NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY

COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURES

OFFICIAL REPORT

(Hansard)

 Inquiry into Electronic Voting

 5 September 2007

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Lord Morrow (Chairperson)
Mr Mervyn Storey (Deputy Chairperson)
Lord Browne
Mr Raymond McCartney
Mr Adrian McQuillan
Mr Sean Neeson
Mr Declan O’Loan
Mr Ken Robinson

Witnesses:
Mr Brian Devlin
Mr Vincent Gribbin
Mr David Lynn
Mrs Sheila McClelland
Mr Michael Rickard
all from the Northern Ireland Assembly Secretariat

The Chairperson (Lord Morrow):
I understand that everyone who wants to report on electronic voting is now present. First, Vincent Gribbin will give us a briefing.

Mr Vincent Gribbin (Research and Library Services, Northern Ireland Assembly):
For members’ convenience, I will provide an executive summary to illustrate the main body of the report. I have regulated the terms of reference for the Committee inquiry, and for the purpose of the report, I have reorganised them into a series of questions, which I will deal with individually.

The first question is whether electronic voting is viable. The viability of electronic voting is based on several questions. Is it physically and technologically possible? If the answer is yes, will it be worth the expense and upheaval?

There are three main obstacles to the introduction of electronic voting: the technology available is insufficient for the Chamber; the structural work needed would be too extensive; and the Chamber is too small to allow electronic voting for 108 MLAs.

Introducing electronic voting into the Chamber is possible, but it depends on the type of system that is used. If it is to be introduced, decisions need to be made, each of which will affect the others. The decisions are: what time, financial and personnel resources are available; what type of system is required; and what changes can be made to the Chamber? For example, restrictions on the changes that can be made to the Chamber limit the choice of systems, and that in turn affects cost.

The second question concerns the types of electronic systems that are available. There are many electronic voting systems, but there are three main categories: desk-based systems; hand-held systems; and voting stations.

Desk-based systems are the most common in Parliaments. They tend to be fully integrated into the Chamber, as in Scotland and Wales; they also have functions such as a messaging service and a sound-recording system. However, the Dáil’s system is very simple — two buttons to register yes and no. The advantage of desk-based systems is that they are fully integrated into the Chamber, and they can also register whether a Member is present. Desk-based systems also offer other facilities.

The disadvantage of those systems, as far as the Northern Ireland Assembly is concerned, is that they are desk based, as desks are not a feature of the Chamber. Another disadvantage is that desk-based systems require adequate space for installation and operation. They can also be disruptive and expensive to install.

Hand-held systems, on the other hand, are portable devices that are usually simpler than desk-based systems, and they have fewer functions. They are usually wireless and transmit via either infrared or radio waves to a central unit. Hand-held systems can also be sophisticated enough to recognise individual users, and they can include some other functions.

The advantage of hand-held systems is that they are less intrusive and are quick to install. They are also cheap if structural work is required to accommodate an integrated system. For the Northern Ireland Assembly Chamber, it would overcome the obstacle of having no desks and the lack of space. However, the security issue is a disadvantage. Wireless systems have been ruled out by other Parliaments; they are less secure because it is possible for an external device to block a vote, although not to corrupt it. Other disadvantages relate to monitoring the whereabouts of the units and maintaining them.

With regard to voting stations, some Parliaments use a single or small number of electronic units in the voting Chamber or in another Chamber, and when a Division is called, Members register their vote at it. An example of that system is used in the United States House of Representatives. Its website describes the voting procedure as follows:

“Each Member is provided with a personalized Vote-ID Card which can be used to vote electronically. A number of vote stations are positioned around the Chamber. Each vote station has a slot into which the voting card is inserted and buttons marked ‘yea’, ‘nay’, ‘present.’ The stations have an ‘open’ indicator, which is lit when a vote is in progress and the system is ready to accept votes. Members vote by inserting the voting card into the card slot and pressing the appropriate button to indicate the Member’s choice.”

In the Oregon State Legislature,the voting station is outside the doors of the Chamber, and it consists of two electronic scanners: one is labelled “yea” and the other “nay”. Each scanner registers a Member’s vote by identifying his or her fingerprint. The advantages of that system are that it is unobtrusive to install and does not require major changes to the Chamber or any changes at all if the stations are installed elsewhere. In addition, the scanners do not require Members to have individual desks, and they do not require extra space. The major disadvantage is that they are not as quick as individual units — a point that was raised by the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. A table of other Chambers and the systems that they use is included in the members’ packs.

The main argument for the introduction of electronic voting to parliamentary Chambers is to speed up the process. Indeed, its introduction into the Dáil has speeded things up. In a study of the Australian Senate, an assessment was made of the time taken for Divisions and the four component parts of that process. The conclusion was that electronic voting would save time only in counting the votes, but it would still save two and a half minutes per vote. A recent snapshot assessment of the time taken to conduct a vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly gave illustrative times of votes taking between nine and 13 minutes.

