Abolition or Reform of the Seanad?

[dahamsta]

This'll be a big issue in 2011 and/or 2012, so let's have somewhere to talk about it.

Please post your reasons below. "It doesn't work" isn't a valid reason. We know it doesn't work, the question is whether we still need it, or if it can be fixed.

[Macy]

1st thing I'd do is get rid of the Taoiseach - the 11 effectively mean it can't possibly have the role it's supposed with an inbuilt Government majority. Also will reduce blatant party hacks, and repayments for favours done such as Harris.

I'd also consider making it fixed term rather than tied to the Dail, but at the very least have elections at the same time so that failed Dail runners couldn't jump ship.

As for the elections - to be relevant to people it has to be directly elected. Not sure on the size, but I'd certainly have at least 26 seats done on a county basis probably on AV+ system, maybe with a limited list if more numbers are needed. I'd scrap the elitist University seats, and besides you shouldn't have two votes (they deserve to lose their seats just for Ronan feckin Mullen).

Kind of linked to the other thread, I'd also think there is a place for a seat for the North and a seat for Irish Citizens living abroad (possibly 1 for Britain and 1 for rest of the world).

[Mr A]

Reform. A reformed upper house could make a big contribution to Irish political life. The current senate has not worked well (it never really had a chance)- but the fact that it has produced some of out best parliamentarians shows that the chamber shows there is potential there.

As to exactly what shape that would take- I'm not sure, but it should be by election by the people rather than by nomination obviously.

[Eminence Grise]

A few things I’ve considered over the last few years:


The Seanad would have a single, nationwide constituency of 40 seats, elected on a list system.


Elections would take place on the same day as general elections: candidates would be prohibited from standing for both houses. Inverse proportionality would apply – the more TDs a party elects, the fewer senators it gains; the fewer TDs, the more senators.


Senators would be prohibited from serving more than two terms of office.


MEPs would be made ex officio members, with no voting powers, but a responsibility to report back on EU affairs and initiate debate on important EU measures.


The constitutional provision that up to two Senators may be ministers would be amended so that two ministers would have to be Senators.


The Senate would sit for five days each week: three in plenary and two in committee.


More legislation would be initiated in the Seanad. Amendments to Dáil initiated bills would be enforceable, except after agreement of a joint houses' committee to reject them.

[culloty82]

I'd largely agree with Macy's ideas - equal representation for each county, make sure the North, emigrants and minorities like immigrant communities, Travellers are accounted for. Likewise, it's hard to agree on the size, but a final idea could be to have a national petition for the final few seats, where members of the public could nominate experts in given fields (David McWilliams, Michael O'Leary etc.) to fill a certain remit.

[mypost]

Elections would take place on the same day as general elections: candidates would be prohibited from standing for both houses. Inverse proportionality would apply – the more TDs a party elects, the fewer senators it gains; the fewer TDs, the more senators.

More legislation would be initiated in the Seanad. Amendments to Dáil initiated bills would be enforceable, except after agreement of a joint houses' committee to reject them.

You can't change the selection process of more TD's/few senators, without changing the voting system. The current selection process is done in order to ensure the largest Dail party has the largest Seanad seats in order to ensure the votes get carried. I don't see how votes could be carried under what you're proposing.

I am in favour of both houses sitting minimum 4, probably 5 days per week, but more legislation can't be initiated in the Seanad, as it would undermine the authority of the Dail. What should happen is more proposals/amendments to legislation should be sent back to the Dail for consideration, instead of bills basically going direct from the Dail to the park, with limited intervention at best from the Seanad.

I would favour reform over abolition, but I would prefer it to be suspended, as it serves little point practically or financially in the current cllimate.

[shantykelly]

abolish it, and the political status quo is largely maintained. the world over, a second legislative house is to serve as part of the checks and balances of the democratic process. however, no power equals no checks or balances, just cheques written out to bounce. it needs reformed and it needs real political teeth. the current setup is largely a poor mans copy of westminster.

[Bluebeard]

I'm glad to see this is a one sided argument for reform over abolition. The next poll should be a referendum on what we think those reforms should be!

