Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 9, subsection (1), line 8, after "machine" to insert the following:

", and that each machine has been duly locked and sealed in accordance with section 8(4)".

This subsection deals with the vital piece of record keeping which will be central to establishing the evidence that the procedures set out in the preceding section have been properly carried out. As the subsection stands, before the commencement of the poll a statement is required to be printed showing the names of the candidates on the ballot paper at an election or the two questions on the ballot paper in the case of a referendum. This is to certify that no votes have been cast or recorded on the machine. These are two key requirements of the procedures set out in section 8. It is fitting that it is properly recorded that they have been carried out.

Equally important is the other requirement, spelled out in section 8(4), that each machine has been properly locked and sealed. Why this omission? The requirement properly to seal and lock the machine is central to the integrity of the whole process. It surely follows that this statement of record by the presiding officer should also contain a certification that the essential requirement has been properly carried out. Without such a certification there will be a gaping hole in the chain of evidence if any problem should arise later in the process. It makes no sense to me that we should carefully inspect the recording of certain items while omitting to require the recording of other equally important items. What is the purpose of this record if it is to be seriously incomplete? We can repair this omission by accepting the amendment. I, therefore, commend it to the House.

Amendment No. 24 refers to section 11(2), which states that:

The presiding officer shall also certify that none of the voting equipment has been interfered with in any way during the election process or if any such interference has taken place shall specify in detail the nature and extent of such interference.

This amendment parallels, in important respects, the amendment I proposed to section 9.

Section 11(2) states:

As soon as practicable after the close of the poll, the presiding officer, after ensuring that the lock referred to in section 8 on each voting machine in the polling station has not been interfered with, shall cause a statement showing a list of the candidates on the ballot paper at the election or two questions on the ballot paper in the case of a referendum and the total number of votes recorded on the machine at the polling station to be produced by the machine. The statement shall be signed by the presiding officer and witnessed by another person in the polling station. The presiding officer shall then open the lock and remove the cartridge or disc from each such voting machine so that no further votes can be entered therein.

There is a requirement on the presiding officer to carry out a number of essential actions but not the requirement to certify that he or she has carried out all of those actions. It is surely just as necessary to provide a record of the end to end integrity of the process and that the officer should certify that the voting system equipment has not been interfered with in any way during the election process. It is even more necessary that the presiding officer should record if any interference has taken place.

As currently drafted, the Bill treats checking that the machinery has not been interfered with as a perfunctory matter, not worthy of being recorded. The very fact that it fails to provide for the circumstances in which actual interference has taken place underlines the lack of seriousness it attaches to the matter. In glossing over this matter, the Bill reveals a fundamental flaw. Checking on the integrity of the machinery used and recording the results of each check after it has taken place should be a central part of our policing of the system and of our guarantee to the public that they can have trust in it.

Providing for a check without providing that the result of the check be properly recorded is tantamount to a mere genuflection to the requirements for absolute security in an electronic voting system. The public deserves better than this and we can provide it by adopting the amendment proposed. I commend the two amendments to the House.