether the independent project manager will work to the commission or the Department. The manager was described as being responsible for ensuring speedy and efficient presentation of outputs to the commission.

Mr. Cullen

As I would not like there, to be any confusion on that, it is important to clarify the matter. The appointment has nothing to do with the commission. As the commission is completely independent, any appointment it makes will be a matter for itself. All I was doing was providing the House with the information that I felt an expert was needed within the Department to marshal and organise all of the responses and to deal efficiently with the commission. That is all I meant. I did not want it said further down the road that nobody was told I intended to make this appointment. I want interaction with the commission to be efficient and knowledgeable. I would not like there to be confusion and for it to be said that the appointment had anything to do with the commission. It does not.

Mr. Gilmore

While I am glad the Minister has told us that, I am not reassured. The contrary is the case. The appointment by the Minister of a project manager on electronic voting suggests that he has determined to go ahead with it. I must again caution against proceeding with a change in the voting system without political agreement.

Mr. Cullen

I do not mean to interrupt the Deputy, but the appointment is not being made for that reason. It became obvious to me that we needed within the Department a person with the level of expertise required to interact with the experts I presume the commission will appoint. The aim is simply to organise as efficiently as I can the responses to the commission. The appointment has no implication on whether or not electronic voting will introduced, it aims simply to handle in-house the challenging situation the commission has outlined in its recommendations. I perceived a gap which needed to be professionally filled.

Mr. Gilmore

The Minister is the political head of his Department and he makes the call as he sees it. The problem with the proposals on electronic voting did not relate to lack of technical expertise or project management in the Department. The problem was political. With respect, the Minister must take responsibility for that himself.

Mr. Cullen

I have done that.

Mr. Gilmore

The Government must take collective responsibility also.

A long time ago, I made the point that I did not want to see electronic voting or proposals to change the way we vote becoming issues of partisan politics. I still do not. We must return to a point at which we can, as Deputy Allen said, discuss electronic voting or other changes to the voting system reasonably and on the basis that general political agreement is required. We cannot consider these issues in an atmosphere in which Government unilaterally asserts its intention to proceed irrespective of what the Opposition says. With round 1 of the electronic voting issue behind us, the Minister must reassure the House that having considered the reports of the commission in greater detail, any steps to move matters forward will be taken on the basis of general political agreement. There can be no question of Government deciding unilaterally to proceed with changes to the way in which people vote irrespective of the criticisms and concerns being raised by the Opposition.

If the Minister provides us with an assurance that this will not happen, the Labour Party will constructively participate in any discussion or examination of the reports of the commission. We have yet to be assured that the leaf has been turned and that political consensus will be sought rather than seeking to progress electronic voting to the disadvantage of other participants in the political process.

Mr. Cullen

Does Deputy Gilmore want the commission to continue its work?

Mr. Gilmore

Yes, I do.

Mr. Cullen

Are we to ignore or accept the outcome?

Mr. Gilmore

We must discuss——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should conclude.

Mr. Gilmore

I was interrupted several times by the Minister.

Mr. Cullen

I was trying to be helpful. Deputy Gilmore asked me a question.

Mr. Gilmore

To answer the point, the commission reports to the House and the House should consider its reports with an assurance that the Government will not proceed unilaterally. This process is no longer the property of the Government, it is the property of the House.

Mr. Cullen

Interesting.

Mr. Gilmore

The commission reports to the House.

Mr. Cullen

For the record, it was the House which appointed the Commission on Electronic Voting, not the Government.

Mr. Connolly

I wish to share time with Deputies Sargent and Ó Caoláin.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Connolly

The report of the Commission on Electronic Voting has exposed the Government's unbridled arrogance, squander-mania and poverty of political acumen. In particular, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government ignored all evidence to the contrary to extol the proposed electronic system's security and reliability. The shattering of this myth by the commission provides ample grounds for the Minister to consider the wisdom of his persistence in sticking with the electronic voting scheme.