My two cents would be:
Direct election from constituencies not divided on Dail constituency basis (e.g. South East / Mid East / Mid West / South West / North West / Midlands / the Wesssshhhhhhhhhhht)
Fixed term not tied to Dail elections
4 days sitting, 1 day constituency / committees, one of the days seated being a Saturday
Allowance for seats from North
Ability to bring forward legislation in certain areas
Continuation of legislation examination, added ability to make amendments and return to Dail, if rejected twice by Seanad, bill dies
2 Seats at the cabinet, one to be selected by the members of the Seanad
Greater international remit with power to nominate ambassadors (coming from the idea above about EU connection)
Some other greater powers, perhaps invisibility or flight, or ability to read thoughts, though obviously with these powers would come greater responsibility.

I am inclined to believe that the Seanad will only become valid when election to it is an objective for ambitious young politicians, and no longer seen as a consolation prize or training ground. If we have to abolish something, I would ditch the presidency.

[Spudulika]

All points above have merit, EG has set out a very good process and I'd just tinker with a couple to fine tune it (adding to bluebeards additions):

Constituencies based on existing EU Parliamentary boundaries - North-West, South, East and Dublin. 40 seats up for grabs, 10 in each. The list system I'm not so keen on, though it may work well in this case.

Greater constituencies established overseas - based on Embassy reports. Every Embassy has a list of registered citizens (for example on Monday I was sent a list of numbers to track down to see if all our people here were safe), tighten this and in advance of setting the number of seats there will be an estimation of how many are in different countries/regions. Break down Europe into UK, South, East, Central/North. Allocate 2, 1, 1, 1 seats. Same with North America - East and West - 2 and 2, Canada - 1, Australia - 2, Asia and so on. This way you have a vibrant and healthy link overseas. This is going to help in a multiplicity of ways, assisting movement out, returnees, FDI etc.

The Senate will retain the right to bring in a set number of experts - those mentioned above would be excellent, also you could have somebody like Gary Keegan (ex-IABA coach) who could become a member, without voting rights, to give his guidance on sports development (for example).

I'm not sure on inverse proportionality, it might be useful to enact, however it can also be seen as slightly undemocratic to do so.

The removal of all political appointees would be a great start, drumming out Harris would be a lovely start!

[Eminence Grise]

You can't change the selection process of more TD's/few senators, without changing the voting system.

Well, yes: but since under my scheme we'd have direct elections to the Seanad, change would already be an accepted necessity. There would be no need for change to Dail elections under what I suggest.

[/QUOTE]The current selection process is done in order to ensure the largest Dail party has the largest Seanad seats in order to ensure the votes get carried. I don't see how votes could be carried under what you're proposing.[/QUOTE]

IIRC the Seanad last rejected a bill in 1964. It's a toothless upper house in a bicameral legislature that effectively acts as a unicameral one: so many bills have been passed without proper scrutiny or oversight, or because the Dail and Seanad are both led by the same party/coalition, that it actually weakens democracy. Dissent can and should lead to more considered analysis of legislation.

[Eminence Grise]

All points above have merit ... I'd just tinker with a couple to fine tune it

...

The removal of all political appointees would be a great start, drumming out Harris would be a lovely start!

Tinker away! This thread is making a lot more sense than the All Party Review Group of the Constitution! Any chance of the Foot.ie Reform Party running a few candidates?

I know what you mean by inverse proportionality being slightly undemocratic, but it was suggested by Michael Gallagher in the mid-1990s for an AMS system (half AV single seat constituencies, half list) so I'm just refocussing it slightly. I think we'd have to weigh up whether the Seanad as currently constituted as more or less democratic than my suggestion. I like the idea of bringing in outside experts for specific policy areas.

And, amen Brother! Let's drum out Eoghan Harass and his ilk as fast as we can!

[dahamsta]

Elections would take place on the same day as general elections

I'd go 4 years and 4 years, like the World Cup and the Olympics. Partly for continuity, but also because it creates an opportunity for referenda every 2 years.

[Eminence Grise]

I'd go 4 years and 4 years, like the World Cup and the Olympics. Partly for continuity, but also because it creates an opportunity for referenda every 2 years.

We could even drugs test the winners!

Midterm elections have merit, and having three available dates for referenda in a five-year cycle (Dail, Seanad, local/EU) is very sensible. You would need legislation to ensure continuity - currently when an Oireachtas term ends, unfinished work is left that way. There are also problems with membership of committees since not all members in the outgoing Oireachtas may be re-elected, so the committee terminates and a new one has to be appointed. A new midterm Seanad would need the authority to pick up where the previous one left off.

