Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)

I will deal first with the contribution of Senator McCarthy regarding section 48. I said, and I still believe, that the Minister has the power to extend the voting system to all the other electoral codes, whether they be local, European or Presidential, by order under section 48 of the Electoral Amendment Act. The matter was raised by Deputy Gilmore, the spokesperson on this issue for Senator McCarthy's party. I checked that and the advice was that section 48 will not be necessary but in view of the Carrickmines situation and the concerns of the House, we gave an assurance this week when the Government decided that we would introduce primary legislation on electronic voting. I believe that deals with Senator McCarthy's amendment. Section 48 will not now be necessary. Primary legislation will be introduced, and I hope Senator McCarthy will accept that.

As for the debate on electronic voting, Members will appreciate that I abide by the rules of the House at all times. I came in here and we had a two hour debate in which numerous questions were raised. Time limits may have constrained me from answering all of them but I believe I answered the principal questions raised.

I want to put something to rest for once and for all, because it is causing confusion. Senator Bannon is drawing comparisons with the system in Florida but our system and that in place there are as different as chalk and cheese. Senator Bannon is aware that the system in Florida was based on 1960 punch cards. It has no relevance whatsoever to the type of electronic voting to which we refer. This system has been tried and tested for a considerable number of years in Holland, areas of Germany and pilot areas in the United Kingdom. Where better to have tested it than in our own country? The system worked extremely well in Dublin North, Dublin West and Meath.

Senator Moylan is quite right. Governments must be responsible. We cannot, in Government, afford the luxury of dining À la carte but Senator Bannon's party obviously can, as did a former leader of his party. A flier was sent out for Deputies John Bruton, English and Farrelly to the effect that electronic voting was as easy as one, two, three. That is a fact and there is little point in us trying to hide it.

Also in reference to that, the current leader of Senator Bannon's party is requesting a paper record but there are two issues to this, and this was accepted by Senator McCarthy when the point was made by Senator Brennan. If one votes electronically there is then a paper trail, even if that is not taken from the polling station. I should say that problems can arise with printers, and we are aware the confusion that can cause. Which outcome is the real result? Is it the result of the electronic voting or the ballot papers in the ballot box because they can produce two different results? I do not have to tell people in this House how votes are counted. One thing we can be sure of is the number one vote, which should be identical, but after that when surpluses begin to be distributed, it could cause problems. We recall Limerick West in the last general election when the difference in the count was one vote, and there have been many other such situations. In the last general election there were 20,000 spoiled votes. A small percentage of those would have been deliberately spoiled but 18,000 people genuinely wanted to vote. When one sees how the new electronic voting system operates, they will realise that very few mistakes will be made.

We carried out a survey in seven constituencies after the referendum and in three constituencies after the general election and there was the utmost satisfaction with that system. I understand 87% of voters said they would prefer the new system and 80% said they had no difficulty with it. I realise that does not answer some of the questions raised but we should also look at the big picture throughout Europe. These cast buttons have been pressed about 70 million times and the system has worked quite well. Senator Bannon said he has spoken to the experts but who are these experts? The people we are speaking to are experts in this field but there are many so-called experts now and some members of the Opposition are listening to them more than those who have long experience in this area.

I am aware of the 41 questions to which the Senator referred but in excess of 100 questions were raised at that time. The current status of the reply is that we have circulated those questions and the documentation to a number of companies. The question of integrity arises in that we want to make sure the answers are formulated and in order. We had to send them out to a number of companies and we hope to have those fairly soon. I reiterate it was not just 41 questions but well in excess of 100.

On the question of the receipt, if the receipt is to be a copy of the ballot paper I suggest to Senators that this would turn back the clock to a period we sometimes like to forget. If I or any of the Members were an employer and insisted that those working with us, or indeed members of our families, should vote in a particular way, when they came home and presented the copy it could lead to confusion or, more important, to corruption. That would take from the secrecy of the ballot paper and we do not want to return to that.