The main issue for electronic voting is how much time can be saved. The efficient nature of the Scottish voting system is due to electronic voting as well as time being set aside in each sitting for the day’s decisions to be taken. That allows Members to come and go throughout the day and then go to the Chamber to vote on all that day’s issues. Indeed, in the Dáil, the real time saving occurs when there are multiple votes, one after the other.

Given the range of systems available, the venue for a vote has few boundaries. The Scottish Parliament has developed plans to allow it to sit in various venues around Scotland and still be able to use electronic voting. The Oregon State Legislature has voting stations outside the Chamber. Other options include another room being made available for Members in which they can vote. Members could even vote remotely via the Internet. However, a report by the Standing Committee on Procedure of the Australian House of Representatives points out:

“None of the parliaments which use electronic voting have considered any form of remote electronic voting. Those who were asked dismissed the idea as lacking accountability and transparency.”

All voting systems, not solely electronic voting, must be safeguarded against inaccuracy and fraud. Moreoever, any electronic system should be secure against both. For instance, one of the issues raised by the Dáil regarding its system is that:

“In relation to a Member voting from another Member’s seat, the system cannot prevent against the possibility of deliberate or accidental voting on behalf of a Member who is not present.”

The Dáil’s system does not use any identification procedures to ensure that the voter is genuine; however, most other systems do. The Scottish and Welsh systems both require a Member to log on using a personal swipe card; the Oregon State Legislature’s system recognises fingerprints; and the system used in the Cámara de Representantes in Bogotá recognises a handprint. The main safeguard against technical problems is to retain the procedures for carrying out a manual count, such as those used in Scotland and Wales.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of electronic voting? The major debating point regarding the introduction of electronic voting has tended to centre on time saving versus cost and upheaval. The fact that recently built Chambers tend to have electronic voting systems integrated into the design supports the view that, once the problems with disruption and cost are removed, the advantages of electronic voting are convincing. However, the main advantages and disadvantages are outlined below.

In considering whether electronic voting should be introduced in the Isle of Man, the Standing Orders Committee of the House of Keys summarised the advantages of the system as follows:
“(a) results of divisions or ballots are quickly available saving time …
(b) immediate summaries of how Members voted are available to all …
(c) the technology allows for votes to be taken in secret …
(d) it avoids the distorting effect on Members voting of knowing how other Members have voted; and
(e) the technology allows for a printout to be available for Hansard and an instant summary of the result of divisions/ballots to be displayed for Mr Speaker.”

There are disadvantages, despite the time-saving advantage. For example, the Parliament of Australia decided not to convert to electronic voting because of the disadvantages. For existing Chambers, expense and disruption are cited as the main reasons; a report from the Australian House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure points out:

“Not surprisingly, cost still looms large in budgeting for the operations of the Parliament. It is true that the real costs of IT systems continue to decrease but the committee recognises that any proposal for new infrastructure must be soundly based.”

However, cost is not the only reason, as detailed in a report by the Speaker of the House Representatives in Australia:

“The possible cost of electronic voting is perhaps not the main factor in the opposition of some Members.

As the Chief Government Whip observed in the debate of the trial division procedures, electronic voting would change some of the ‘theatre’ of the Chamber — including the drama provided by the traditional division procedures when Members vote against their party.

For other Members, and for backbenchers in particular, the time taken by divisions is not necessarily wasted time. Divisions provide Members with the opportunity for informal interaction with their colleagues, and especially with Ministers. In a recent newspaper article one government backbencher was quoted as saying in relation to the subject of lobbying Ministers on behalf of constituents, ‘The best way to get them is to ambush them during divisions and approach them directly’.”

There is some suspicion about the time-saving benefits of electronic voting. A 2006 report from the Australian House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure states:

“While the whole purpose of electronic voting is to save time and ensure accuracy, the first quality can also be a disadvantage. Staff of the Scottish Parliament consider it possible that more amendments are pressed because of the ease of formal votes.”

One other issue that the Committee may wish to consider regarding electronic voting is whether it would limit party control over Members’ voting.

Lastly, should electronic voting replace all forms of manual votes? In most cases, electronic voting does not take the place of all votes. For instance, in Dáil Éireann, a decision is read out, and if there is obvious support, it is passed. Only if the support is unclear, or if a Member challenges the Speaker’s ruling, does it go to an electronic vote. In addition, manual voting is retained in a number of Chambers to be used at the discretion of the Speaker.

There is a questionnaire in members’ packs, and any comments on the questions will be gratefully received.

The Chairperson:
I thank Mr Gribbin for that detailed report. I have no doubt that he will answer any questions from members. Does any member wish to ask a question?

Mr K Robinson:
Mr Gribbin, I congratulate you on your report. The voting station option caught my eye. Given the U-shaped layout of the Chamber, what are the possibilities of installing four such stations, two on each side of the Lobby doors? That would minimise disruption, since we are concerned about the integrity of the Building. If my maths are correct, such a measure would allow 27 Members very quick access, and once they knew where their station was, they could make a beeline for it, presumably knowing how they were going to vote.

