John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)

Given the vocational system that emerged, it was understandable it would become a political instrument and that the political parties would take it over because the electorate was political. There is no difficulty about that; the House is political. I do not see anything wrong with a House of Parliament being a political House. If the intention was to have vocational representation, it was thwarted by the electoral system which was devised.

An aspect mentioned by Senator Quinn was that some matters require constitutional change. The way the House is structured and elected would require constitutional change but the functions aspect does not require constitutional change. There are certain issues that might require legislation but not many. We have the capacity to make fundamental changes to the functional side of the House. That can and should be done quickly to bring it in line with modern thinking and the population as a whole.

The current system, which is a product of the 1937 Constitution, is arcane. If one was to try to explain how the system works to people who are politically astute and even to some Members — they need to know how it works to be elected — one would have a difficulty in the area of sub-panels, the Oireachtas nominating sub-panel and the various vocational panels. If one asked somebody to tell one off the top of their head how many members are on each of the vocational panels, I am sure he or she would have a difficulty, except for the one he or she represents, which he or she would know intimately.