John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, and thank him for attending to listen to the debate. It is a privilege to be a Member of the House and the national Parliament. We should be conscious of that privilege and the responsibilities it carries with it. I am fortunate to have been the first member of the Progressive Democrats to be elected to the House and to be nominated on several occasions. What we do is important. We contribute to the overall national debate which is important in a democracy and we have contributed to the improvement of legislation. All the parties and those who are not members of a party have contributed to that process.

The report was prepared by the sub-committee, of which I was pleased to be a member. I join in the words of thanks to the secretariat, Dr. Laver and the other members. It is a comprehensive and good report and is quite courageous. The current system is indefensible. It cannot be defended on any grounds of proper democracy or of relevance to the electorate. I have found three more written submissions in addition to what the Leader found. There were 161 submissions and there were four days of hearings. We were fortunate to be guided by people such as the Taoiseach and the former Taoiseach, Deputy John Bruton. There were many pearls of wisdom from those who came before us, all of whom were listened to attentively. The report is a good representation of the consensus that emerged from those hearings and from the submissions. It does not reflect the personal bias of any of the members of the sub-committee or their party positions. I do not think anybody promoted their party's position within the committee. That was one of its strengths.

The origins of the current Seanad under the 1937 Constitution, which was to create a vocational Chamber whereby the various vocational elements would be represented, was laudatory. Within that context it was legitimate to have the universities represented as a separate constituency. The system of vocational panels was devised. Given that the electorate was political, the nominating bodies became political instruments and it was inevitable that would happen.