Dear Mr Davidson,

Freedom of Information request F20-310

Thank you for your request for information dated 1 July 2020, received by
us on the same date, which is copied below.

We will endeavour to respond to your request promptly but in any case
within 20 working days i.e. on or before 30 July 2020.

If you have any queries about your request, please use the request number
quoted above and in the subject line of this email.

CORONAVIRUS UPDATE

We will work hard to answer your information rights requests during the
current COVID 19 situation in line with statutory requirements, however
some requests may be affected by access to collections and availability of
staff. We will keep you informed of any identified delays in answering
your request.

Yours sincerely,

Sarah Price

IRIS Support Officer
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) Service | House of
Commons

[1]www.parliament.uk | [2]@ukparliament | [3]@houseofcommons

[4]House of Commons Privacy Notice for the Public

[5]Supporting a thriving parliamentary democracy

From: Robert Davidson <[FOI #673827 email]>
Sent: 01 July 2020 18:15
To: FOI Commons <[email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Electronic terminals in the
voting lobby

Dear House of Commons,

I have recently become aware that since online voting was removed as an
option for most members of parliament and the Rees-Mogg Conga Queue was
ridiculed, MP voting has shifted to the use of 4 electronic terminals
split between the 2 voting lobbies.

Please can you disclose, in line with FOI legislation,

1) how many of these machines have been procured,
2) whether the machines are bought or leased
3) what company has supplied the machines
4) the length of any contract related to these machines e.g. service
contract, lease contract etc.,
5) how long these machines are expected to be used for this purpose,
6) if there is any intention of expanding the number of machines in
operation either for members of parliament or to extend the system to the
House of Lords,
7) a full breakdown of costs associated with the procurement, supply and
operation of these machines including: total cost to date, any monthly
costs such as lease or service fees, renewal fees, return fees,
procurement services fees and any other fees that might be considered to
be related to these machines and their presence and operation in
parliament.

Many thanks for your time in this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Robert Davidson

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[6][FOI #673827 email]

Is [7][House of Commons request email] the wrong address for Freedom of
Information requests to House of Commons? If so, please contact us using
this form:
[8]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[9]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[10]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Davidson,

Freedom of Information Request F20-310

Thank you for your request for information as copied below. You have asked
the House of Commons seven questions concerning electronic voting
terminals in the House of Commons during the Covid19 crisis. Please find
our responses to each of your questions below.

Please note initially that the House of Commons and the House of Lords are
separate public authorities for the purposes of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 (FOIA). Our response only deals with online voting information
for which the House of Commons is responsible, although some information
may be held jointly between the two Houses through the bicameral
Parliamentary Digital Service (PDS) and so would cover both Houses of
Parliament. Therefore, you may wish to consider forwarding your request to
the House of Lords directly at: [1][email address].

 1. How many of these machines have been procured?

This information is held by the House of Commons. 4 terminals has been
procured.

 2. Please provide information on whether the machines are bought or
leased

This information is held by the House of Commons. The House has bought the
machines.

 3. What company has supplied the machines?

This information is held by the House of Commons. However, information
relating to your request is considered exempt from disclosure by the House
under sections 24 & 31 FOIA. Please find our explanations for these
decisions below.

Section 24(1) – National security

The supplier of these voting terminals is a piece of information which, if
disclosed, would undermine the security of parliamentary procedure and the
work of the government on the parliamentary estate. Section 24 FOIA
provides an exemption from disclosure where provision of the information
would make the UK or its citizens more vulnerable to a national security
threat. This is a qualified or non-absolute exemption and the public
interest test applies.

There is a public interest in the supply of efficient and secure digital
voting techniques to Parliament as a part of the hybrid-Parliament
proceedings during the Covid-19 pandemic. There is a legitimate interest
in how tax payers money is spent on fulfilling the House of Commons’
constitutional role and facilitating the work of government (including
Ministers). Further, the House recognises concerns over the introduction
of new technology to conduct divisions in the House and national security
concerns arising from the increased risk of cyberattack to disrupt the
proper workings of government.

The countervailing argument is that releasing the name of the terminal
supplier, in connection with the estate, increases the likelihood that the
company would become the target of attempts to disrupt the security of the
estate. Further, it may give an indication of the manufacturer of the
terminals which could be combined with existing knowledge or publicly
available information to target the terminals directly to cause disruption
to the voting system itself, a risk arising from the so-called mosaic
effect. Groups planning attacks are known to conduct extensive research
into the opposition they might face. The ability for fixated groups or
individuals to interfere with equipment and software at the manufacturer
stage or currently while the terminals are operating on the estate, may
therefore significantly impact on national security through an
interference with the integrity of the House of Commons’ voting
system. Whilst there may be a public interest in access to this
information, it is considered that in this case it is not in the wider
public interest to disclose as there is a risk of national security being
compromised.

