Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State.

Every Bill that passes through this House is important, but few have the importance this one has assumed through circumstances that have developed. Its importance is not only due to its proposed effect on our voting process, which goes to the very heart of our democracy but, more significant, it is important because it comes to the House after the publication of the first report of the Commission on Electronic Voting, published after Committee Stage of the Bill was completed in the other House. It falls to the Seanad, therefore, to carry out the revision of the Bill that is so clearly needed in the changed circumstances created by the commission's report.

I hope that in the relatively non-adversarial atmosphere of this House, the Government will put aside its natural tendency towards defensiveness and that the Opposition will restrain its understandable temptation to make political capital out of the situation in which we find ourselves. I also hope that all sides of the House can work together to make the Bill a better one and to ensure that we end up with the best possible electronic voting system.

Members who know me well, will be aware I have long been a champion of the information society, and of the potential for Ireland to become a world leader in this area. In that context, it is important we adopt electronic voting as soon as we can satisfy ourselves and the electorate that this is a positive step forward and that we will not lose anything by doing so. I say "yes" to electronic voting, provided we do not throw out the baby with the bath water.

It is not my style to say "I told you so" and still less is it my practice to quote myself at length. On this occasion, however, I find it necessary to do both in order to correct something the Taoiseach said on two occasions during the past week. In an interview last Sunday, and again in the Dáil on Tuesday, he attempted to create the impression that opposition to the proposed electronic voting system had arisen only in the past few months, in response to problems that had emerged in America. With respect, that is untrue. I draw his attention to the Official Report of this House of 21 February 2001, which is more than three years ago. When speaking on Second Stage of the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2000, I devoted most of my speech to Part 3 of that Bill, which made provision for electronic voting. I began my remarks, prophetically as it has now turned out, by saying:

While I welcome it, I do so with caution as I am not convinced that the implications and practicalities have been fully thought through.

I then went on to focus on the fundamental nature of the change that was being proposed and I said:

At a conceptual level, what we are talking about is not a shift from paper-based voting to electronic voting. What is really at stake is a move from voting with an audit trail to voting without an audit trail. That is the basic difference.

Let us consider the present system, old fashioned as it is. Its key characteristic is the physical existence of a vote on a piece of paper which is tracked at every single stage. Before a vote becomes a vote, it is counted in the sense that the number of ballot papers is carefully controlled. The issue of each piece of paper is recorded and takes place in full public view.

A vote becomes a vote when a voter records his or her choice on that physical piece of paper. The voter can look at the paper and handle it before giving it up to confirm that the paper reflects his intentions.

The fact that the vote is secret does not mean that it disappears from view. It is counted going into the ballot box and again when it is being taken out and it is guarded while it is in the box. The counting takes place in public so that everyone can see it and if there has to be a recount the physical evidence is there to do it.

The entire process is so open and visible that the voter has total trust in the integrity of the system. To the best of my knowledge nobody has ever questioned the integrity of the balloting.

... The fundamental reason for this is the existence of a physical audit trail from start to finish. Our unquestioning trust in the system rests on that foundation.

I physically create my vote by marking the ballot paper and from that moment on the ballot is handled in a way which virtually eliminates the possibility of fraud or error. There is no fraud because the ballot is watched over, while there is no error because the raw material is there to recount if there is any question of doubt.

I have never quoted myself at such length. That is what I said in 2001. I went on to compare that system with the one being put in place. I said:

Under the new system a voter will indicate choices by pressing the relevant parts of a touchable screen ... and these presses will be electronically recorded on a medium such as a cassette or cartridge.

The voter will not see the record and he must trust the technology to ensure that his voting intentions are fully and correctly recorded.

There is no feedback, confirmation or guarantee that the voter's intentions have been properly translated into digital impulses.

... Under the new system the moment of truth, the instant of voting, will disappear into a black hole and, to the best of my knowledge, it can never be retrieved from it.

The Bill provides for detailed regulations for the care of the recording medium before and after the voting has taken place. The regulations will ensure that the counting process can be done repeatedly.

However, it does not provide for any means ... to allow us to inspect whether the translation of the voter's intentions into digital impulses was properly carried out. The new system will require an act of faith that the current system does not require.

The vast majority of people will make this act of faith but whether they are right to do so is another matter. Nobody who has ever been involved in the commissioning of a major computer system would put much faith in any system ever getting it perfectly right on the first occasion.

Developing software is notoriously a matter of trial and error. However, in most projects it is possible to build in space to undo mistakes. The Minister spoke with confidence about what will happen, but I wonder whether that space will be built into this project.

That is recorded in the Official Report of 21 February 2001. I quoted it to make it clear that the Taoiseach, in claiming that until a few months ago no one had any reservations about the system, was clearly mistaken, and to put the role of the Minister, Deputy Cullen, into perspective. This was not his project but one he inherited from his predecessor. It was the previous Minister, and the Government of the day, who started this hasty and not sufficiently thought-out road which is where we now find ourselves.

I agree that in recent months the Minister, Deputy Cullen, has been pigheaded and stubborn in pushing the now discredited system. However, if we are honest, we would admit that pigheadedness and stubbornness are often needed to get things done in this country. The Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, was pigheaded and stubborn in pushing his case for introducing a tax on the use of plastic bags. The Minister, Deputy Martin, was equally pigheaded and stubborn in pushing for a ban on smoking in the workplace. Likewise, the Minister, Deputy Brennan, was pigheaded and stubborn in his determination to bring in penalty points.

It is not being pigheaded and stubborn that is the problem here; it is being wrong. The Minister, Deputy Cullen, his predecessor and the then Government in 2001, which pushed through the legislation in that year, were wrong about some of the most critical issues involved. The Minister made a mistake, as did his predecessor and the then Government. We should all acknowledge that and move on to the real work that needs to be done.

In its present state, the Bill is flawed. It needs to be drastically revised in the light of the report of the Commission on Electronic Voting. If it had been so revised, we would have taken a decisive step towards getting this valuable and desirable project back on track. If we fail to revise it, we will be left with seriously flawed legislation and, consequently, will run the risk of getting an electronic voting system that is equally flawed.

I tabled amendments on Committee Stage early — I did so yesterday — to provide enough time for all sides to consider them coolly. It is my sincere hope that all sides of this House will co-operate in making this Bill better and giving the country the kind of voting system it deserves. I urge the Minister to give consideration to the words I have used and to give consideration over the weekend to the amendments I tabled yesterday to ensure that when we come to deal with Committee Stage we will have had time to consider them.