Proposition 50K2129

Projet de loi organisant un système de contrôle du vote automatisé par impression des suffrages émis sur support papier et modifiant la loi du 11 avril 1994 organisant le vote automatisé, la loi du 18 décembre 1998 organisant le dépouillement automatisé des votes au moyen d'un système de lecture optique et modifiant la loi du 11 avril 1994 organisant le vote automatisé, ainsi que le Code électoral.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Nov. 14, 2002

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

organisation of elections election

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR VB

Voted to reject

FN

Abstained from voting

LE

Party dissidents ¶

• Marcel Hendrickx (Vooruit) voted to reject.
• Richard Fournaux (MR) abstained from voting.
• Els Van Weert (Vooruit) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Jan. 30, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, this bill is about setting up the double pilot project. On the one hand, the ticketing system is being tested for the first time in the cantons of Verlaine and Waarschoot and, on the other hand, the continuation of the pilot project concerning the optical reading of the ballots in the cantons of Chimay and Zonnebeke. Their

The ticketing system responds to the objections raised against the automatic voting procedures. By giving the citizen the opportunity to check the correctness of both the registration of a magnetic card and the memory of the voting machine, his confidence in this procedure will only increase. After all, the voter is given the opportunity to check this voting behavior immediately after entering his voting choice by putting the card back into the machine. On the screen appears the choice made. In addition, a printer is connected to each machine that prints out a ticket indicating the choice made. This document cannot be taken with you, but it can be viewed from behind a window and will then end up in a specially designed bus. The advantages of this system are clear. One, excluding deviations between the number of magnetic cards and the number of paper forms. Second, the ability to control the voter. Three, control possibility in case of contestation of the voting results.

This bill also modifies the following aspects: the provision of efficient resources for the college of experts charged with the control of the correct functioning of the automated voting systems, the possibility for political parties to control the development of the voting software. The system provides for the possibility of granting free access to voting offices on the day of the voting operations to the technicians responsible for technical assistance.

During the general discussion, Minister Duquesne pointed out the pedagogical purpose of this draft law with respect to people who have a certain fear and mistrust of computers. Hence also the importance of the control capability to be able to verify whether the printed voice and the issued vote are the same. If the voter is satisfied with the accuracy of the control result, this will be confirmed by checking the box with the indication "Accept".

This agreement is also recorded on the magnetic card. If the voter determines that the printed vote was not the one of his choice, the box "not agree" will be marked. An alarm signal will sound and the voter must ask for assistance from the chairman of the electoral office, who must confirm the identified contradiction. Upon confirmation of the contradiction, the voter again marks the box "not agree". This is then printed, falls into the designated bus and is recorded on the magnetic card. The voter will be given a new magnetic card and will be allowed to vote again on another voting machine. However, if the chairman of the polling station does not find any contradiction, the voter must submit to the decision of the chairman.

The above shows that it is important that the chairmen of a voting office know well how to handle computer science. Therefore, Minister Duquesne calls for the chairs to be better trained in order to manage any difficulties with electronic voting. The Minister of Internal Affairs expressly states that the costs of the entire experiment will be borne entirely by the federal government. Once the ticketing experiment has taken place, at the beginning of the next parliamentary term, the node must be cut through, including on the financial level.

As for the vote, the entire draft law was adopted by the Committee on Internal Affairs with 11 votes and 1 abstinence. I thank you for your attention.

Thank you, Mr Smets, for the report of the Committee on Internal Affairs. Who wants to speak at the General Meeting?

Mr. Speaker, I did not participate in the committee debates, but I wanted to ask the Minister how to ensure respect for the language legislation when producing the ticket, at the request of the voter of course.

I don’t hear you well, Mr. Leterme. Speak closer to your microphone.

I repeat that I did not participate in the discussions in the committee. I just wanted to ask the minister how respect for language legislation is organized when the voter asks for a ticket. How does this work in a mixed-language electoral circle?

