Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)

Amendment No. 1 seeks to define 'Act of 1992', 'Act of 1997' and 'Minister'. The amendment is unnecessary as the Minister is defined in section 2 of the Electoral Act 1992 and in section 2 of the 1997 Act, which is being amended. The addition of the words "Electoral Act 1992" is unnecessary as section 6 the Bill is cited together with the European Parliament Elections Act 1992-2003 and they will be read as one. I ask Senators to withdraw the amendment as what they are seeking is already provided for in section 2.

Last week, Senator Brian Hayes flagged his intention to table amendment No. 5 which deals with the advantages gained by those whose names are listed at the top of the ballot paper. I understand the reasoning behind the amendment. This matter is constantly discussed by candidates and elected representatives, especially before elections. There is no perfect method of listing candidates' names on a ballot paper. Adoption of the system advocated would not ensure other candidates were happy with their positioning on the ballot paper. I recently heard public candidates say that candidates on the lower half of the ballot paper to be used on the voting machines will be better placed than those on the top half. There is no exact science on this; it is a matter of which system one prefers.

The following is an extract from the O'Reilly case High Court judgment by Mr. Justice Murphy on 21 March 1986:

It would seem, therefore, that what is described as a bias in favour of the candidates whose names appear at the top of the ballot paper is not so much a defect in the system itself as a defect or a want of care or a want of interest by the electorate. Under the existing system the essential information is provided for the electorate and every voter is free to vote or not to vote at all or to exercise his voting right fully or partially. In addition it seems to me that the voter has the right and the facility to make his preferences between the candidates in a logical or careful fashion but that he is equally entitled, if he thinks fit, to choose some random procedure for selecting the candidates of his choice. In my view there is nothing unreasonable about legislation which has the effect of reflecting in one way or another the measure to which the electorate or some part of it is indifferent to the effect of the manner in which their votes are cast.

On the other hand the existing system possesses the practical advantage — particularly in a constituency where a number of candidates present themselves — that the voter can quickly find any particular candidate. In addition, alphabetical listing is — apart from any practical advantage — an established procedure in so many fields that it is seen as being a reasonable practical solution to selecting or preparing any list of names. Any departure from the alphabetical system would require to be explained in principle and justified in practice.

I am left with the belief that the alphabetical system of listing candidates as provided for under the 1963 Act constitutes a reasonable regulation of elections to Dáil Éireann.

I believe the current system, while it may be advantageous to some, has served us well. Senator Hayes referred to people changing their names. It is not possible to do so any more. It would have been advantageous for me to use "Cope" on the ballot paper in that people would have been able to locate my name more readily. However, the people of Connacht-Ulster were discerning enough to differentiate between "Cope" and "Gallagher" and found my name. I tried to have my name listed under "Cope" but the returning officer informed me I must use the name registered on my birth certificate and I accepted that.

I assumed when I read the amendment that Senator Brian Hayes wished the new order to be used at next June's European and local elections but that is not what is stated in the amendment. It refers to the Act of 1992, which is the Dáil elections Act. Local elections are dealt with in the 2001 Act; the European elections are dealt with in the 1997 Act and the presidential election is dealt with in the 1993 Act.

I do not propose to accept the amendment bearing in mind the judgment of Mr. Justice Murphy dated 21 March 1986 and the fact that it would not address Senators Brian Hayes's and Bannon's concerns. This matter requires considerable debate and consensus of Members of both Houses. Senator Bannon may have allowed his heart to rule his head in adding his name to the amendment. I would not support such an amendment if my name were Bannon.

This matter requires further debate between and consensus among Members of both Houses. I do not believe it can be resolved in this short Bill, which is narrow in its scope. The matter has not been considered by Government and I cannot accept the amendment. I appreciate the point raised by the Senator. It has been discussed on many occasions at political meetings across the country. Senator Brian Hayes's name would, like mine, possibly appear midway down the ballot paper and it is difficult to know whether that is beneficial.

Amendment No. 5 refers to the Act of 1992 and this would not address the issue of local or European elections. Even if the amendment were submitted with reference to the 1997 or 2001 Acts, I would still oppose it on principle.