Mr Gribbin:
I cannot comment on that possibility. The House of Representatives in America has 40 boxes.

Mr K Robinson:
How many Members do those 40 boxes serve?

Mr Gribbin:
I am not sure.

The Committee Clerk:
There must be some 400 Members in the House of Representatives.

Mr K Robinson:
I was trying to tease out whether there was space in the Chamber for such voting stations.

The Chairperson:
I suspect that Sheila McClelland will deal with that issue, but we will not bring Mrs McClelland in until she is ready to make her presentation.

Mrs Sheila McClelland (Office of the Keeper of the House, Northern Ireland Assembly):
That is fine.

Mr Neeson:
We should listen to the other presentations and take it from there. It will be interesting to see how cross-community voting, which is peculiar to our Assembly, will be dealt with. Problems associated with it could be overcome, but perhaps some of the other witnesses could address it.

The Chairperson:
Perhaps Brian Devlin from our IT staff will address that issue later.

Mr McCartney:
How many votes were there between May 2007 and the start of recess?

Mr Michael Rickard (Research and Information Directorate, Northern Ireland Assembly):
Between 6 December 1999 and 4 July 2000, there were 25 Divisions. The next year or the year after might be more relevant; between 2 October 2000 and 19 June 2001, there were 32 Divisions. The next year was a full business year; between 10 September 2001 and 24 June 2002, there were 50 Divisions. Between 23 May 2006 and July 2007, there were 24 Divisions, which is not a large number.

The Chairperson:
Mr Gribbin, did you give an estimate of the time that would be saved on each vote?

Mr Gribbin:
No — the time saved will depend on the system that is introduced. Mr Devlin, however, has done some work on how much time Divisions take at present.

The Chairperson:
I am sure that Mr Devlin will deal with that issue in his report.

The Principal Committee Clerk:
When I was Clerk of Bills, which was one of my first posts in the Assembly, the Bill Office received 126 amendments to Bills, which was about 90% of all the amendments that were tabled in the first mandate. However, compared with the Scottish Parliament or Westminster, the Northern Ireland Assembly has relatively few amendments to legislation. Perhaps we need to catch up. That is partly because much of our legislation has been parity legislation, which leaves us with fairly limited room for manoeuvre. However, that will change.

Take the example of a Bill to which 10 amendments have been tabled. Each amendment could go to a Division — and there is no time limit on Consideration Stage or Further Consideration Stage — and each Division could take 10 minutes. We could, in theory, spend two hours voting on one Bill, irrespective of other motions and amendments in a plenary sitting. If we had a fully functioning Assembly with real legislation and not just parity legislation, under our current system we could spend several hours in a plenary sitting simply voting. That is significant.

The Chairperson:
I thank Mr Gribbin for his detailed report. Does anyone want to say anything about the Member’s questionnaire? This is the appropriate time for additions or for views on items that should not be included in the questionnaire.

Mr Neeson:
The questionnaire is fine, but it is important that the Committee examines all the issues before the Assembly addresses the matter. It is up to the Committee to consider the issues.

The Chairperson:
Is the member saying that the questionnaire should not travel any further until that is ascertained?

Mr Neeson:
I do not think that it should. The questionnaire is straightforward, but it does not cover all the issues that the Committee is considering.

The Chairperson:
Does anyone else wish to comment on the Member’s questionnaire? Does everyone agree with Mr Neeson that it should not travel any further at this stage?

Mr O’Loan:
I have a somewhat contrary view. Getting Members to think about electronic voting without regarding the results of the questionnaire as being binding may be of value.

The Chairperson:
Even at this early stage, that was one of the merits that I saw in the questionnaire going ahead. It would be interesting to get general feedback from Members about electronic voting.

The Committee Clerk:
The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons considered electronic voting in 1998. Its findings were based on a survey of individual Members, which showed that MPs did not want electronic voting. The questionnaire would provide an opportunity to take the temperature of the House and find out what Members are thinking.

The Principal Committee Clerk:
There is a danger that a questionnaire could provoke an uninformed response. Although it may not be seen as binding, some Members might perceive that to be the case. There may be opposition to electronic voting because of several hundred years of tradition, and Members may like the current system of going through the Lobbies. There is some substance to the argument that Members should be made aware of the arguments through their parties before the Committee takes the temperature of the Assembly.

The Chairperson:
The important words are “take the temperature”, and that is purely what the Committee is doing through the questionnaire. However, it is up to the Committee members to decide.

Mr Neeson:
That is OK.

The Chairperson:
I think that the Committee’s view is that we should continue with the questionnaire in its present form and take the temperature of Members.

Mr O’Loan:
I have one qualification to add. The second question asks Members:

“Would you be in favour of a ‘Decision Time’ as in the Scottish Parliament, when votes are taken together?”

If that question were put to me, and if I were asked to give a yes or no answer, my view would be that the matter is worth exploring. I would not be entirely happy with giving only a yes or no answer to the question. The format of the question may need some tweaking.

