Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)

The Government's amendment invites us to recall the approval by the Oireachtas of the legislative provisions for electronic voting and counting set out in the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2001. I accept that invitation and recall what happened in 2001 because since this debate went into the public domain the Government has been spinning a line to the effect that all this was agreed. It wants to know what the Opposition is complaining about because it agreed to it. It was repeated again in the speech by the Minister for Finance this evening that the opposition to electronic voting is politically motivated.

I want to demonstrate that we did not agree to it in 2001 and we do not agree to it now. The Second Stage debate on the Bill, which contained a number of other provisions, including the raising of spending limits by Fianna Fáil for the last election, began in the House on 22 June 2001. The Labour Party and the other Opposition parties which tabled this motion tonight opposed that Bill on Second Stage. In the course of my contribution, I stated: "The proposal for electronic voting in the Bill is a sham." I later stated: "It appears the process of voting will be more complicated and, ultimately, it will be open to error." All the Opposition parties voted against the Second Stage of that Bill on 26 June 2001. The Bill commenced Committee Stage on 28 June. It was a limited Committee Stage debate as the Government guillotined proceedings. Nevertheless, for a limited period we discussed electronic voting. Again we opposed the sections of the Bill proposing the introduction of electronic voting. During that debate I stated:

The introduction of electronic voting in the form proposed in this Bill is premature. We are creating a system which, with the best will in the world. will be open to error. It is not yet refined.

When the then Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, former Deputy Molloy, told us that a Dutch and British company Nedap-Powervote had already been chosen the previous December to deliver an electronic system for Ireland, I went on to state:

I am greatly alarmed by the Government's identification of a supplier of equipment for electronic voting before the legislation permitting electronic voting has been enacted by the Oireachtas. Have any contractual arrangements been entered into or any costs incurred? If so, on what authority was this done as no legislation allowing electronic voting has been passed?

In conclusion I proposed that "no equipment should be approved until a full technical description of that equipment, and all information relating to it and to independent testing, is laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas and a resolution approving the order is passed." It seems that in principle we are going ahead with electronic voting and the Minister kindly outlined the different phases and stages proposed. It should be applied only with the approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The introduction of this in individual constituencies or generally should not be left to ministerial order. We are talking here about major changes in the practice of voting and the Houses of the Oireachtas should give the approval.

When the Bill reached Report Stage on 5 July 2001, the Opposition voted against it on three occasions. We voted against a Government proposal to guillotine the debate. I proposed a motion that the entire Bill be recommitted to Committee because inadequate time had been provided for examining its details. Again the Government voted that down. Finally at 6 o'clock that evening we voted against the passage of the Bill.

It is difficult to regard that as having given some kind of tacit approval to the introduction of the primary legislation for electronic voting. However, we agreed that trials could take place in a number of constituencies in the general election and subsequently in the second referendum on the Nice treaty. However, when concerns began to be raised particularly by IT experts, we again raised the matter in the House. On 17 June 2003, I raised with the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, the study conducted in NUI Maynooth by Margaret McGaley and others. I asked him about the implications of that study for electronic voting. In the course of my contribution I asked the Minister:

How can he say to these people [those whose children have disabilities] 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?

Following that the Labour Party published a report produced for us by a number of IT experts in which we identified a number of serious concerns with electronic voting, in particular the absence of a paper trail that could be audited. We stated that while individual components had been tested, the entire system had not been tested end to end. We made the case for the introduction of electronic voting to be given to an independent body and we suggested the Public Offices Commission might be the appropriate body.

I joined Deputy Allen in having the matter examined by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government. However the Government amendment to tonight's motion calls on us to recognise "the recent endorsement of the introduction of electronic voting and counting at the June 2004 polls by the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government". I will relate what happened at that committee meeting.

A number of experts, Joe McCarthy, Margaret McGaley, Shane Hogan and Robert Cochran, gave evidence before the committee, in which they raised serious questions about the operation of electronic voting. That committee did not get time to fully examine and tease out those questions because the Government members of the committee proposed a motion, which effectively shut down the discussion and debate. Amazingly, two days later the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government signed its contract with the companies providing the equipment.

In the Government amendment, we are asked to recall "the Government's open declaration in October 2002 of their intention to roll out electronic voting countrywide for the European and local elections in June 2004". Governing by declaration is what dictators do. Governing by consensus, seeking agreement and approval in a parliamentary assembly is what one expects in a democracy. While the Government may indeed have declared its intention in 2002 to use electronic voting in the local and European elections, it never got approval from this House for it. At the very least it was required to put regulations before the House for its approval. That was not done. The Government now accepts and acknowledges that it is required to put not only regulations before the House, but also primary legislation. That has not yet been done. On what basis has the Government proceeded to spend more than €40 million of taxpayers' money on a system for the introduction of which it had no approval from this House?

The Government first committed itself to the companies to provide this system in September 2000 before the legislation enabling the introduction of electronic voting was even published, much less debated in the House or given approval. The Government has spent €40 million of taxpayers' money illegally and it is a subject to which this House will have to return at a later stage.

It is now proposed to establish what is called "an independent panel" to verify the secrecy, etc. of the voting system. That is not an adequate response to what we seek. It does not deal with the critical issue of the establishment of a paper trail to give confidence to the individual voter that his or her voting intention in the election is accurately recorded in the system. It does not address the question of the use of this electronic system in the forthcoming local and European elections. If we are now in an area of doubt legally, financially and technically over the system, it is prudent that this system not be used universally in the European and local elections in June. While there may be a case for some kind of extended trial, it should certainly not be used in this way.

We are in this situation because the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and his Government colleagues would not listen to what the Opposition has been saying over the past three years and, specifically, would not listen to the valid and serious criticisms raised about this system by IT experts in recent months. Even at this late stage the Government should think again, put off the universal extension of this in June and introduce the paper trail we seek.

See this speech in context