Seanad Eireann Abolish or Reform?

Seanad Eireann is the upper house of the Oireachtas and is located in Leinster House. The Seanads recent criticisms have sparked an abolish or reform debate, in which, one side is calling for drastic changes to the Seanads functions and the other desires complete abolishment. It has long been the case that a satisfactory senate is a difficult entity to create and maintain. This dilemma was encapsulated by Abb Sieyes in his famous quote When two chambers agree one of them is superfluous, when they disagree one of them is pernicious. Many countries have abolished their senates, for example Northern Ireland, now Seanad Eireanns existence has been called into question. Both sides of the abolish or reform debate agree that the Seanad has rather extensive list of problems. As outlined by The Seanad Reform Report 2004, the Seanad has two primary problems and many secondary ones. The first primary problem is that the Seanad plays a very frivolous role in the Irish political system. As Kelly stated, the fact that few items of legislation find there origin in the Seanad clearly shows its ineffectiveness. It is dominated by the Dail who posses more power in all matters legislative, financial and governmental. The domination exerted over the Seanad by Dail Eireann is allowed by articles 20-24 of the Irish constitution. An example of the Seanads relative political weakness is the fact that it may only delay laws with which it does not agree, it can not veto them outright. The second primary problem is its electoral system, which is outlined in the Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Act 1947. The current system of five vocational panels electing 43 out of a possible 900 or so candidate tends to produce members with political backgrounds instead of the desired vocational one. Also, as the members of the Seanad are not directly elected, it is seen by many citizens as a distant legal entity out of the scope of their control. Along with these two primary problems, there are also numerous secondary ones. The amount of expenses claimed by members of the upper house has been the centre of the abolishment argument for some time. It was made public that between 2005 and 2008, members of the Seanad cost tax-payers 27.57 million through wages and expenses. Another problem is the university representation because currently, only graduates of NUI or TCD can be elected for representation in the Seanad. The fact that the Seanad is dominated by the government of the day is another reason why it is seen as ineffective. Many believe that this control has aided in the Seanad becoming weak and ineffective. Finally, the lack of representation for the minority groups of Ireland has contributed to the Seanad being pushed into questionable value. In the heated abolish or reform argument, the rather rash view of total abolishment is held by a small minority including Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny. This argument is primarily founded on the belief that the Seanad has no purpose in modern Ireland and that it is an irreformable entity. As other former commonwealth countries have abolished their upper houses to no apparent detrimental effect, the abolish side of the Seanad debate believe that Ireland could only benefit from following suit. Despite some dissidence the majority believe in reformation. Voters and politicians alike believe that if the Seanads electoral processes and political functions are altered correctly, then it can be refined into a political dynamo. As the Seanad Reform Report correctly stated, granting the Seanad legislative powers could cause a situation of legislative gridlock. As Forde points out, the Seanad currently possesses relatively little political power. However, this apparent political weakness is founded on logic, if the upper house could veto bills or delay laws for a greater length of time, delays may

occur in the implementation of vital legislation. It is for this reason that the report suggested that the number of non-legislative functions carried out by the Seanad should be increased to include enhanced parliamentary scrutiny and a greater involvement in EU affairs, amongst others. Not only would this enhance the Seanads value, but it would also avoid any delay in the passing of important laws. The report concluded that the current electoral system is too archaic to be reformed. Kelly concurs with this view, suggesting that a wider electoral body along the lines of vocation would help revitalise the Seanad. A new electoral system would help bridge the gap between the Seanad and the citizens of Ireland. Wage capping and a severe reduction in allowed expenses would prevent members of the Seanad from squandering tax payers money. University representation in the Seanad should be open to all 3rd level institutions in Ireland. This is agreed on by all universities of Ireland, including TCD and all NUI colleges. To combat the problem of a lack of representation of minorities in the Seanad, the Seanad Reform Report deduced that the Taoiseach should choose nominees with the capability to represent minority groups. If this were to be implemented then the Taoiseachs discretion in nominating his 11 candidates to the Seanad would be reduced, therefore, reducing the control that the government of the day has over the Seanad. The above reformation suggestions make it apparent that the Seanad can be reformed into the political dynamo desired by so many. The purpose of the Seanad is to keep Dail Eireann in check, at this moment in time the Seanad does not fulfil this purpose, it is merely a frivolous drain on Irelands funds. However, if suitable legislation were passed we could give the Seanad beneficial functions as well as stopping the Dail from imposing its will on it. If altered correctly the Seanad can most definitely be of a great benefit to our countries political system.