Michael Kitt (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State and thank him particularly for bringing forward this Bill to establish on a statutory footing the Commission on Electronic Voting. This is very important because it has reported on this issue and will no doubt make other reports. The overall conclusion on page 22 of the report is interesting. The commission states that having regard to the issues that it investigated, secrecy, accuracy and testing, it was unable to recommend the use of the proposed system at the local and European elections and by extension at the referendum due to be held on 11 June. In the next paragraph, however, it emphasises that its conclusion is not based on any finding that the system will not work but on the finding that it has not been proven to the satisfaction of the commission that it will work. It continues to discuss the "threshold of proof" and acknowledges that a lower threshold of proof is required to recommend against the use of the system than in its favour.

There are many issues that indicate the commission is in favour of the principle of electronic voting. Among its general observations the report notes the system was used in previous elections in 2002 in three constituencies and in seven constituencies in the referendum on the Treaty of Nice. The people in those constituencies seemed to be very happy with the system, which was designed by manufacturers in the Netherlands and Germany.

There are some positive points on the principle of electronic voting. It is more accurate and user-friendly than a paper-based system and also very efficient, reflecting better the democratic wishes of the electorate. When one sees the number of inadvertent errors made in local elections — the Minister of State cited figures for errors in the last general election — one recognises the need to move to a more accurate and user-friendly system. There has been much antipathy to the improvements in our electoral procedures but it is wrong to think our paper-based system is perfect because it has many shortcomings. In the new system there would be fewer voter errors, quicker election results and in the long term administrative costs would fall.

Senator Bannon referred to a case that might be taken by people who used the electronic system in 2002 but it is equally possible that people would take a case on foot of the paper-based system. Many counts changed, as we saw in Limerick and Cork in the last election where people were declared elected and after re-counts another was declared elected. Both constituencies went to a third count. The fact the system deployed in pilot areas in previous elections was successful and that a system designed by the same suppliers is used at elections in the Netherlands and Germany proves it can work here.

I disagree with the commission's remarks on secrecy. It concludes that because the voting machine beeps when a voter selects his or her preferences a voter who votes for a single candidate would be easily identified by those in the vicinity of the machine. I do not understand that point because the same voter could be just as easily identified when using the paper-based system. On the issue of secrecy, the report also refers to people with certain disabilities who may need third party assistance in using the machine. It is also the case that people may need help with the paper-based system.

The report also refers to the attempt to overcome the random method of vote storage in the ballot module. I already referred to the issue of accuracy and the testing procedure itself which were examined by the commission. The bottom line is that we do not have enough time to deal with the issue of testing. In general, the move to electronic voting and counting is progressive. An electronic system will improve our elections and also make them more accurate and democratic.

The Minister referred to the incidence of invalid votes in previous elections. In the last European elections which took place in 1999, more than 46,000 votes were deemed invalid. Some of these were deliberately spoiled but the vast majority were not. Invalid votes have a major bearing on election results. In the last local elections, 24,000 votes were deemed invalid. Some 40 council seats were decided by fewer than 50 votes. In the last general election some seats were decided by as little as three and five votes.

A survey revealed that 87% of people who used the electronic voting system in the last general election preferred it to the paper ballot. In excess of 400,000 people used the electronic system. The system has been successfully used in the Netherlands and Germany for the past 15 years.

The technology has even been improved since 2002 and I hope we can make further improvements in line with the recommendations of the commission regarding testing accuracy and so on. These improvements are needed for the sake of democracy. It should be a priority of the Government to ensure that every vote is accurately counted. We must try to eliminate human error in both the voting and counting processes.

A question was raised on the voter-verifiable paper audit trail, VVPAT. Many comparisons have been made with the election system in the United States. However, a PC-based electronic voting system is in place there, which is significantly different from the system proposed for use here. Therefore, the comparison is unfair. The Commission on Electronic Voting did not endorse a paper trail as a necessary component of electronic voting. It stated that its absence raised standards and quality requirements that the other system checks, which is something we must investigate. Arguments can be made to support both sides of this issue. In California new equipment purchased in 2005 must have a voter-verifiable paper audit trail. No such machines are yet available so we must wait and see what the machines will be like.

Senator Bannon referred to the issue of secrecy. Like me, the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, comes from a rural area. I am aware of polling stations in small rural areas and on the islands where only 20 people may vote. As tallies are done on the paper-based system, people seem to know how those 20 people voted. Everyone says it is great to have a tally and I agree that it is useful for politicians and political parties, but it does give rise to questions about secrecy. Assumptions, which may be wrong, are made about how people vote.

The Minister of State dealt in some detail with how to use electronic voting machines. He explained that one has to press the "cast vote" button at the start of the procedure and again at the end. I do not see how one could interfere with the process. If the button is not pressed at the end of the voting process, the presiding officer can deal with it without interfering with the secrecy of the ballot.

Another myth exists in regard to verification. The ballot paper is displayed on screen. It is not an image. We are voting in the same way as we would with a paper ballot. I hope we can resolve the outstanding issues because it is the wish of the majority to use electronic voting and to have an electronic count to provide early results, thus leading to greater accuracy. It is the way forward for the Irish electoral system. Electronic voting has been endorsed in India where it can take a number of days for people to vote. The same is true of the Netherlands and Germany. I look forward to the introduction of the system here. The commission is correct to say that we need to get the system right. I have not heard anybody decrying the system for its modernity. We need to move forward. The system needs to be properly endorsed and time is against us in that regard in terms of 11 June. I have no doubt it is the way forward, as shown by its use heretofore in Ireland and elsewhere in Europe.