Seanad: An exercise and celebration of privilege

A major reform of Seanad Éireann was proposed three years ago. Since then nothing has changed and it remains a siphon of government

On 28 April 2004, over three years ago, the Seanad Éireann Committee on Procedures and Privileges recommended reforms to the Irish upper house. It was comprised of Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fáil), Brian Hayes (Fine Gael), John Dardis (PDs), Brendan Ryan (Labour) and Joe O'Toole (Independent).

It recommended that the number of senators increase from 60 to 65; that the vocational panels, on the basis of which 42 of the 60 senators are elected, be abolished; that 26 senators be elected by proportional representation from a national list, which would mean that parties getting more than four per cent of the national vote would get a Seanad seat; that 20 senators should be elected by TDs, outgoing senators and councillors; that six senators would be elected by all third-level graduates, not just graduates from Trinity (TCD), UCC, UCD and UCG.

It also recommended that the Seanad be given responsibility for inspecting the North/South bodies and improving scrutiny of European Union legislation; that the leader of the Seanad should also have the right to attend Cabinet with the status of either Minister, or Minister of State; that the Taoiseach would nominate 12 further senators than at present. Bertie Ahern said he was in agreement with these proposals and he arranged for the convening of a special committee under the chairmanship of the then Minister for the Environment, Martin Cullen, to arrange for the introduction of these reforms.

Unsurprisingly, nothing was done. We are about to have another election for the Seanad which remains unreformed and largely irrelevant. Unsurprising, particularly perhaps because this was the 12th cross-party report on the reform of the Seanad in the lifetime of the Senate, which happens to be 70 years old this year.

At present the Seanad is comprised of 12 nominees of the Taoiseach, six university Senators, with the remaining 42 senators being chosen by TDs, outgoing senators and councillors from what are laughably known as vocational panels. The Seanad is always controlled by the government of the day which means its freedom of action is hugely constricted. The manner in which 42 senators are “elected” results in a bizarre misrepresentation of the electorate, the most bizarre element being the under-representation of Dublin and the perverse absurdity of graduates of TCD and NUI choosing six senators through direct elections.

There is no point in having an upper house at all now. As does the Dáil, it operates as a siphon of the government, rarely adding or subtracting anything to legislation, rarely holding government to account. And the manner of election – indeed the very idea – of the university senators is an obscene celebration of privilege (the suggested “reform” fails to address the issue, merely proposing the extension of privilege to graduates of all third level institutes).

This is not to argue there should not be a second Parliamentary chamber, indeed one elected directly by the people on the basis of a single constituency would be welcome provided it had powers to initiate and amend legislation, powers to hold the government of the day fully to account. This arrangement would enable the election of representatives of minority groups and interests – for instance it would almost guarantee the election of a representative of the Traveller community. This arrangement would be a welcome antidote to the Dáil where the sitting government controls its operation and business, rendering accountability merely theoretical. Provided there would not be an arrangement built into the system whereby the government was guaranteed a Seanad majority through nominees of the Taoiseach.

But precisely because such an arrangement would ensure accountability, it will never happen. Such is the preeminence of government in our present arrangement that no constitutional reform or change that a government doesn't want cannot happen. It controls the Oireachtas which is where any constitutional initiative must emerge, thereby ensuring nothing to displease it constitutionally can ever come about. And for that same reason, no change to this arrangement can happen either. Unless…

In a general campaign for equality and answerability public opinion was mobilised to demand constitutional and procedural change, including the transformation of the upper house into a chamber of accountability and representativity, then and only then would a government act to change the system against is own self-interest. But we are a long way from that in our politics, now focused on the prize of office.

In the present arrangement, those with voting rights for the university seats may feel faced with a dilemma: whether to take part in the process at all, thereby exercising an obnoxious privilege, or whether to boycott it, thereby easing the way of candidates who are hostile of the ideal of equality (if everyone who thought the idea of university graduates having such privilege was obnoxious were to boycott the process, then even more obnoxious candidates would be elected).

The dilemma is illusory. Nothing at all can be achieved by taking part in this process, except to cement privilege in the Oireachtas. It is not as through any Senator, however committed to equality, can make a whit of difference. The honourable course is to destroy the ballots, or, better still, write across the face of the ballots a protest against the process.