Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)

This matter has been debated over the past few months and I have not heard, even today, any substantive reasons for the inclusion, nor am I aware of any other country using such a facility. It may have been used in Brazil at some stage but I understand it is being discontinued there.

This matter of the paper trail is causing concern, mostly in the US, regarding the use of some PC-based systems. Whether the facility should be provided is the subject of debate. It is not a proven requirement, nor is it a statutory requirement. There are arguments on both sides but we have to live in the real world. California, where it is proposed that the new equipment purchased in 2005 produce a paper trail, does not yet have machines that can do this. I understand there is a court challenge on the grounds that such a system will disadvantage the disabled and other groups. I noticed that several contributors who spoke on the Bill in the Dáil sought a facility to enable visually impaired voters to vote independently.

If we compare the various steps in the advocated paper trail system to what the Nedap voting machine does, we will note there is little or no difference. The major argument is that the voter will see an image or his or her vote before pressing the "cast vote" button. This claim shows the lack of information about the proposed system and the invalid comparisons made with PC-based systems.

I will not continue repeating that the electronic voting system is a stand-alone system. Other parties in the House were proposing Internet voting and text voting systems that could be hacked. However, this could not happen under the Nedap system. The printing of a ballot paper at the time of voting could lead to constitutional and practical difficulties. It creates a link between the voter and the vote and the printing of a receipt could lead to corruption. Unscrupulous employers could well dictate to their employees how they should vote and ask for proof afterwards of how they voted.

It has been argued that the two systems should be run side by side. We all agree that this would lead to two different results, thus leading to further confusion. Which result do we accept?

Amendment No. 19 tabled by Senator Quinn envisages a dual system of paper ballots and electronic voting. Nobody has a problem with parallel testing of the electronic system but I do not favour the use of the two systems for the reasons just given. I doubt that 100% of voters would correctly enter the preferences on a ballot paper, especially if many preferences were recorded on the voting machine or vice versa.

I will refer to Part 4, summary and conclusion, of the commission's report. It states "testing carried out by experts retained by the Commission on a significant sample of the voting machines deployed to returning officers confirms that the system can accurately and consistently record voter preferences". It continues: "Parallel testing of the counting software programme carried out by experts retained by the Commission using a large number of sample data sets and a similar counting programme developed for the Commission confirms that it can accurately count votes in most situations, including unusual or difficult electoral situations." However, the commission said that the absence of a paper trail raises the standard and quality of the other system testing that is required. I have no problem with that. We will await the outcome of further reports and a final report from the commission. The Minister, Deputy Cullen, stated when the commission was established that the Government would take its recommendations on board. We have done that and abandoned electronic voting in the short term. We will take into consideration other recommendations made by the commission.

In this instance, however, there is no justifiable reason for the paper trail. If I can go from the sublime to the ridiculous, reference was made to ballot papers being put into the boxes. How many people have looked at the bottom of the box? We had faith in the system and every confidence in those conducting the poll but there was a possibility that the box could have had a hole at the bottom and the votes could have fallen through and under the desk. It is possible. The number one could be changed from one to four or to 11. That is the type of confidence we had. Nobody ever looked at the bottom of the box to see if the ballots were going into a black hole. The other difficulties with the paper trail are two different results, corruption and constitutional difficulties.

However, it does not arise at this stage. We will not have electronic voting and there will be further opportunities to discuss these matters when we are discussing the recommendations from the commission.