Mr K Robinson:
I agree. The questionnaire states:

“The Committee on Procedures are very interested in the views of members regarding this issue and would be very grateful if you would take the time to answer the questions below to inform the inquiry.”

The word “initial” could be inserted before the word “views”, and the word “better” could be inserted before the words “inform the inquiry” to let Members know that the Committee is tentatively trying to tease out the implications of the responses to the questionnaire. Members would then be aware that they would be supplying an initial response rather than one that would be binding later on.

Mr O’Loan:
That might be enough to make it clear to Members that the questionnaire is designed to provide a first impression.

The Chairperson:
The Committee agrees with Mr Robinson’s amendment to the paragraph.

I welcome Mrs Sheila McClelland, Keeper of the House, Mr Michael Rickard, Director of the Research and Information Directorate, Mr Brian Devlin from the Information Systems Office, and Mr David Lynn from the Office of the Keeper of the House. Mrs McClelland will now make a presentation.

Mrs McClelland:
I found Mr Gribbin’s paper very good, and it might be helpful if the questionnaire were sent out with his paper, as it provides a good basis and comparators. It opened my mind to the different available models and the amount of time the Scottish model saved. If that paper were provided, Members would not be approaching the subject completely cold.

The Chairperson:
I was depending on the Whips and Committee members to cascade the details, update members of their parties and explain everything in great detail, but Mrs McClelland’s way may be better.

Mrs McClelland:
I am the Keeper of the House. The Committee Clerk wrote to me in June 2007, asking me to provide a response to the Committee’s tentative steps in the inquiry into electronic voting. I asked David Lynn, who is Head of Estates and the technical expert in charge of any infrastructure changes in the Building, to speak to the Committee. Mr Lynn, along with colleagues, undertook an exercise to examine the possibility of how the Assembly could introduce electronic voting — if it so wished — and has produced a robust response, which, I hope, has been circulated to Committee members.

Mr Lynn will go through the various questions that were raised, and the answers to those questions, which were, in principle, yes — electronic voting can be delivered if it is required. I will finish by providing the Committee with an idea of what would lie ahead in relation to the infrastructure enhancements that could happen in the Chamber next summer. That might provide the vehicle to the introduction of electronic voting, if the Committee wishes.

I shall hand over to Mr Lynn, who will present slides and answer the Committee’s questions.

Mr David Lynn (Office of the Keeper of the House, Northern Ireland Assembly):
I hope to elaborate on the physical implications of electronic voting in the Assembly. I apologise for the quality of some of the photographs on the slides that I shall be presenting; they have not transferred terribly well. However, members have been provided with a written summary that they can follow, on which the quality is slightly better. I will start with a brief reminder of the layout of the Chamber and pick up on a point raised by Mr Robinson about the position of voting stations.

There is a front and second row of seating where Members have individual desks, and it would be quite easy to deal with the installation of an electronic voting facility on those Benches. The difficulty arises at the Back Benches, where there are no individual seats or desks for Members.

The Dáil Chamber has recently been fitted out with electronic voting — as Mr Gribbin has said — and that can be used as a comparator. In the Dáil Chamber, the voting buttons are in the armrests of the chairs, and a curtain on the main wall parts to reveal a large synoptic screen, which indicates to the Members in the Chamber which way they have voted: a green or red light appears against each Member’s name and they can easily follow the voting procedure.

One of the questions raised by the Committee Clerk was whether it was physically possible to introduce electronic voting in the Assembly Chamber. The simple answer is yes. The degree of difficulty involves physically introducing the system, and that will depend on the type of system that might be proposed — whether the Assembly opts for one Member, one seat; voting stations or a combination of those two options.

The simplest solution would be to install several voting stations around the perimeter of the Chamber, as Mr Robinson mentioned. Although we did not look at numbers in any detail, I thought that three stations on each side of the Chamber would be adequate, given that they would be used only by those Members on the Back Benches.

A fully integrated system, whereby every Member could vote from his or her seat, would involve making more radical changes to the Chamber. Should it be decided that each Member were to have an allocated seat, much more work would have to be done to the Back Benches. It is also possible to opt for a compromise system, whereby Members sitting at the two Front Benches vote from their seats and Members on the Back Benches vote at voting stations.

It is worth considering that the installation of synoptic or plasma screens, should it be decided to go down that road, would be subject to approval by the Environment and Heritage Service. I do not envisage any particular problem with the wiring, however. It should be fairly straightforward and could be accommodated in the existing cable runs. How difficult the installation would be depends on the exact system chosen.

The Committee rooms could all be adapted more easily than the Chamber to facilitate stand-alone electronic voting systems. The absence of fixed furniture means that it would be easy to accommodate cable runs, voting stations and whatever else may be required. Synoptic or plasma screens, if required, could be fixed to the walls without any great difficulty. The restrictions on cable runs in the Building would make it more difficult to install a linked or networked system, should it be required, whereby one room had to be linked to another.

