RITE AND REASON:I AM profoundly uncomfortable with the clamour for Senate abolition. It seems the party political establishment, having long exploited the Seanad and undermined its intended vocational character to suit their own ends, has suddenly decided it has no further use for it.
Before we dispense with our parliamentary second chamber we should think carefully about why such a House should exist.
The Senate does need reform and one improvement would be to hold elections to it, in whatever manner is used, simultaneously with Dáil elections so that service in the Upper House becomes a calling and a privilege in its own right rather than a second best for those who fail to enter the Dáil.
An upper house should be a place where legislation is scrutinised, and sometimes initiated, by people of expertise who sit lightly on the party system. It should be a place where the public know that individuals skilled in economics, history, medical ethics, international relations, agriculture, industry and education sit side-by-side and bring real objectivity and depth to law reform.
The presence of such members should ensure there are no no-go areas when it comes to the responsibility of parliament to legislate for the varied realities of society.
They will need to advance politically unpopular or awkward causes – for example in the area of bio-ethics and human reproductive technology there are matters that continue to cry out for legislation. In particular the Seanad should be a forum where genuinely independent (with a small “i”) and prophetic voices can be heard.
Even the last Seanad managed to do this to an extent. One may not agree with all that David Norris, Ivana Bacik or Shane Ross (who happened to represent me there through the no doubt unfair channel of university franchise) may have said, but their approach brought trenchancy and freshness to public debate.
Through the years independent voices in the Seanad have managed to raise issues that at the time seemed hopeless but which eventually became major public concerns.
I remember Mary Robinson’s long struggle to address the issue of contraception and the pioneering work of WB Stanford in the area of animal welfare. One of the sad realities of today’s party politics is that it is almost impossible for a private member of the Oireachtas to get a measure on to the statute book.
However cynical we may feel about the political process, we must not abandon the principle that the legislature needs those fearless and prophetic voices but who will never be elected through the usual constituency system.
What right have I to say all this? Perhaps it is because, over and above any political institution, the Church of Ireland itself has the longest continuous tradition of neo-parliamentary government in this land. At disestablishment in 1870 we adopted synodical government based somewhat on the procedures and composition of Westminster at the time.
Without any party system or whips, we have legislated year by year to keep the church in tune with the needs of the times. The two Houses of the General Synod, the Bishops and the Representatives, complement each other and provide a useful system of checks and balances as the right way forward is discerned.
Nowhere is the independent and tolerant voice in my experience cherished quite as it is in the synod. There is no similar body in Ireland where people with such a range of political and social opinions and loyalties sit with one accord in one place.
As a Christian citizen I cherish the Irish parliamentary tradition in which the Church of Ireland has played an honourable part and the future of which needs to be considered with great care, prayer and respect.
It is just not good enough to offer the people a Hobson’s choice between the present Seanad or no Seanad at all.
Michael Burrows is Church of Ireland Bishop of Cashel and Ossory. The Church of Ireland General Synod takes place in Armagh Thursday until Saturday.