As for the paper trail, when we left the polling station the ballot paper went into the box, and that was the last we saw of it but with this new system — I am sure Members have seen it — our preferences appear at the top of the screen so we know we are voting for Senators Hayes, Bannon, Brennan or whoever it may be. When we are satisfied that we have selected our preferences, whether it is the local, European or the town council elections, we press the button and the machine indicates that our vote has been stored. There is a bleep which is audible to the voter and that is the confirmation that the vote has been cast and stored.

Senator Bannon talked about going to Germany and meeting various people. If he intends to travel to Germany again, he should make contact with PTB in Germany. That is the German institute of science and technology which checked all the software and confirmed that the software accurately records the votes cast. It is important to know that. He should also check with TNO in Holland, the Dutch electronics products and services company which has tested the voting machine hardware. It has examined and certified the physical components of the machine, all of which are in line with international standards and accredited by the European Union.

Here in Ireland, Nathean's Technologies has done an architectural code review of the election software and confirmed that the code does not contain elements that can be corrupted. It has also confirmed the correct running of the software. Senator McCarthy referred to the difficult system of PRSTV but we consulted with the Electoral Reform Society in the UK, not to be confused with the electoral commission. I am not aware if the UK politicians have raised questions on the electoral commission but that is a matter of judgment for each individual. In an interview given by a director of policy in the electoral commission in the UK, she said the commission had difficulties with electronic voting but also have difficulties with digital voting, text voting and Internet voting.

I remind Senator Bannon that it is not that long ago since the leader of his party suggested we should have Internet voting. We would be totally opposed to that because Internet voting could be subject to hacking. There were serious problems in that regard. The Senator's party takes the view we should abandon electronic voting while at the same time supporting Internet voting.

It is important to try to visualise this machine. This stand-alone machine is not connected to any other machine, the Internet or any other system. I do not profess to be an expert in this field but from the knowledge and advice I have got — I thank Senator Hayes for his comments about the officials in the franchise section of the Department — I have every confidence in these people to administer these elections in conjunction with the returning officer.

I wish to refer again to the Electoral Reform Society which tested the PRSTV count rules. It has a database for 400 STV type elections and has decades of experience. I doubt very much, if all of these people, whether it is Nathean, PTB, TNO or the Electoral Reform Society, would be supportive of the system if they did not have this experience. I am confident when we come back after the elections — I am not saying individuals will change their views completely — people will say we have shown the way and led once more on the world stage.

Members will be aware that I am not making any reference to the UK. The systems are totally different. We are not in favour of making it easier for the voter to vote at home through digital systems. That would exert more pressure. If there is a young family with a father who wants the family to vote in a particular way, if they are voting on a digital screen it takes away the privacy of the vote. I appreciate the intention of Senator McCarthy's amendment, but the point has been dealt with in the primary legislation.

Amendment No. 10 is defective. It does not specify what is an electoral commission. There is no such body and there is not sufficient time to have such legislation proposed and enacted before the polls. Is it the intention that the electoral commission would be all embracing? If it were to take over the franchise responsibilities of my Department, responsibility for the boundary commission, standards in public office and responsibilities of the returning officer, it would be much too broad.

Already there are reports from independent bodies on the reliability, security, integrity and verifiability of the system. Reports from all these international experts, to whom I have referred, have been sent to the Oireachtas Library and are posted on the website www.electronic.ie. For the reasons outlined and the announcement by the Government on Tuesday, I hope this will deal with the concerns raised.

Senator McCarthy asked a straightforward question about the establishment of the independent panel to verify the secrecy and accuracy of arrangements proposed for electronic voting. I confirm that this panel will be appointed in advance of the enactment of the primary legislation. The Government has yet to decide on the formation of this panel. I assure the House — I will suggest it to the Minister who is abroad on official business and I apologise for his inability to attend — that we look at all the sectors that should be appointed to this independent panel.