I think Mr. Leterme poses an important question here, if we would indeed apply the system in municipalities with a special language regime. However, this is about a law that allows experimental work with the ticketing system and with optical reading. Of course, it is also logical to choose one, small cantons, and two, where that problem does not occur. It concerns the Canton Verlaine and the Canton Waarschoot, on the one hand, as regards the ticketing system and, on the other hand, the Cantons Chimay and Zonnebeke as regards the optical reading. That optical reading is actually mainly “read bullets”. There it is a little less difficult to see in which language it is happening. There is no problem with the language system. Of course, at the time when one would generalize the case, you should insert that aspect and ask whether it is fully answered. There is no problem here, I think.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I would like to make a second small observation. The general discussion refers to the optical reading in, among other things, the canton of Zonnebeke, which I hope will go a little more correctly than in 1999. As I understood from the reading of the texts, some additional precautions were taken. I remain skeptical, but we will see how this progresses in the course of the counts and the voting recordings.

Mr. Speaker, you will remember that there has been shown that there are important issues ...

In the House and Senate, there were differences in the results.

Also in the results for the Chamber there were some illogical elements that had to be corrected after a manual count.

With this system, a manual counting can be done.

It is precisely the purpose of choosing Zonnebeke, where last time it was also an experiment, that we can compare and see if the system has indeed become more reliable.

There was a long discussion in the Conference of Presidents on these different techniques, and I will not return to it. It is obvious that, if one still possesses the bulletins, one can still count manually if one thinks that the electronic counting gives different results. That was the case for the Senate and the Chamber. If I remember, the differences between the House and Senate lists were remarkable.

A little anticipating the new purple wind that then began to blow, for example, my number of preferred voices were scarcely underestimated by the optical reading. That was one of the problems.

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of clarification, I would like to say that in 1999 there were remarkably many blank people in Zonnebeke, up to 15%. That number was above the national average, so it was clear that there was a problem.

You know that the Chamber must approve the election results. We then set up a counting commission here to check this. Most of us will remember it vividly.

We then set up a committee to carry out the counting.

Mr. Speaker, I announced that I would speak before the vote. I followed all the discussions in the committee and I took and participated in the debate, during which I submitted two amendments. I am presenting them again today, in particular with regard to the problem of reliability and respect for people who face difficulties with electronic voting. I will talk about it soon. I would also like to thank the rapporteur.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, unfortunately I did not have the opportunity to attend the entire discussion in the committee, but I would like to emphasize that there remains one problem with regard to the reliability of the system, namely, of course, the source code, the software developed for it. The difficulty is, of course, that one must have guarantees that there is no way that the software is scratched and that the source code is therefore respected. The present proposal provides good guarantees, although not 100% closing, that it will not be cut down. The experts of the various parties will be able to follow this out in the creation of the software. This is an important step forward.

Second, the ticketing system of course offers a better, but also not 100% closing, guarantee that what is counted is indeed the vote that one has issued. I also say that this is an important step forward compared to the current situation. I think it will be especially important that the experts and the Parliament subsequently review the new system and check whether it truly satisfies, or whether it has a sufficiently high reliability. I say it again: 100% guarantee we will never reach. This is impossible in computer science. Mr. Speaker, you can discuss this. However, it is about achieving the highest possible level of reliability and not to lose sight of the fact that we want to guarantee efficiency.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few considerations in connection with this, though not insignificant, change to the electoral system, which, by the way, will be implemented within a very short time. Many may have been forgotten to leave the flat paths here, asking people to carry out counts and, in other words, take responsibility for the smooth running of the elections. It is now provided for a not insignificant increase in the number of people who can be addressed for this. I think this in itself is a good thing because in the past too often the same people, sometimes decades in a row, were called to come to do that work. Meanwhile, it has become clear that those who want to escape from it can do nothing better than put themselves on a list. But that on the side.

One explains the other.

Indeed indeed . Our group is in favour of this bill. We will support it. We think it is a step in the right direction because it indeed provides a little more certainty to who gives his vote and how his vote will be counted. However, I cannot fail to formulate a number of critical concerns that may be taken into account now or later. In any case, a number of implementing decisions and directives still need to be published. So it may be useful to formulate our concerns now.

First, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the ticketing system actually wants to strengthen voter control over automatic voting. The question is whether the voter will feel the same, because one of the essential elements — I mean Article 7 of the draft, but I am not quite sure — determines that the voter can check whether the vote expressed — in the literal sense — on the form corresponds to his intention. If this is not the case, he cannot otherwise involve the President. He cannot solve the problem at that moment. In other words, the feeling of having more control over the elections may turn into exactly the opposite at that precise moment.

I would like to draw your attention to a problem that I also submitted in the committee to the Minister, who promised me to take it into account. In the preparation of the implementing decisions and the necessary directives — to the extent that the control is meaningful and that will of course be it — one can come to the conclusion that there are indeed possible discrepancies between what the voter wanted and what appears on the printed form. He must then involve the chairman of the voting office. If this happens often, it is of nature to jeopardize the secrecy of the voting operation because the chairman can then not other than ask what the intention of the person concerned was. When he considers that the printed form is not in accordance with what he wanted, the risk that the Council of State has already warned about arises. I have no alternative for now, but I think it is useful to face that risk at least.

Secondly, one of the advantages that we are all pursuing with the "computer sound", so to speak, is of course that the result is known faster and that less manpower is needed. Well, for those who are not quite familiar with the text, I immediately add that in addition to the machine counting, the printed forms will also need to be counted manually. The question is where the benefit will be situated. Indeed, all forms that will be sprayed out by the machine as if, will need to be counted manually. Furthermore, the draft stipulates that if there is contradiction between the one and the other result, the manual counting is considered correct.

This will be accompanied by a lot of time anyway. I fear that the supposed advantage of machine voting is not even real, unless ⁇ for the voter, but I will return to that later. I fear that it will take more time to finally know the result.

So I wonder what the meaning of the whole operation is, especially since the automated voting is strange to a lot of voters. Their

Third, the electoral operations will become significantly more expensive; that is clear. After all, not only does it require a screen and memory in which the voice is recorded, but everything needs to be printed to be delivered in written form.

The Minister of Home Affairs has told us that he has allocated 450,000 euros for the experiment that will take place. This is evident from the budget. That is already a considerable amount and then we are only in the experimental phase.

Furthermore, the Minister said that he intends to generalize this method in the event of a positive evaluation. The question is, of course, what the cost of this will be and especially who will pay for it. It is not for me to destroy the municipalities, but it is not at all, as in the past, more specifically at the time of the previous government, that one depends on its own initiatives and on the municipality’s budget to implement the system or not.

If the higher government decides to go to generalization of the system, it must bear a great deal of responsibility for its financial consequences. Who decides and orders, who pays. That is a good rule that has been applied in the past and will best continue to apply in the future. If the Minister declares that, in the event of a positive evaluation, he will let the system generalize, he must immediately clarify the course of the cost distribution. Their

This issue reminds me of the history of the Belgian Staatsblad. Every Belgian was considered to have read the Belgian Staatsblad at breakfast, at least having looked at the photos.

Of course, they were very numerous!

There were a lot of people, Mr. President!

The system in question is a novelty and for the population it is not always easy to immediately become familiar with it. Moreover, it is not made easier by the fact that people are expected to study it well.

You know the classic behavior pattern of people who enter the voting box. Once so far, everything can’t go fast enough. Will one also effectively use what meets the care of many colleagues, in particular control? In my opinion, this is a little too easy. The minister says that a copy of the law will be available in the polling stations and even in the waiting rooms. Now imagine how many voters will use that opportunity to read an extract of the law before entering the polling room, let alone being so far away.

I do not think anything is being invented here. Even today, in a normal voting office, it is mandatory that these documents are present. I have been present many times—for more than 30 years—as chairman of polling stations and later as witness to that vote, but I do not remember that I have ever heard anyone ask questions about that code, which was always present. That will probably not change much with this change.

I’m talking about that this is a new way of working that people are not familiar with. They do not know how the system works. I have never felt the need to consult a lot and read in advance because I know quietly how it is. I think this is the case for many voters. Here you are for something new, Mr. Minister. Dozens of millions are spent on informing voters about tax adjustments that are granted automatically. Whether they are always real is another question, but one would at least do as well to make an effort to familiarize people with them. It is directly about the functioning of democracy. Don’t tell me there are no possibilities. I give you one. A letter is sent to each voter. Would it be a big problem to also provide some information about the new possibilities he will have and what he needs to do for that? I think this would be a small effort.

