Bernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)

I am happy to speak on the Bill because the ongoing guillotining of Bills is making it increasingly difficult for the Opposition to speak on anything the Government does. The Bill allows for the changes to the European election constituencies to be ratified. I fully accept the findings of the commission and fully support the elimination of the dual mandate with regard to membership of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament. My party looks forward to the elections and the success it will achieve in them.

The Fine Gael Party does not, however, look forward to the roll-out of an ill-planned, ill-judged and haphazard electronic voting procedure on which the Government has refused to listen to advice, seek Opposition support or give ground. As this is the first time we will use electronic voting for a European election, it is important we get it right, whereas the Government's approach to this issue has been completely wrong. The matter would be more appropriately addressed by an electoral commission. The same scrutiny of the system should also have taken place with regard to the local elections, on which the required full consultation did not take place. I am totally opposed to the jackboot manner in which electronic voting is being introduced, despite the many important questions raised.

In December 2002 we discovered that the Minister had in his possession for a considerable period, a report compiled by Zerflow Holdings which stated that the system was not tamper-proof. The Minister did not publish the report, even when the public was casting its votes in the general election. At the time, I stated that fair elections are the cornerstone of democracy and any security issues surrounding the voting process should be addressed as a priority. The Government has failed to do this.

Last May, it was revealed that the system would come with a price tag of at least €35 million, a figure that, I am informed, has since increased.

This side of the House has highlighted the myriad other social problems faced by the country and upon which money would be better spent, but there was no response from the Government. At the time I compared it to a person on a low income attempting to buy a Mercedes when there are other priorities in the household.

The Comptroller and Auditor General has expressed concerns about the system of electronic voting. He has stated that the importance of ensuring the integrity of the voting system dictates that the machines and their operating software should be subjected to the most rigorous and comprehensive testing regime. He stated political and other considerations would suggest a strong case for independent validation of such testing before the machines are brought into use at elections.

I was not in the least surprised to see Mr. Purcell's concerns greeted with a brick wall of arrogance by a Government and a Minister who refuse to listen to anybody on this and on many other issues. I ask the Minister to tell the House what is happening and the reason for the headlong rush into the introduction of a system over which there are so many question marks. This issue was debated in the House and in the Oireachtas committee. The PR company charged with managing this mess is Q4 which is partly owned by a former Fianna Fáil general secretary and a former adviser to the Taoiseach.

Even at this late stage, will the Minister concede that this matter has been handled in an appalling manner? Will he concede that the bad handling of changes in the voting system is one of the more serious bungles of this Government? This is the very mechanism charged with electing Governments in the first place. It is a sad observation but this Government has become completely oblivious to what is happening around it. At every turn it has chosen itself over the people, chosen advisers over good advice and chosen party interests over the public interest.

It has effectively neutered local government through the Protection of the Environment Act which gives powers to county and city managers to set refuse charges. Councillors may object but if they go so far as to vote against them they will lose their jobs. The Freedom of Information Act still exists in theory but Sherlock Holmes would be hard pressed to find a link between the spirit of the initial Act and what is now on the Statute Book. The Government now rides roughshod over this House and over the concerns of experts in the field, insisting there will be electronic voting this June. This is another reason, electronic voting booth or not, this Government will get very little award on 11 June.

There is an issue which is fundamental to Irish democracy and answers to questions of security and transparency of the system have not been answered. To my knowledge, between 30 and 40 questions put to departmental officials by experts at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government in recent weeks have not been answered. The committee was given very little opportunity to hear answers from the Department's officials because within a matter of hours, the Government members pushed through a recommendation that the voting system be accepted by the committee. They split the committee to push through a motion that the system be accepted, despite the fact that up to 40 questions could not be answered on the day by departmental officials and I have not heard any answers since. I have the questions here and I find it incredible that the Government is rushing headlong into the system. The very principles of democracy are being undermined by the behaviour of this Government and I regard what is happening as unbelievable.

Serious flaws exist in the proposed system. It does not have an anonymous paper trail that would protect the identity of the voter and the integrity of the ballot count. The Minister has stated at a committee hearing that a paper printout would be too expensive to incorporate into the system. We were told of the unconstitutionality of the paper printout. I do not think the argument adds up. It is essential that there is a verifiable paper audit trail. The method of testing and implementation has not been good enough in this day and age when we are at the pinnacle of software development. We cannot organise proper development with a vital, rigorous scrutiny that our democracy deserves and demands.

This Bill is not going through the House with the consent of the Opposition parties. It is unthinkable to make a fundamental change in the way Irish democracy operates. The Minister has paid out tens of millions of euro for what is in my view a second-rate system. I am not satisfied it is up to the required standards demanded by our democracy.

Tomorrow the circus starts. The Minister is spending millions of euro on PR consultants. The Minister is responsible for the Fianna Fáil election campaign, therefore he has a dual role which represents a conflict of interest. The signing off by the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government was merely a crack of the Government whip, not a reflection on the evidence produced at the committee which at best left a large number of fundamental questions unanswered and at worst pointed to a system that could be full of serious flaws and even open to intentional manipulation.

Is the Minister too proud or too closed of mind to admit the system is wrong? Has the final format of the system been decided upon and independently tested? I wonder how many times a mock election and count has been undertaken in the 42 constituencies. I ask the Government to freeze its plans to introduce electronic voting in the forthcoming European and local elections.

I ask the House to consider the ongoing problems in the United States with a new electronic voting system. A recent article in The Economist highlighted ongoing difficulties with touch screen electronic voting systems. Experts including computer scientists warned of the dangers of using a paperless electronic voting system which does not provide a physical record of individual votes. Dr. David Chaum has devised a voting system which produces an encrypted printout of individual votes in order to prevent coercion or gerrymandering. The voter will be provided with a receipt which can be verified in the event of a recount or any apparent irregularities. The article reports that in order to prevent someone from manipulating an election by tricking the printer, the voter can decide which of the two layers will be shredded by a poll worker and which will be the receipt to take home. The voting machine keeps an electronic copy of this receipt and then later sends it for counting and posting on the official election website. If voters cannot find their receipt there, it is evident there is something wrong with the election. The article concludes that even sophisticated systems will not improve the reliability of American elections if other problems are not solved also. However, the Government is pressing ahead with a high profile launch tomorrow of its defective electronic voting system over which there are serious question marks still hanging. The publicity alone is costing €5 million of taxpayers' money. To my knowledge, there are still 41 questions waiting to be answered about this system. Voters have a right to a paper trail but true to form, this Government has decided to ignore repeated calls for openness and transparency.

Not only have there been calls from the Opposition parties, but people like Margaret McGaley, who gave evidence to the joint committee, and other experts have said again this week that they have yet to get answers to the questions they have raised. I will attend tomorrow's launch, but I will do so to protest at the manner in which this system is being introduced.

The European Commission has a role in this regard. I intend to contact the Commission to ascertain its view on the fact that a new system of electing Members of the European Parliament is being introduced without the support of all the parties in this democratic system. As I have said, the introduction of the new system is being led by a political leader of a Department. The electoral commission or some other independent group should have managed, consulted and introduced this important change in the way we organise our elections.

See this speech in context