I have estimated that the compromise system, for example, in which we would install 60 individual voting stations and six common voting stations in the Chamber, could be completed in four to six weeks. That would, I hope, tie in with recess and would include all necessary testing and commissioning of the system. If it were a requirement, we could also consider providing armrests for the Back Benches to enable us to fit individual voting stations to those as well.

It is much more difficult to estimate the cost involved, given that we do not have much of an idea of the system for which we are trying to estimate. However, based on the same compromise system, the estimated cost of carrying out the physical changes to the existing Benches to accommodate electronic voting is between £15,000 and £20,000. To supply and install 60 individual voting stations on the Members’ existing desks, six wall-mounted voting stations and plasma screens is likely to cost between £75,000 and £100,000. Therefore, a ballpark figure for the total cost of adapting the Chamber is between £90,000 and £120,000.

The optimum time to carry out the installation in the Chamber would be during the summer recess. The estimated time to complete the work is four to six weeks, and that is probably the only period in which there is that amount of free time. The contractor would require unlimited access to the Chamber during that time and, therefore, it would be necessary to limit, and possibly prevent, visitor access to the Chamber.

Should swipe-card technology be the preferred option, it might be possible to incorporate that into Members’ photographic passes. Therefore, Members would not have to carry a series of passes.

If additional alteration or upgrade work is planned for the Chamber, it will obviously be more cost-effective to incorporate this installation work into a bigger package of work.

Consideration would have to be given to backup requirements for any new system. For example, would it be necessary to provide a maintenance contract that included on-site assistance during sittings, or would Members be happy to revert to the old system in the event of something going wrong with the new one?

There is limited potential for any alternative use of the existing Lobbies. Removal of the existing voting stations from the Lobbies would be beneficial for access and emergency egress.

The Chairperson:
Thank you. Does anyone have any questions?

Mr K Robinson:
The voting system in the Dublin Parliament has a green button and a red button. I take it that there is no orange button, for obvious reasons. How do Members indicate that they have abstained from a vote, rather than simply been absent from the Chamber?

Mr Lynn:
It depends on the system; most systems have three separate buttons — yes, no or abstain.

Mr K Robinson:
Can I be assured that there will be an orange button? [Laughter.]

Mr Lynn:
I could not possibly comment.

Mr Neeson:
A number of months ago, the Assembly Commission visited the Scottish Parliament, where electronic voting has already been introduced, and the Committee will be there a fortnight from today. If we were to go down the road of electronic voting, it would create opportunities to introduce other electronic services as well, would it not?

Mr Lynn:
Yes. Mrs McClelland will pick up on that in her presentation.

The Chairperson:
It was mentioned during the presentation that a new system could be up and running within four to six weeks.

Mr Lynn:
Yes.

Mrs McClelland:
But only if the contractor had unlimited access to the Chamber; in other words, it could not be installed in that time frame if the Assembly were in session.

The Chairperson:
I must say that it surprised me that a new system could be installed so quickly. Does anyone have any questions about the estimated cost? I suspect that party colleagues will be asking about that.

Mr McCartney:
I know that Mrs McClelland will touch on the idea of having one desk per Member. If a decision is taken to introduce such a system next year, the work should be carried out in one fell swoop rather than in a piecemeal fashion.

The Chairperson:
That is important.

The voting system in this House is not simple. Can cross-community voting and so on be catered for?

Mr Rickard:
In some ways, we already have electronic voting in the Chamber. The proposal is that each individual Member put his vote into a computer. At the moment, as Members pass through the Lobby, the Clerk hits a button and the system records how each Member voted. It calculates the outcome of cross-community votes, including parallel consent, and produces a printout. This discussion has been about the introduction of electronic voting, but we are really talking about introducing a system that allows Members to put their votes into a computer at the same time — and perhaps using a swipe card that feeds into that computer is the way to do that.

However, the time saved by introducing such a system is really only the time that it takes Members to file through the Lobbies — time for the ringing of the Division bells has to be allowed in any case. If the Committee wants to speed up the time it takes Members to pass through the Lobbies, two computers could be provided so that Members could enter the Lobbies from both ends. There are a range of solutions. We already have all the necessary technology to calculate the votes and so on — this is really a matter of how individual Members can vote at the same time.

The Chairperson:
You are saying that it can be done, and done quite easily.

Mr Rickard:
Yes.

Mr McCartney:
In relation to the last comment, it strikes me that the voting process is slowed down when Members queue up and the Clerk has to identify each of them.

Mrs McClelland:
That is right.

Mr McCartney:
So, if swipe-card technology were placed in the Lobby, plus two or three computers, a lot of trouble might be avoided.

Mrs McClelland:
The key to the whole thing, which Mr Gribbin identified, is that the only way to save a substantial amount of time is to adopt the Scottish model, where all voting is undertaken at the end of the day. In that way, there would be a need for only one Division bell, which could ring for 10 or 15 minutes. Once all the Members were in the Chamber, all the voting could be done at one time. That, coupled with electronic voting, would save a substantial amount of time. If Divisions occur in a piecemeal fashion throughout the day, there will still be a need for Division bells to be rung for five minutes in advance of each vote.