In previous Dáil debates, I said I was not against the introduction of electronic voting per se. Instead, I stated my preference for a system of electronic voting which incorporated a separate and verifiable paper-based audit against which the electronic system could be cross checked. I pointed out that public confidence in our democracy and voting system could be seriously undermined if the proposed electronic voting system were not seen to be reliable. With his typical disdain, the Minister refused steadfastly to entertain any constructive criticism of the proposed system. He also dismissed in somewhat disparaging terms the legitimate concerns raised by many politicians and others in recent months and insisted instead on ramming through the Nedap-Powervote system, the source code — the logic behind the voting system — of which is retained as a trade secret in company vaults in Holland.

Mr. Cullen

As it is in the case of every other country.

Mr. Connolly

That was a large part of the problem we had here.

Mr. Cullen

I would hate to be sitting here if the Government had the source code. I do not want to know what Deputy Connolly would say then.

Mr. Connolly

The Government had already spent more than €52 million on the mothballed voting machines and engaged in a €6 million marketing campaign to persuade a sceptical voting public of the questionable merits of the electronic system.

Mr. Cullen

The facts do not get in Deputy Connolly's way.

Mr. Connolly

This has all been rendered academic by the commission's findings while almost €60 million has been squandered on a Minister's fetish for speed and automation.

Mr. Cullen

The figures keep increasing.

Mr. Connolly

The key considerations of fairness, accuracy and security were discounted.

Mr. Cullen

Where are they coming from? Do Deputies make them up before they come into the House?

Mr. Connolly

The Minister is at it again with his back-to-the-wall defensiveness.

Mr. Cullen

Pick a figure. It is a lucky dip.

Mr. Connolly

It is the arrogance which has come through during this entire debate.

Mr. Cullen

The Deputy knows the correct figures and he should use them.

Mr. Connolly

I have only 200 seconds and I do not wish to see them burnt up just like that.

Mr. Cullen

Where did Deputy Connolly get the €60 million sum?

Mr. Connolly

An almost identical sum of €58 million was being excised in heartless cuts to the social welfare budget which inflicted untold misery on the most vulnerable in our society at the same time as the Minister was indulging in his pet electronic voting fantasy.

Mr. Cullen

I assure the Deputy that it was not my pet project.

Mr. Connolly

I do not know whose it was if it was not the Minister's.

Mr. Allen

We know whose pet project it was.

Mr. Connolly

In excess of 100,000 medical cards were culled, services for the disabled were pruned, health care for the elderly cut and educational services for the disadvantaged steadily whittled away merely to satisfy the whim of a Minister who failed to read the signs before embarking on an ill-advised crusade to bludgeon through a flawed and suspect voting system. The Minister should have realised that electronic voting was a disaster waiting to happen and that the people would not be beguiled by his apparent acquiescence to the commission's findings.

Any further Government sallies into the realms of electronic voting must involve the widest possible consultation with expert groups prior to the adoption of a system, the hallmarks of which will be voter verifiable paper records, open software and provision for people with disabilities. Then and only then will people's concerns about electronic voting be eliminated.

Mr. Sargent

Like others, I pay tribute to the courage of the Commission on Electronic Voting in stating the bald facts. It was aware this would not enamour it to the Government press office but it did what it had to do and deserves our tribute.

In principle, the Green Party supports the development of a voter verifiable audit trail as part of an electronic voting system. However, bringing this about requires all-party consultation to ensure it will be above party politics. Unfortunately, the Government has failed in that regard. A courteous official rang me the other day to inform me of this motion. He stated it was required to enable the commission finish its work.

Mr. Cullen

I tried to telephone the Deputy personally but was unable to get through to him.

Mr. Sargent

I appreciate that, as I know the Minister had other things to do. However, the official represented him well and was very courteous.

We should examine the motion more carefully rather than just allow the commission continue. We have learned much from its first report but rather than kick to touch, we should recognise that transparency is something that has not yet been established to the satisfaction of the majority of the people. The Minister has said there will be an extensive testing programme. However, he does not seem to realise, no matter how extensive, that is not the same as having transparency in the system.