It is only for those cantons where the system is used.

Indeed, in the current state of affairs, it is about a few cantons and therefore about a limited number of people. Remember that the evaluation is based on this. For those who are concerned about the added value of the entire system, it would be useful to provide the information for that. I do not think, by the way, that it would be so difficult to point out to the voter, in a few words, the possibilities he has to see whether his voice, as he has issued them with the computer, corresponds with his will. That is the purpose of this legislative amendment. Their

During the discussion in the committee, the Minister said... He has his merits on this point. I do not want to do anything about it.

He has worked hard to evaluate it together with the Committee on Internal Affairs. It is a pity that he is not here yet.

The [...]

It is good that you express this in the plural. I would be pleased if his colleague minister passed what needs to be passed on.

The minister now wants to end the experiments. Allow me to point out at once that he wants to put an end to the experiments by adding a new experiment, namely the additional printing — and thus written recording — of the voice.

The future Minister of the Interior... Mr. Speaker, I do not address you in particular, but it would be best. In any case, it will not depend on you, I understand.

The [...]

and Yves? If quality counts, why not?

This is also the man who has the most Balkenende effect in himself.

I don’t know who you’re talking about, but okay.

by Yves Leterme.

You don’t know who it is about?

Yes, but I don’t know who you want to apply it to.

Mr. Speaker, I am going around. I urge that anyone who gets the responsibility of Home Affairs should finally be put to an end to experimenting and evaluating, because you must also admit that this does not serve the clarity for the people. There is one thing that makes me wonder, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister. Apparently, even on this subject, there is a not insignificant difference between the north and the south of this country. At least the caution is greater in the south than in the north. In the north, people are more willing to exercise their democratic voting rights through these new systems.

I agree that if we do not make a definitive conclusion at the moment, this could be related to this. Sometimes I feel that this minister and this government cannot decide on that point either, because there is especially hesitation on the part of Ecolo and PS. Whether they are right or not, I am not talking about it, but the restraint is mainly on that side.

The [...]

The Chairman is a member like any other member of this House.

Yes, but our president also lives in the south of Eastern Flanders.

The [...]

More than myself, in many ways.

In all regions there is north and south, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Minister, allow me to make this comment from the opposition. The chairman of this house, along with me and many others, was upset by the fact that we had to wait too long for this initiative.

This is very correct, the entire Conference of Presidents, too, Mr. Tant.

Indeed, it has required some action from the Conference to encourage the Minister to eventually come up with a text. I regret that. I look for the cause and I think and I fear that this also has to do with "community differences in approximation".

I have never been strong in wind directions. When I am somewhere and I want to head south, I don’t know exactly in which direction I should look. I would like to refer to the French-speaking colleagues. Whether or not one has confidence in the system, one cannot deny that the objectivity in the issuance of a vote and ⁇ in the operations that must take place after the issuance of the vote is greater in computer selection than in manual election. The faster the generalization can be carried out, the better CD&V it has. At this moment we are condemned to conduct the conversation with each other.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to apologize to my colleagues for my delay but I was held at a meeting of the Mayor’s Conference which is currently taking place. I have to go back in a few minutes, but I will be back for voting.

Dear Ministers, Dear Colleagues, this bill demonstrates, above all, the government’s willingness to persevere in the path of automated voting, and I welcome this. The solution was not necessarily acquired, as one regularly perceives in the ranks qualified as “progressists” a distrust, in any case an excessive pessimism with regard to this modern way of electoral expression.

I am delighted that the government is, in this matter as in many others, proof of openness and optimism. No, we will not vote in Belgium with a red pencil until the night of time, while technological projects serve in all sectors of activity! It is necessary, in the electoral process as in other areas, to move forward, to challenge outdated practices and to test new techniques; this is what is called "progress".