The Chairperson:
There are distinct advantages and disadvantages in that for party management.

Mrs McClelland:
Yes. That is a bigger issue for you to discuss.

The Principal Committee Clerk:
Mr Chairman, there are other costs that were not included in the business paper. Four Tellers are occupied during each vote, and two Clerks have to come to the Chamber. So, if there are a lot of votes in one day, that means that two Clerks’ days are completely disrupted — whatever they happen to be doing, whether it be with Committees or other meetings. Substantial other costs are involved in that.

Time will be saved when several votes are taken — even though the bells will still have to be rung for five minutes before each vote. In that way, a significant amount of time could be saved when voting on legislation. Mrs McClelland is quite right that there are two issues here. There is the way we vote. One is that we continue to vote on each motion and each amendment in the way that is done at the moment. Time saving is maximised if we do both at the same time.

Mrs McClelland:
The second part of our presentation concerns the enhancements that we are making to the Chamber now; what is being proposed, at this stage, for next year; and what we would like from you on that. During the summer recess, we made a number of enhancements to the Chamber. I am sure that you are aware that there were a lot of complaints about the heating and cooling systems in the Chamber over the winter and during the hot weather in June. We hope that we have the heating and air-conditioning systems sorted out in preparation for the winter. Mr Lynn has worked hard on that. We will not know for sure whether they are functioning properly until November and December. I am sure that Members will tell me whether they are working or not.

The audio system needed to be improved. It is hoped that new speakers and microphones will have been installed in time for the beginning of the new session. Modifications to the Speaker’s desk have been made, at his request. We went to some lengths to accommodate his requirements. Wires had to be moved. That project was undertaken during the summer recess. More importantly, the Speaker and the Commission are keen to undertake a more robust refurbishment of the Chamber during the next summer recess. That refurbishment would be all-encompassing and as elaborate as the politicians wish it to be.

We suggest that it is more pragmatic to change to one Member, one desk and, therefore, we propose that desks be placed along the Back Benches. Also, it is likely that we will suggest that there be some type of information provision at the desks. That is where Mr Devlin and Mr Rickard come in. There would be a system whereby Members could get information at their desks while they were in the Chamber. That could well include an electronic voting facility. Then there is the provision of supplementary heating systems — if it is found that the heating system throughout the winter is still inadequate — and modifications and enhancements to the Speaker’s desk area. We might try to make that more expansive and change the whole layout of the area if that is what is deemed necessary. However, we have another year in which to test that out.

Most importantly, modifications need to be made to the Floor and the Balconies to provide access for the disabled. We know that that is inadequate at present. We hope to ensure that we have gone the extra mile to include disabled people on the Floor of the Chamber and in the Galleries for plenary sittings. Some of the electronic requirements could be subsumed into that, although they do not have to be subsumed immediately. The work could be parked and done in a few years’ time. The point is that we put the infrastructure in place and try to envisage what is required to provide electronic voting and other facilities in the Chamber.

We propose the establishment of a subcommittee comprising members of the Procedures Committee, the Business Committee and, potentially, the Executive and the Assembly Commission, in which everyone with vested interests can articulate their position and state their requirements. The concern is to provide the politicians with what they want, so I am trying to come up with a model on which Members can comment as we develop our plans.

The exercise is very robust, and all requirements will have to be signed off in early spring —certainly before Easter 2008 — so that a contractor can be appointed to do the necessary work over the summer recess. It is an elaborate project in its own right, and a definite direction will be needed from the political side. The project team will be made up of staff from across the secretariat, and any work that is produced will be circulated for consultation throughout the organisation.

Mr K Robinson:
May I make a heartfelt plea on behalf of those who sit near the entrance to the Chamber? Every time the door opens, the temperature drops by at least 10 degrees and never recovers — and that is in the summer.

The Chairperson:
At what stage does it get to freezing point, then? [Laughter.]

Mr K Robinson:
I think it is a deliberate ploy. However, that situation is a fact.

I know that the microphones are on the desks for the opening of the new session. When such microphones were installed in my local council chamber, I noticed that, with one or two exceptions, members who stood up to speak quickly sat down again. Is Mrs McClelland saying that, in the long term, we are all going to be sitting down when addressing the Chair or making a speech, rather than standing?

Mrs McClelland:
We considered a different solution, which involved longer goose-necked microphones, but the Speaker felt that they were unsightly. Those microphones might have encouraged people to stand up more, because they were positioned a little higher, but we felt that, from an aesthetic view, the lower-positioned alternative was more subtle. I know that that probably has a downside, as you say, in that people feel that they should not stand up because they will be further away from the microphone.

Mr K Robinson:
There is an additional problem with the input into the microphone. For example, as I speak to you, I hope that the microphone picks up the sound, but, a moment ago, I was also considering the possibility of popcorn recesses on the armrests. That type of remark could be picked up by a new sound system.

Mr Lynn:
We will use the same system that we used previously; your microphone will only be switched on when it is your turn to speak. A red neon indicator on your microphone will light up when the microphone is live, so you will know not to mention popcorn then.