We must grasp the nettle, put together actual specifications for a voting and counting system and work to address them. If they happen to coincide with what the Nedap system can accommodate, that is a bonus. However, we should not be locked into having to use the Nedap system or finding some way of fitting the round peg into a square hole. We must be prepared for whatever the commission decides. As matters have turned out, to a large extent it was reckless to have gone ahead with the Nedap system. I understand the Australians considered the system but found they could more cost effectively produce their own. We must be prepared for that to happen here in terms of cost effectiveness and other requirements and specifications.

We require the publication of the full report of the commission. There was a reluctance to publish it due to defamation issues. The Oireachtas is supposed to guard against this. We should get on and publish the report. We should also put in place an independent body to analyse the contracts made with Nedap. There is considerable suspicion that it was paid too much. When we see what the Australians and others have managed to acquire, it appears we should have managed to get what we got for a lot less than what we paid.

The commission should do more than what is being set in place through the motion. We should examine the lessons learned and put specifications in place. If they result in the Nedap system, then well and good. However, we should not lock ourselves into the system without examining the issue fully.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I welcome the fact that the Government has conceded to a debate requested by the Opposition. All too often motions are passed without any debate in the House.

Let us recall that for no good reason the Minister attempted to ram through fundamental changes in how we vote without considering the dangers and implications of such changes. Attempts to introduce electronic voting for the recent European and local elections had to be abandoned after concerns raised by Sinn Féin and other parties and interest groups were found to be valid by the commission which concluded that the secrecy and accuracy of the proposed system could not be proven.

Many of the concerns raised by Sinn Féin and others remain to be addressed. The issue of a paper trail remains central to our concerns on the proposed introduction of electronic voting. This is the critical factor in ensuring public confidence. Without a paper trail, voters cannot be assured that the choice they enter on the machine is the same as that which is recorded by the machine. Neither do we have any assurances that all source codes will be available for proper public scrutiny.

This order under section 22(5) of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2004 requests that the commission should make such further reports as are necessary concerning the work envisaged by it under paragraph 4.5 of its interim report which called for a final definitive version of the software and all related hardware and software components to be used in the State; a full independent review and testing of the source code of the final system to be used, pointing out that any subsequent software modification would necessitate a further full system retest; independent parallel testing of the system, including, where possible, in a live electoral context; independent end-to-end testing of the system; and testing and certification by a single accredited body of the suitability of each new version of the entire system to be used in the State.

The Minister must tell the House what progress has been made on the commission's recommendations for action. For example, will he bring forward proposals for independent parallel testing of the system in a live electoral context? Is this what is meant by the inclusion of the request that future reports from the commission include a comprehensive assessment of the secrecy and accuracy of the current system for voting at elections? The Minister needs to properly update the House on these issues.

The introduction of electronic voting cannot go ahead until we are absolutely certain as to the secrecy and accuracy of the system to be used, have in place a voter verifiable paper trail and, despite the Minister's earlier response, publication of all the source codes. I hope he will address these matters.

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. Cullen)

I thank members of the Opposition for their contributions. I will not rehearse all the old arguments. I am glad the commission is doing such a good job and that the House has such confidence in its independence which was not expressed when the commission was first set up. It has, however, proved its independence to all and that it will do its job.

The commission which was set up by the Houses of the Oireachtas has produced an interim report which makes a number of recommendations. It has asked for time to produce further reports. This is entirely a matter for it. The decision to use electronic voting was not a Government one but of the Houses of the Oireachtas. We look forward to receiving the further reports of the commission which we will await. We will not pre-empt in any manner or form what the commission may or may not state. We should allow it to get on with its work and produce its report or reports. I share the view of the Government and the reports will be made through this House to the Oireachtas. We will examine them in detail. I hope we will receive a final report from the commission on the issue. Whatever its decision, I hope it will be accepted by all Members of the Houses because of the veracity, independence and standing of the commission.

Question put and declared carried.