[Macy]

IIRC the Seanad last rejected a bill in 1964. It's a toothless upper house in a bicameral legislature that effectively acts as a unicameral one: so many bills have been passed without proper scrutiny or oversight, or because the Dail and Seanad are both led by the same party/coalition, that it actually weakens democracy. Dissent can and should lead to more considered analysis of legislation.

It's the Taoiseach's nominee's that basically mean that though. But as has been suggested fixed term would inevitably mean some mid term elections (even with out a fixed term Dail) which would also probably mean the Government parties getting somewhat of a hammering.

The national petition idea is quite good for a final few seats, however I don't agree with any forced cabinet seats. Also it could take personality politics to the extreme (especially given the names given as an example!). If there was a list to go alongside single seat county seats, it would give people who don't want to deal with the plebs a way in too*.

*Incidentally, any political reform has to reduce the influence and scope of TD's, and increasing county council powers. TD's and Senators should have no influence on speed of passports (for example), or be able to put their name against any planning file.

[Eminence Grise]

Good points, Macy, re local government and TDs' powers. I couldn't agree more.

What I was thinking when I suggested mandatory promotion of two senators as ministers is that, since they would be elected from a nationwide list, they would not be as susceptible to localism and worrying about Mrs McGinty's potholes as every TD is. A senator for every county is a guarantor of entrenched clientelism and brokerage, and the creation/continuation of family dynasties. It would be like going back to the days of the Gaelic Lordships!! Also, if you increase the potential pool of ministers from 166 to 206, there's a slightly improved chance that you could avoid having to give Dick Roche, Martin Cullen etc a ministry

[Spudulika]

I neglected to comment on your point, EG, about 2 Ministerial spots for Senators. I'd always thought of what I'd do if I were Taoiseach, the first thing I'd do is convene a Council of State with experts brought in to cover the Ministerial portfolios, take folks in from academics, sports, economics, business, health etc. This could be more sensibly moved into the Senate which could then be channeled into a Ministry. It's a simple but solid idea.

With the Inverse Proportionality angle, it would remove partisan politics, and I'm sure it's a way to ensure that from now on there will be greater fairness in politics.

[backstothewall]

Abolish it. It serves no purpose. The state would be much better off with 1 extra TD per constituency which would increase the chances of smaller parties and independents being elected.

In its place provincial assemblies would be good, but this is kind of screwed by partition, unless your willing to have a 3 county one for Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal. What I can tell you from my experience in the north of the 6 county assembly is that local governance works well for some things, and less well for others. It would be a great advantage for example, to Connacht, to be allowed to provide financial incentives to overseas businesses to pick Galway over Dublin to invest in. But if one was to allow hospitals to be run locally, one ends up with what the Brits called the postcode lottery, were a drug is funded in Longford but not Roscommon.

But the biggest advantage I can see in local governance is taking potholes out of the remit of the Dáil. There are about 2 dozen roads in the state that central government should be responsible for. Other than that voting for the guy who makes sure the potholes on your road are sorted out or your farm gets the funding it needs is a terrible way to pick a national government.

Oh, and even though the media in the North hate it, D'Hont works. The broad political spectrum are forced to work together for everyone.

[dahamsta]

I got as far as "1 extra TD" and had to put my milk down for fear of snorting the entire lot out my nose in hilarity.

Well done lad, more TDs, that's the answer. Dual Taoisigh too, Biffo and Bertie together, the dream team.

[Macy]

Abolish it. It serves no purpose. The state would be much better off with 1 extra TD per constituency which would increase the chances of smaller parties and independents being elected.

You don't need more TD's, it's bigger constituencies that will bring that about with no need for more TD's. Bigger constituencies means better proportionality, and the constitution allows up to 7 seaters. All the three seaters is basically gerrymandering by FF with collusion of FG - kinda ironic how things are looking, as FF are screwed in 3 and 4 seaters as the polls stand.

I agree with bigger constituencies, although not to get more Healy Raes or PD's which appears to be your logic!

[Spudulika]

I wouldn't be so harsh Dahamsta, if you read on it's pretty okay. And something that might work though it won't be let in Ireland. If we were to become a near Federation, so that central control were taken out of the equation, it might help some areas. Though I'd be almost certain we'd end up with civil war, again, and mayhem.

In sole regard to the Senate, it can work (right now it doesn't). It will work if there is a, pardon, will. I cannot see it being so because nobody who grabs power in the Dail is going to look for change, bar smaller parties yet they'll be, as evidenced too often by junior partners, pushed to the side and reduced to picking up crumbs from the table.