Mrs McClelland:
If someone else is talking about popcorn beside a Member who is speaking, their comments will be cut out; is that correct?

Mr Lynn:
Yes, that is part of the technology.

Mrs McClelland:
It will eliminate any background noise.

Mr Lynn:
Yes, it will take that out.

The Chairperson:
A suggestion has been made about a revised seating layout. However, the Assembly may not always have 108 Members.

Mrs McClelland:
That is correct, but do we wait for something that might be a mandate and a half away and do nothing, or do we take the enhancement plan forward? The walnut panelling in the Chamber is of good quality, but the desks are not. Given the requirements of disability legislation and the fact that we do not currently have a robust solution, some enhancements could be justified next year. I do not think that that would create too much negative publicity. However, we need to give the Members what they want and need, and to take the lead in doing that.

The Chairperson:
Mr Devlin, do you have any comments to make?

Mr Brian Devlin (Information Systems Office, Northern Ireland Assembly):
I shall address a couple of issues. I was asked about cross-community voting, parallel consent and the different types of mathematics that are applied to produce the results. As members know, the existing system was developed in-house. It has provided a great deal of flexibility, because it has developed over time to include different features.

If one is going to go out into the marketplace to buy an electronic voting system, the need for that flexibility will have an impact on the cost of software development. It should be remembered that the costs mentioned by Mr Lynn were solely for the refitting of the Chamber. There will be additional costs for software development. The other drawback is that future flexibility to change the type of voting would be removed, and the system would be left at the mercy of the supplier who wrote the software.

The Committee may want to consider other issues with regard to voting stations. The use of electronic voting stations would mean that voting becomes a two-part process: identification, and vote selection. In the existing system, identification is a human decision made by a Clerk, or, when the Clerk cannot get a name, the Member provides it. Therefore, careful consideration needs to be given as to how much extra time it will take to record an individual vote in those instances in which Members have to identify themselves. If swipe cards are used, there will be obvious drawbacks, such as Members forgetting — or losing — their cards. If an important vote is taking place and a Member does not have a card, should proceedings be halted for the issuing of replacement cards, as happens in Scotland? There are lots of identification issues to think about, and there are other methods of identification to consider, such as fingerprint recognition and the options therein.

The Chairperson:
Would there not be a standby provision, in case a Member arrives without their card? Once a system of electronic voting is in place, does that mean that the House will use that system exclusively?

Mrs McClelland:
That is not, and could never be, the case. At the minute, the House can fall back on the manual system.

Mr Rickard:
The House could revert to the current system, and the computer could be brought out. That backup will probably have to be in place, and people will have to be made available in case something goes wrong.

Mr Devlin:
There are other types of manual procedures, such as roll-call votes, where each Member’s name is called individually and Members vote orally. Then there is manual voting in the Lobbies, where the House divides and the Clerks mark five-bar gates on paper. Those are then taken to the Table, and the calculations are made depending on whether the vote is cross-community, parallel or simple majority. There should be an adequate — and tested — backup manual procedure for any electronic system.

Members will also have to consider training to make themselves familiar with electronic voting. They must also consider how long the learning curve will be for them to familiarise themselves with that system, particular if it uses buttons on desks and a combination of stations for the different Benches. In that situation, two types of voting system are used. Members may get confused if they have different seats, and they may need to be familiarised with both options.

Mr Rickard:
Mrs McClelland made the important point that the enhancements that will be made in the Chamber could cover electronic voting in addition to improving the sound system. The solution to the microphone situation is only temporary; they will be upgraded next year. For example, as part of general improvements to the Chamber, there may be a decision to incorporate the type of electronic voting station that is used in the Scottish Parliament. That may include a system notifying the Speaker that a Member wants to speak, and a facility to use swipe cards, making identification no problem. Any subgroup should deal with the mechanics of introducing electronic voting. The Committee for Procedures should decide whether it wants to go for such a system, and how it is actually —

Mrs McClelland:
You tell us what you want, and we will facilitate it. It is a twin strand. The decision on electronic voting does not have to be made for next year, but the Committee for Procedures has an interest in what will happen in the Chamber, no matter what. Therefore, it could run with its inquiry and choose not to introduce the system, or it could decide to postpone it for another few years, and we could still go ahead with our enhancements. The Committee would still have an active interest in those enhancements. However, the Committee may decide that it wants the system, and we would then build it into the overall requirement.

Do we have the capacity to develop that facility in-house, as the current voting system was?

Mr Devlin:
Are you asking whether we could develop an in-house swipe-card system?

Mrs McClelland:
Could we ask the IT department in advance to develop a system that can be available at Members’ desks and that has all the same principles that are currently incorporated in the walk-through system?

Mr Devlin:
The difficulty is with the device that would be used at Members’ desks. The Welsh Assembly has full computer processors at every single desk. The Scottish Parliament has a slightly different, bespoke device that was designed specifically for its needs and does not have other processing facilities, such as email. If the Assembly decided that it wanted email or even Internet access to be available at desks, that could be achieved.