Section 31(1)(a) – Law enforcement

As we stated above, the supplier of these voting terminals is information
which, if disclosed, would provide a significant indication of the level
and quality of the extra security coverage proposed. The House believes
that this would greatly increase the likelihood of voter fraud in House of
Commons’ divisions. Therefore, the release of this information is likely
to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime and is therefore exempt
by virtue of s.31(1)(a) FOIA. This is a qualified or non-absolute
exemption and the public interest test applies.

There is a public interest in the protection of the House of Commons’
proceedings from criminal offences. As above there is a legitimate
interest in the adequate security of parliamentary proceedings and that
the introduction of new technologies does not undermine organisations and
teams providing us with security and law enforcement. Unlawful
interference with terminals used to enter votes in House divisions could
constitute a criminal offence such as fraud. Information regarding the
supplier of these terminals could provide an indication of the provision
and quality of security arrangements protecting against unlawful access to
the terminals and any data they store.

This is outweighed by the risks of criminal activity being undertaken if
the information was disclosed. In providing details of the supplier of the
terminals, we would fail in our duty to prevent details of security
arrangements and standards from falling into the hands of individuals with
malicious or criminal intent against the estate or individuals thereon,
which in turn would fail in our duty to assist those services providing us
with law enforcement. The information would assist those seeking to gain
unlawful access to these terminals or plotting cyber-attacks against a
House of Commons’ division by providing information that could disclose
the sophistication and extent of the security on these terminals. Further,
the increased likelihood of the supplier becoming a target for
interference if disclosed in-turn increases the likelihood of the
manufacturer becoming the target for criminal offences committed against
their premises, staff or business that could otherwise by prevent by law
enforcement authorities. It is our view that the greater public interest
in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing
the information.

 4. Please provide the length of any contract related to these machines
e.g. service contract, lease contract etc.

This information is held by the House of Commons. Whilst no specific
contract exists solely for these terminals, the House has a contract with
an external company who support general security systems related to these
terminals. This contract is due to expire in December 2020.

 5. How long are these machines are expected to be used for this purpose?

This information is not held by the House of Commons. A move or return to
a voting system that does not require these terminals is a decision for
the House by way of a vote by the Members. No such decision has been made
and so the House does not hold information on when these terminals will no
longer be required.

It may interest you to know that, when a vote is held in the House and a
decision is made to change the voting system, it will be published in the
Official Record of Parliament, known as Hansard, which is online and fully
searchable here: [2]https://hansard.parliament.uk/.

 6. Please provide information regarding any intention of expanding the
number of machines in operation either for members of parliament or to
extend the system to the House of Lords

This information is not held by the House of Commons. No information held
by the House indicated an intention to increase the number of terminals or
extend their operation to the House of Lords.

As stated above, you may wish to contact the House of Lords directly for
this information using the email address provided at the top of our
response.

 7. a full breakdown of costs associated with the procurement, supply and
operation of these machines including: total cost to date, any monthly
costs such as lease or service fees, renewal fees, return fees,
procurement services fees and any other fees that might be considered
to be related to these machines and their presence and operation in
parliament.

Some information relating to this question is held by the House of
Commons.

Design, installation and hardware of the pass reader voting system cost
£45,448. The cost of materials was £14,998 and the cost of labour was
£30,491. These are the figures that the House requires for business
purposes and cannot be disaggregated further.

The House holds no information relating to the running costs, nor
estimated likely running costs, at the time of your request. Section 1(4)
of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 only requires a public authority to
provide information held at the time of a request being made. There is no
obligation to create information to answer a question. 

You may, if dissatisfied with the handling of your request, complain to
the House of Commons. Alternatively, if you are dissatisfied with the
outcome of your request you may ask the House of Commons to conduct an
internal review of any decision regarding your request.  Complaints or
requests for internal review should be addressed to: Information Rights
and Information Security Service, Research & Information Team, House of
Commons, London SW1A 0AA or [3][House of Commons request email].  Please ensure
that you specify the full reasons for your complaint or internal review
along with any arguments or points that you wish to make.

If you remain dissatisfied, you may appeal to the Information Commissioner
at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF,
[4]www.ico.gov.uk.

