Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)

I thank the Minister of State for his interesting reply. He said that the way to proceed on this matter would be to bring all of the parties together and if a consensus could be reached, the Government might perhaps consider it at that point. If a principle applies for changing the order of the candidates on a ballot paper, the same principle should apply in respect of electronic voting. I agree with the Minister of State that consensus is important.

Would the Minister of State initiate a review within his Department in respect of this issue? This could be done together with the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government and the various spokespeople and could consider the long-term position. A considerable body of domestic evidence points to an advantage at Dáil elections. I will withdraw the amendment if the Minister of State will give a commitment that his Department will review the issue in consultation with all of the parties in both Houses to see if it can be considered further.

Senator McCarthy raised a serious matter, namely, that some candidates feel they have a right to change their names on ballot papers in order to give themselves an advantage. That some people would do so gives the public the implication that there is an advantage to having one's name at the top of the ballot paper. That is a serious issue. The Minister of State referred to the 1986 O'Reilly High Court case. That case did not go to the Supreme Court and it only referred to Dáil elections; it did not deal with European elections. The advantage of using the random selection system suggested in the amendment for European elections is due to the fact that the number of votes is considerably greater. The advantage given by the alphabetic system currently in place could be much greater than the random system I propose.

While I fully recognise the 1986 court case, I must point out that it only referred to Dáil elections and was never tested in the Supreme Court which ultimately tests our constitutional position in respect of matters of this nature. I appreciate that the amendment in my name is defective but I am a humble Senator with humble resources who must deal with the massive entity that is the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Is the Minister of State suggesting that this could be done by order? As I understand it, an amendment of the 1997 Act is required. If that is the case, will the Minister of State at least agree to take the matter further and discuss it with all of the parties — in consultation with the experts in his Department who have built up considerable independent knowledge and experience, for which they are greatly respected, concerning our electoral law — in light of the considerable body of evidence that has grown up on foot of academic work on this issue? If he gives a commitment to review the matter, I would be happy to accept that.

I am of the opinion that one has an advantage if one's name appears at the top of the ballot paper. That advantage should not exist. Having a random selection means that people, even the 1% or 2% who might merely mark it one to eight in alphabetical order, will be forced to look at the ballot paper. Thanks to the decisions taken before the 2002 election, pictures, party affiliations and names are included on the ballot paper. There is, therefore, no reason that people should not concentrate on the ballot paper and make their choice accordingly.

I ask the Minister of State to consider initiating a review on foot of the amendment I have tabled. I appreciate that amendment No. 5 refers to the 2002 Act which it is not legally possible to change. However, the issue is more important than the advent of the upcoming European elections.