Reforming the Seanad

With the failure of the recent referendum to abolish the Seanad there is now a desire to reform the

house, both from it's members and the population at large. Despite being in existence since the enactment of our constitution, the Seanad has long been a source of controversy, with many seeing it as a pointless organ of the state. However, as the recent referendum shows, people are not willing to abandon the Seanad completely; instead it must be reformed to become a more functioning part of our democratic system

Perhaps the area in the most pressing need for reform is the election of members to the Seanad, the Seanad has 60 members, who are elected by a variety of means, although not in a manner which is open to the general public. This creates a conflict of interest and a lack of democratic transparency.

43 are elected by a vote of county councillors, incoming TD's and outgoing Senators. 3 members are elected by the graduates of UCD, NUIG and UCC with a further three being elected directly from Trinity College Dublin and the remaining 11 members are appointed by the Taoiseach.

It has become clear that such an election method is undemocratic and unfair not only on the graduates of other universities as well as the general public. While it is not an unfavourable idea to have a parliamentary body elected by the learned of society, this should be extended to all universities, not just those fortunate enough to exist at the time of the constitutions drafting. Particularly unfair is the case of Trinity College Dublin, which despite having less than 10% of the student population of Ireland takes a full 50% of the student vote for the Seanad. Also unfair is those 43 who are elected by County Councillors and Incoming TD's, this creates a conflict of interest as politicians may seek to reward their colleagues who have lost their seats with an easy retirement. This causes animosity and resentment by the general population of the country, feeding an already present distrust for politicians. In addition, the eleven members appointed by the Taoiseach are far too numerous. This essentially ensures a majority for the incumbent’s party, making the Seanad far less likely to revolt.

Another area in need of reform is the legislative powers of the Seanad. Currently a bill that is initiated in either house of the oireachtas must be sent to the other house for approval, however different rules apply when either house chooses to amend or reject the bill. Should the Dail reject a bill it will not be written into law, but should the Seanad reject the bill that bill may still become law. Essentially the Seanad may only delay a bill for a period of 90 days and once this period has expired the Dail may declare the bill to have been passed by both houses. While this has only happened on rare occasions, it still creates the problem of the Seanad being viewed as a house with very little power. The Seanad’s powers are even more limited to what are called Money Bills.

These bills which concern anything to do with spending or collecting public money may only be introduced in the Dail and do not require the Seanad’s approval, additionally the Seanad lacks its power to delay. While it may make recommendations, the Dail is free to ignore them.

This is a clear area much in need or reform, to have a house which can effectively be ignored by the other house is not only pointless but it borders on the absurd and is a waste of the public’s money. The Seanad has been most famous for introducing civil rights bills and thus it should be given equal power to the Dail in regards to these. This would create an Oireachtas in which one house can focus on the monetary issues of a country while the other focuses on the well and civil liberties of its people.

Under the present system the Dail alone has an exclusive role in respect to the Government, the Taoiseach although technically appointed by the president, is selected by the Dail from its members, who also have the power to decide on the selection of ministers who form the incoming government. This means that the Taoiseach and the Government depend on the Dail alone for their continuation in office and are free to ignore the demands of the Seanad. What is also noteworthy is the fact that while ministers may be appointed from any member in the Dail, only two may come from the ranks of the Seanad, something which is rare in practice. This is unfortunate, as it prevents the election of highly skilled individuals from the Seanad as a mere two of them would be eligible to become part of any Government. This further inforces the idea laissez faire house of parliament, which not only wastes the taxpayers money but is almost completely ineffectual in representing their interests.

Taking all of these issues together it has become abundantly clear that the Seanad is in dire need of reform. Not only is it's electoral process profoundly undemocratic it's powers and functions are ineffectual at best and utterly pointless at worst. It is clear that under the present system the Seanad is a broken house of parliament, which perhaps makes it all the more surprising that the people voted to retain it in the recent referendum. This makes it clear that despite it's deficiencies, the people are in favour of the Seanad as a concept, although most would agree that it is in desperate need of reform. First should be its election process, either by removing the vote incoming politicians and transferring these to other universities, or opening up the vote to the general public.

Furthermore, the number of seats available to the Taoiseach should be drastically reduced. An interesting idea would be to perhaps grant the outgoing Taoiseach a number of seats; this could prevent the risk of majoritarianism. Also in need of change would be the powers of the Seanad, which should be extended so that the Dail cannot simply ignore it, it should also be given a degree of power over money bills. Finally, and perhaps most importantly the Seanad should have a say in the election of the Government as a house of the people they should express the peoples wishes.

From the above evidence it is clear that the Seanad is in need of reform, currently it has far too little power and has become a breeding ground for failed politicians, a vestigial organ of the state.

Reforms should happen sooner, as opposed to later, as they are what the people demand.