In Belgium, we have followed this logic since 1991 through automated voting. In 1999, it was not less than 44% of the electoral body that voted this way, or ⁇ 3,250,000 voters. A step back is unthinkable, not unlikely to the nostalgic! The main advantages of electronic voting. The removal of debris offices, first of all. As the minister specifies, if the whole country were automated, the number of people needed for the disposal would be reduced to 1,248. For comparison, it will be remembered that in 1999, when, I just said, almost half of the country already voted electronically, 44.448 people were needed to complete the entire electoral procedure.

The number two element that seems to us a certain advantage is the drastic decrease in white and null votes. It should be recalled that in Brussels, paper voting had become almost impractical, given the combined effect of the multitude of electoral deadlines, on the one hand, and the impressive number of French-speaking and Flemish lists, on the other. It could therefore be understood the perplexity of the voters in the face of the test imposed on them.

Electronic voting allows a much faster dissemination of the results. The speed requirements win all sectors of activity. It must be faced. It is in the order of things. That being said, it seems to me — I have also submitted a bill on this subject — that electronic voting, like any advance, can distract, or even disturb.

I can understand the fear, especially in a matter as sensitive as elections, that the electronic card is not totally virgin, in any case it may not be. So many things are done today. Piracy seems so easy. Faced with these remarks, two attitudes are possible: retreat, crispation and finally rejection, on the one hand; openness, critical mind and progress, on the other. by

The reforming group undoubtedly systematically opts for the second hypothesis. Specifically in this case, this translates into a bill, which aims to allow the voter to verify his electronic vote through the issuance of a witness document. This, without a doubt, prevents the lack of transparency of electronic voting. The government has already inserted itself in this logic during the previous legislature by providing the possibility for the voter to see that the electronic card that just came out of the voting machine contains the suffrage that was intended to be issued.

This innovation, already used for the last municipal elections, is an important step. But now the voter can see, by his own eyes, that his vote has been recorded. The government today goes even further by approving the so-called system of ticketing, by somewhat arranging this mechanism that I developed in my bill. I will not go back to all the details of this mechanism. Others did it before me. I simply estimate that the price of reliability translates into a relative weight or relative complexity. This does not affect the voter, it is essential. But one can wonder if there are not the germs of a brake to a generalization of the system. I trust the Minister of the Interior that the test of May 2003, once distributed to the cantons of Verlaine and Waarschot, will be used to detect the possible adjustments necessary for this generalization. by

I would also like to draw the Minister’s attention to the particular case of the Brussels-Hal-Vilvoorde district. I repeat, this is where the paper vote demonstrated, in a flagrant way, its limits. Per ⁇ this is also where the ticketing should be tested, if elections were to be held again in 2004.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the Reform Group will support this bill with conviction. Automated voting should now be considered an achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what was said and I just learned two things that I did not mention in the committee. by Mr. Vanhoutte announced, if I am not mistaken, that reliability would not be total. Nevertheless, I find it extraordinary to consider that it is still possible to move forward — it has just been confirmed that 44% of the electorate is concerned — while total reliability is not assured. I wonder anyway.

Furthermore, the discharge could be longer. Now, you know that one of my amendments proposed an optical reading, even though it might sound like a step back.

I can seem nostalgic, I like the good old methods, they prove theirs, I am not embarrassed to say it. And in this context, when I hear that the breakdown could be longer, the optical reading system on the old ballots would be no problem.

Then, it’s an old dream that I’ve always cultivated, even when I wasn’t a parliamentary, I believe more and more, depending on what I just experienced here in parliament, that every time a bill is submitted, it should necessarily be accompanied by a financial estimate. I just heard impressive numbers and I find that since there is state funding — or Regions for regional and municipal elections — the slightest thing would be to clearly indicate how much this could cost the municipalities. I believe that whenever a bill is submitted, it would be obligatory — but ⁇ it is a wish too pious — that it be accompanied by a financial assessment. It could be judged on the piece afterwards.

This is a proposal that has already been advanced often, even for bills, to attach a financial projection. If my memories are accurate, it was provided in the Senate Rules.

This was actually planned. After the departure of Mr. Etienne Cooreman, whom you know well, it was biffed.