Mr O’Loan:
How many desk positions could be installed in the Chamber?

The Chairperson:
The fewer, the better.

Mr Lynn:
There would have to be 108 desks.

Mrs McClelland:
It would be possible to install 108 desks.

Mr O’Loan:
So there could be 108 desks.

Mrs McClelland:
Again, Environment and Heritage Service would want to be involved in that as it would not want the aesthetics of the Chamber to be changed substantially. It has been changed in the past — where there did not used to be a balcony.

Mr K Robinson:
The Committee must contemplate an important matter. The term “theatre” was used earlier. Last night, for my sins, I watched Alex Salmond delivering a presentation to the Scottish Parliament. There is a coldness about its Chamber. The MSPs’ faces almost look disinterested. I have a feeling that the Welsh Assembly is even worse. I often wondered why Members did not appear to be listening to the Presiding Officers or taking part in the debates. Obviously, it is because they are distracted.

Mr Rickard:
They are on the Internet. [Laughter.]

Mrs McClelland:
That is true.

Mr K Robinson:
I believe that to install the Internet in the Chamber would detract from the business for which members of the public have sent us to the Assembly. They want to see Members actively engaged and participating in the Chamber. I understand that the Assembly wants to modernise and move forward. However, it must consider the possible effect of that on its “audience”, for want of a better word.

Mr Rickard:
It is important to bear in mind that the Assembly is already ahead of Westminster, where they use number clickers. The Houses of Parliament do not have a system that allows votes to be put into a computer and then printed out. The Assembly is one step ahead because it has that ability.

The Chairperson:
An important point has been raised with regard to the spectacular word “theatre”. Mr Rickard says that the Assembly is ahead of Westminster because Westminster cannot do computerised voting. I am not sure that I fully understand that.

Mr Rickard:
At Westminster, the counting of votes is done manually. However, at the Assembly, votes are put into the computer and a printout is available immediately. In fact, the results of the vote could be displayed on a plasma screen in the Chamber if that were desired.

The Chairperson:
It is appropriate that I point out at this time — instead of after the delegation has left — that members must discuss this with their parties. I suspect that the very issues that Ken Robinson has mentioned will alter the atmosphere of the Chamber dramatically. It could turn into a very cold House. Even if the heating were sorted out, it would still be cold.

Mr McCartney:
There would still be a lot of hot air. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson:
It is important that members get feedback from their parties on this. I can report to the Committee that only two parties have responded. Members have received information packs. It is important that those members whose parties have not responded discuss the matter with them. Ultimately, whatever the proposals, it is not so much what the Committee can do — because the matter must be put before the Assembly for approval — it is about whether there is an appetite or enthusiasm for the changes among the parties. It is right for the Committee to do the exploratory work. However, it cannot take the work to the next stage if it discovers that proposals have not been discussed by the parties. The Committee must decide where it is going with the matter. I intended to say that later, but I think it best to say it now.

Are there any other questions on the presentation at this stage?

The Principal Committee Clerk:
I want to raise a point, Mr Chairman. A key issue is that of the Chamber as a theatre. There are two separate matters for consideration. Mr Robinson raised the matter of whether Members should have access to facilities at their desks that would enable them to play solitaire, or suchlike. I imagine that that would certainly have an effect on Members’ concentration in the Assembly. However, that is a separate issue from that of voting, which would require a bespoke, one-off system that might be used once during a sitting or several times. It would not affect the nature of the Chamber as a theatre. From my observation, there is not much theatre in Members’ having to queue in the Lobbies for 10 minutes.

Mrs McClelland:
Members lobby Ministers: the political perspective is important and should not be overlooked.

Mr Rickard:
I have not timed how long Members stand in the Lobby when they go to vote, but I do not think that they queue for a particularly long time. If they do, the time spent could be reduced if two Clerks stood at opposite sides of the Lobby and hurried the process along. I think that Members queue in the Lobbies for about two or three minutes before voting. I do not have any details on the time taken, but it would not be as much as five, six or seven minutes.

The Chairperson:
Is everyone happy with what they have heard? When do you want a nominee for the steering group, Mrs McClelland?

Mrs McClelland:
We must proceed quickly, so I would like the Committee to discuss the matter and come back to me with a nomination.

The Chairperson:
So you would want the nomination as soon as possible?

Mrs McClelland:
Yes, if the Committee thinks that it is a good idea and wants to be involved. We need to have all the stakeholder groups involved, including those from the political perspective, such as Committee Chairpersons and Ministers who make statements and take questions and who might prefer to have some IT assistance in the Chamber. For example, having access to IT in the Chamber could help Ministers to answer Members’ questions. Members bring different experiences to the Chamber; they come from different perspectives and have different requirements. Therefore, it is important that a cross section of Members can share their experiences so that we can understand fully what is required.

The Chairperson:
You have made your point well. I thank all those who have made presentations; you have given the Committee a lot to think about and enlightened us considerably.