THE SEANAD, as presently constituted, is not fit for purpose. That has been an unpalatable reality for decades. Nothing was done by various governments to confront glaring deficiencies, other than arrange for a succession of reports. Reform, rather than abolition, was the favoured option of those deliberations. This Government has, however, chosen abolition as the easiest option and intends to hold a referendum next year. That decision, driven by a pre-election announcement from Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny, reflected public disillusionment with the political system at the time and a populist approach to a complex issue. It should be revisited. The Government risks another bloody nose at the hands of the electorate or a diminution of our democracy.
At the heart of the matter is the fact that no compelling case has been made for its abolition, though a Labour Party policy document outlines how parliamentary oversight could be strengthened with only the Dáil. Mr Kenny’s announcement in 2009, on the grounds that the cost could no longer be afforded, surprised his own party. Such was the toxic nature of public opinion that both Fianna Fáil and Labour endorsed the proposal, but have since developed reservations. Abolition would bring financial savings but they would be relatively modest. On the other hand, Executive power would grow still further at the expense of minority groups and a broad cross section of society. That would be an unhealthy development.
As preparations are being made for the establishment of a constitutional convention, it seems extraordinary that this matter should not be its remit. Public discussion on a reduction in the voting age or changes to the system of proportional representation for the Dáil could have a direct bearing on a future role for the Upper House. Many good ideas have been put forward on how the Seanad nomination and voting systems could be altered to reduce party-political influence and give minority groups and the wider public a more meaningful voice. They deserve further consideration.
A campaign for reform, rather than abolition, has been initiated by a group composed mainly of retired members. Six former senators set out grounds for its retention in a letter to this newspaper. The individuals concerned represent some of the most influential and thoughtful voices to have emerged from the Upper House where they helped to shape public policy and broaden political debate. At a time when President Michael D Higgins has urged greater intellectual engagement in addressing issues of social and economic development, their voices chime with his agenda.
If the Seanad is to be retained, reform should be radical. The Upper House should not compete with the Dáil, but could – through its deliberations – influence it and provide medium- and long-term perspectives across many areas of policy. Among other things, it could give a voice to Irish emigrants; provide gender balance and fair representation from third-level institutions, along with the direct election of people knowledgeable in economic, social and cultural affairs.