I have spoken on this issue many times in the committee and I did not think to speak again in the plenary session. I just wanted to justify my vote. However, because I have been struck with my colleagues, several times by the interventions of parliamentarians who call us pastists attached to outdated values, I would like to remind the honourable assistance that when we intervene in this case, it is obviously not about returning to archaic methods.

We are for progress. We have ourselves advocated that we should go further in research, especially in terms of optical reading, because this allows not only to go faster but also to any citizen to exercise his right of democratic control over the most important act he has to make in matters of choice in relation to his representatives.

Therefore, I would like to point out to Mrs. De Permentier, who had just advanced that the MR wanted to be progressive and had made a proposal to improve the automated voting system by introducing the "ticketing", that in 2000, when we submitted this same bill to the Chamber's approval to implement the municipal elections, I had, with Mrs. Grauwels, filed in the Committee of the Interior an amendment aimed at establishing a system of "ticketing" that offered an additional advantage. It was to have your own ticket in hand and not have, Mr. Tant, to appeal to the chairman of the voting office if you disagree with what is written. It was a system that, in the end, allowed, in the event of a dispute, to take back an urn intended to receive this ticket and to proceed to a verification.

At that time, the minister had assured me that he would incorporate these concerns into his next bill. We have therefore withdrawn our amendment. Mrs. De Permentier arrived well after with this proposal of "ticketing" but it is very good, it was implemented.

The bill presented today does not fully respond to our concerns. It is true that there have been significant advances in accessibility to source codes, including enabling better control, allowing political parties to designate an expert who will be able to follow the process from beginning to end and try to verify that all guarantees are effectively put in place. We talk about experts, but when it comes to elections, it should be free to any citizen, even illiterate, to check that everything went well. It is in this sense that we are rebelling. We revolt against the high price of this system that does not guarantee a genuine democratic and citizen control. We are not pastists, we want to go further in an optical reading system, to make people’s lives easier. While some point out that it was difficult to find counselors and witnesses in the polling stations, I think that we could make great savings for the state budget by deciding to properly remunerate counselors and witnesses. In this way, I believe that a double goal could be achieved: guaranteeing effective control by the citizens and achieving large savings for the state budget.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the speech of Mrs. Pelzer-Salandra. Miss, if I have understood you well, you will find that there are good reasons to adjust the procedure included in the current text. I listened to your plea. You want to give the voter the opportunity to take his vote in hand. This is a plea that is worth listening. Personally, I do not find this necessary. Everyone has their opinion on this. However, I do not understand why you hold a passionate plea but do not submit an amendment. This is a typical characteristic of your group. One builds on beautiful reasoning, one keeps a passionate plea filled with emotions and that remains. Amendment is a classic procedure in this house, but ⁇ it may not be the case with you, Mrs.

I just want to put the pants back on time. If it is true that we have had interesting discussions in the committee, I find it a pity that Mrs. Pelzer finds that I specifically target Ecolo. by

During the many discussions that have been related to this bill and this bill, I think some wanted to simply return to the Stone Age with the good old paper vote. You know like me that today, we criticize electronic voting but, as a mayor, in my municipality, I saw at the time of the deprivation of people who put under their nails a spike of pencil — we talked about it in the committee — and who were pleased to vote for themselves. Therefore, it is an unreliable system, manipulation is possible. My bill proposal aimed at the fact that, as the ecologists were proposed, a ticket was issued. by

Two things came to mind after meetings with the Ministry of the Interior. He presented the conclusions of a group of experts. When there is a manipulation between the voting card and the ticket at the time of depositing it in the respective urns, if for one reason or another, a person is distracted, we may very well no longer have the same number of magnetic cards in the urn as tickets. The visual system that passes behind the window is the only way in which the person can visually realize his vote because the ticket will fall, but there is no human manipulation. So I think that today, the Minister has committed to making test zones. My only regret as a Brusselsman is that there is no common test in Brussels compared to what I developed in my speech. I would also like to say that the minister has committed, if the system was successful in the May elections of this year, to extend it to each of the districts. I think this supplementary information should be done.

