Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)

The reason this is the case is that this scheme has been run politically. There has been no all-party consensus. This goes back to the 2001 legislation, proposed by then Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey. We agreed it should go on a trial period or pilot programme for the 2002 elections. However, since then, it has been railroaded through and one cannot deal with an issue as serious and important as the voting system unless one has all-party support. Once there is controversy in this regard, the whole system is denigrated. I regret that the Government chose to handle this issue itself rather than leaving it to an independent commission to make recommendations. That is where the problem lies and, until that issue is resolved, we will continue to do our parliamentary duty in putting the questions which have to be asked on behalf of citizens.

There is no demand for this system. The demand came from the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government's predecessor, who decided this would be a good idea, without any consultation with the Opposition or the public at large. He decided the Government would splash out €40 million on it. For €40 million, one would put the best IT software and computers into every classroom in the country. We are talking about the technology age — we should get real. The vast majority of national schools have no computer system in place, yet we are splurging €40 million on a system just to prove we are "technologically advanced".

The vast majority of countries in the EU have not gone down this route. The Minister of State referred to "these countries" but to whom is he referring? Is it the Dutch and some regions of Germany? The British have not used this system — it is a pilot scheme, with which they are not proceeding — and the House of Commons rejected it. Let us get real. If we have €40 million to spend, let it at least do something technologically important for children, such as putting decent computers into schools rather than splurging money on this issue.

Time is being wasted on something that does not matter. If this goes wrong, it will only add to the level of cynicism about politics in general. Is the Minister accepting that primary legislation must be put in place before the June elections in order to implement this system? The 2001 Bill gave the Minister power to do this in a number of named constituencies for the purposes of a pilot test. Does the Minister concede that primary legislation is needed? When will we see that legislation?

The paper trail is a key issue. I remember what Senator McCarthy said about the ATM machines. I recently looked for €100 and the ATM machine gave me €50. I got a receipt for €100, so I went straight into the bank and told them about the problem and asked them for the €50 that I had been swindled. The notion that ATM machines and other forms of electronic banking work perfectly without glitches is just not true. The Government needs to respond to the issue of the paper trail. It is important that when people vote, they get some receipt which they can place in a ballot box and the ballot papers can be added up to see if they are close to the actual result. That will give extra validity to the machines. Will the Minister comment in the course of his remarks on what now happens in the US as a result of the fiasco in Florida because since the last US presidential election, every new machine bought in the United States for the purpose of electronic voting must now issue a receipt? Every voter must now get a receipt and this was not the case in the past. If the United States of America have introduced that measure after the fiasco of Florida, surely we should follow their example and spend the extra money, if it necessary, on this device. People are afraid that their vote will not be counted. The way to deal with that is to issue a receipt which will then be placed in a ballot box and the number of receipts can be tallied against the number of votes cast. I accept that one would allow a 1% margin of error, but if it comes within that range, we will know we have counted all the votes. People are looking for such an assurance and I ask the Minister to reply to that point.

Let us consider the doomsday scenario of the crash. Everyone knows that a computer crash happens from time to time in this House on a smaller system. As I understand it, and I stand corrected if I am wrong, a Microsoft Access programme tabulates all the votes. Assuming there is a crash, it stops. Microsoft Access, which is a very basic system will tabulate all the votes for all the candidates so we can get a printout if that happens. People in the IT industry accept that Microsoft Access is a dated, historically deviant programme — I use it in the office — which is out 15 years and I understand that a spokesperson for Microsoft said when replying to this issue, that if the application needs transaction support, even in the event of a network server, client computer or client application crash one will want to use an MSDE or SQL server, which I understand are the most secure modern top of the range forms available. Why are we going for a dated system, which to use the words of a question asked recently "would not be used for the storing of critical information"? Casting a vote is not comparable with an e-banking transaction, it is vital and absolutely essential that the people have confidence in the electoral system. They have had confidence in the paper trail system, since the foundation of the State. The system is open and transparent and people can see what is going on. I am very concerned about this, even more concerned now than I was six months ago. It is probably my own fault for not having been brought up to speed on the issues.

Electronic voting is not an issue that can be rammed though because that will only fuel the cynicism about politics. Until the Opposition is ready to move on the issue, the Government should not move. The issue was badly handled. From day one it was driven by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government under a politician. This question should have dealt with by an independent commission on which all the parties could be represented. Unless there is cross-party support for this, it will not happen. It needs to be changed.