Yours sincerely,

IRIS Officer 
Informaiton Rights and Information Security (IRIS) | Research and
Information
House of Commons, Palace of Westminster, London SW1A 0AA 
[5]parliament.uk
[6][IMG]

The House of Commons welcomes feedback. If you have any compliments,
complaints or comments,
about the service that you have received please send an email
to [7][email address]

From: Robert Davidson <[FOI #673827 email]>
Sent: 01 July 2020 18:15
To: FOI Commons <[email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Electronic terminals in the
voting lobby

Dear House of Commons,

I have recently become aware that since online voting was removed as an
option for most members of parliament and the Rees-Mogg Conga Queue was
ridiculed, MP voting has shifted to the use of 4 electronic terminals
split between the 2 voting lobbies.

Please can you disclose, in line with FOI legislation,

1) how many of these machines have been procured,
2) whether the machines are bought or leased
3) what company has supplied the machines
4) the length of any contract related to these machines e.g. service
contract, lease contract etc.,
5) how long these machines are expected to be used for this purpose,
6) if there is any intention of expanding the number of machines in
operation either for members of parliament or to extend the system to the
House of Lords,
7) a full breakdown of costs associated with the procurement, supply and
operation of these machines including: total cost to date, any monthly
costs such as lease or service fees, renewal fees, return fees,
procurement services fees and any other fees that might be considered to
be related to these machines and their presence and operation in
parliament.

Many thanks for your time in this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Robert Davidson

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[8][FOI #673827 email]

Is [9][House of Commons request email] the wrong address for Freedom of
Information requests to House of Commons? If so, please contact us using
this form:
[10]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[11]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[12]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Davidson,

Internal Review Request

Thank you for your email, copied below, requesting an internal review of
Freedom of Information request ref: F20-310.

We will endeavour to respond within 20 working days, i.e. on or before 21
August 2020. However, it may be necessary to extend this deadline by
another 20 working days, for example if the review is complicated and
requires the assistance of multiple resources. If this is the case, and
your review cannot be completed in the shorter timeframe, we will inform
you of this.

If you have any queries about the review, please contact me with the
reference in the subject line.

Yours sincerely,

Information Rights Manager 
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) 
House of Commons, Palace of Westminster, London SW1A 0AA 
[1]parliament.uk
[2][IMG]

[3]House of Commons Privacy Notice for the public

[4]Supporting a thriving parliamentary democracy

From: Robert Davidson <[FOI #673827 email]>
Sent: 23 July 2020 15:58
To: FOI Commons <[email address]>
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Electronic
terminals in the voting lobby

Dear House of Commons,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information
reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of House of Commons's handling
of my FOI request 'Electronic terminals in the voting lobby'.

The response was useful and, in recommending that I contact the Lords for
further information, it was proactive in aiding my request. I do however
wish a review into the exemptions used when requesting the manufacturer
name of the voting terminals in question.

One exemption indicated national security and the security of the estate.
These voting terminals do not seem to be connected to entry or access to
the estate and as such this exemption seems odd. That is, unless the
terminals are also used in other parts of the estate for non-voting
purposes like access and entry systems. Is this the case or was the
exemption invalid?

The other exemption said that voter fraud is a crime and that naming the
manufacturer would enable the crime of voter fraud. This seems invalid too
as there can be no meaningful voter fraud in a non-secret ballot. All MP
votes are recorded and made public with the MPs and their vote decision
named. Any attempts to falsify this record would be immediately and
obviously known, challenged and rectified.

Please can you consider the use of these exemptions and provide clarity?

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on
the Internet at this address:
[5]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/e...

Yours faithfully,

Robert Davidson

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[6][FOI #673827 email]

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[7]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[8]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Davidson,

Further to your request for an Internal Review, please find our response
attached. 

If you remain dissatisfied, you may appeal to the Information Commissioner
at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely,

Information Rights Manager 
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) 
House of Commons, Palace of Westminster, London SW1A 0AA 
[1]parliament.uk
[2][IMG]

[3]House of Commons Privacy Notice for the public

[4]Supporting a thriving parliamentary democracy

UK Parliament Disclaimer: this e-mail is confidential to the intended
recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and
delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying
is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no
liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by
this e-mail. This e-mail address is not secure, is not encrypted and
should not be used for sensitive data.

References

Visible links
1. http://parliament.uk/
2. https://www.parliament.uk/business/commo...
3. https://www.parliament.uk/documents/Data...
4. http://www.parliament.uk/documents/Strat...