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, on behalf of the Socialist Party and as progressives, without wanting to return to the Stone Age, our group will support the Minister’s project for the sole reason that it represents an experiment limited to two cantons that aims to ensure, as it has been said, a greater confidence in automated voting that is still in an experimental phase, I remind you, however. Our group is cautious. We’re not saying we’re not going to generalize tomorrow, but we expect a very precise assessment. We are cautious about this generalization of automated voting because until today, all the questions we have asked IT specialists do not give us a full guarantee — and Mr. Vanhoutte has alluded to it just recently — the reliability of this type of vote, neither its confidentiality nor its effectiveness. I want to prove what Mr. said. Leterme just recently compared to the difficulties of counting he has experienced in his region. by

I also think that new technologies still remain for the moment and unfortunately difficult to access for certain categories of people. We therefore demand an evaluation. This is the meaning of the moratorium demanded by the Socialist Party. We will therefore vote on this text and remain attentive to the future regarding the widespread use of automated voting.

Has this project been adopted in the committee? At first glance, it would not be said.

Mr President Mr. He asked me directly so I claim the right to answer him. by Mr. Tant knows very well that we intervened in the committee, that we submitted amendments in its time, in 2000, and that the minister had promised to answer, which he did. There are advances but they do not satisfy us fully, which means that our group will vote on this bill or rather this bill. I have always been clear on this issue: there are quite significant advances but we are still in the framework of an experiment with a key-key assessment. A new direction is taken with ticketing and this is a real advance. So we can subscribe to this project and support it but we will wait for the evaluation and we will see well.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to make it difficult. We have formulated ourselves constructively, but from the opposition and the majority, questions have been asked about the draft that belongs to the competence of the Minister of Home Affairs. You announced his arrival before 7 o'clock. I insist that the minister appears now or that it is suspended for a while and that we wait for his arrival.

Mr. Leterme, you are right. According to the latest reports, from more than a quarter of an hour ago, he would be there within eleven minutes, and I didn’t invent that. It was agreed that he would be present here shortly after 19.15. Mr. Tavernier, can you tell me where the Interior Minister is?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond on behalf of the Government to the various statements presented here.

Mr. Tavernier, I will put things up. What is agreed here? Minister Duquesne would be here a little after 19.15. I started because I didn’t want the meeting to last too long. I asked if we could start with you — of course — worthy on the government’s bench. They said yes, but waiting for the arrival of Mr. Duquesne. I then checked several times where colleague Duquesne was. I cannot say more than what has been announced to me. He was at a meeting in the Brussels City Hall and was on his way here. I can understand that for specific problems such as this one would like Mr. Duquesne to be present. He may be there in a few minutes. It is in life that no one can be there as a machine at the right moment. I must say that the government is represented. However, it is the discussion of a draft of internal affairs. I can understand that the opposition is asking the minister.

Hopefully the Minister will come soon.

I insisted on that.

The government is represented. Minister Tavernier can already give a number of answers. Questions were asked. He can respond on behalf of the Government.

I must say that Mr. Tante is right. We made an appointment. That is correct. The minister was coming and we started with Minister Tavernier, who does his job as a minister very correctly. I felt that we would not move to the conclusion of the discussion as long as Minister Duquesne was not present.

Mr. Speaker, you again appeal to the goodwill of the opposition in an extreme way.

That is right.

What will happen here? Minister Tavernier will delay the time. Then Minister Duquesne will enter here. He will say, “I am joining the answers of Mr. Tavernier.” If we point out the fact that he was absent, he will utter a great rhetoric about humanistic values or something like that. This is no respect for Parliament. I would like the Minister of Internal Affairs to be present at the discussion of drafts affecting his competence. If necessary, we even want to advance it.

I do not want to remember the Chamber that I expected the arrival of Minister Duquesne around 19:15 to 19:20. I am now informed that he will be here within five minutes. I would like to suspend the meeting for five minutes.

The [...]

Mrs. Coenen, I have to respect the rights of the opposition as well.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the colleagues of CD&V, except when they do not take into account that the executive power has sent here the most intelligent and skilled members of this government, but that they are pretending that is not the case. I regret that.