Could the call for radical Seanad reform re-ignite debate over Oireachtas reform?

Posted by David Farrell, April 13, 2015

The Report of the Working Group on Seanad Reform was published earlier today (see here). It was given a limited range of options: no change, minor change, or major change (but not involving constitutional reform). In opting for the latter the working group has defied most expectations (certainly mine), and in so doing has potentially re-opened the far more important debate over the need for radical Oireachtas reform.

Among the working group’s recommendations are the following main highlights:

  • To open up Seanad elections for 30 seats to all citizens voting by post (using internet technology to keep the costs down)
  • The electorate to include all passport holders in Northern Ireland and overseas
  • 13 of the Seanad seats to be elected ‘indirectly’ (by Oireachtas members and Concillors)
  • The Seanad to be given distinct roles in such areas as EU secondary legislation, North-South ministerial Council proposals, investigating on matters of public policy interest, etc.

There is a clear injunction that this report should be implemented without delay. To that end the Working Group proposes to produce a draft Bill in the next few weeks, that it proposes should be ‘signed into law before the end of this calendar year’. And it makes an explicit recommendation that an implementation body be established ‘as a matter of urgency’ to be located in the Department of the Taoiseach with the Taoiseach in a leading role to ensure smooth and speedy passage.

Here are a few initial questions:

First, we’re not told what mechanisms will be in place to prevent imbalances across the six directly elected functional constituencies (i.e. the five vocational panels and the university seats). If citizens have the right to register for the constituency (panel) of their choice, what happens if, say, one or other of the panels attract a significantly smaller sign-up? This runs the risk of what political scientists refer to as ‘malapportionment’, a serious no-no in any electoral system.

Second, will the electorate for the indirect panels (i.e. Oireachtas members and Councillors) also have a vote in the direct election of the other 43 senators – thus giving them two votes? This would conflict with the working group’s principle of ‘one person one vote’.

Third, no estimate is provided of the cost of the proposed internet/postal ballot scheme for posting. Even with the cost saving by dispatching ballots via the Internet, this is more expensive than our usual voting method. If these proposals were to be accepted by the government, then why not at least consider a referendum in the lifetime of the next parliament to remove the requirement for a postal ballot? I realize that the working party were not in a position to make a recommendation of this sort, but perhaps this is something that might now be raised by the implementation body.

Of course, that assumes an implementation body ever sees the light of day. The mood music from the Taoiseach’s department doesn’t auger too well in that regard (see here). We’re given the usual aul guff about the Taoseiach ‘intending to meet’ with other party leaders and a suggestion that the working group ‘make a presentation’ to the Oireachtas Committee on the Environment and ‘attend a hearing’ in the Seanad – all marking the familiar smells of long grass.

Whatever our views might be on the role, functions – or indeed relevance – of the Seanad, there is much to be welcomed in this Report. Despite the constraints set on the role of the working group they have opted to be adventurous rather than conservative. If their recommendations ever do see the light of day then this will have broader ramifications, because if the Seanad is reformed and made a more significant player in our political system this would impact on the broader – and far more important question – of real and substantial Oireachtas reform. If the Seanad changes then the Dáil can no longer stand still.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Could the call for radical Seanad reform re-ignite debate over Oireachtas reform?

  1. I take it the terms of reference for this body were drawn up by the Office of an Taoiseach.
    The requirement to implement changes without reverting to further referenda, meaning therefore, that the university franchise, albeit expanded, is retained, which of itself could provide electors with more than one vote, is, in an alleged democracy, unacceptable!
    Why?
    My own view, based upon growing up in that occupied area of our country, remembering the old Dundonald government at Stormont which had a Seanad, which, until 1969 had a specific ‘university franchise’ but which elitism was removed in 1969 by this less than democratic ‘regional legislature’ is that in 2015, the governance of our nation requires more, not the less democracy intended by major parties here in proposing/supporting the 32nd amendment to Bunreacht na hÉireann.
    A point largely lost on Muintir na hÉireann at the time of the referendum, supra, was the attempt to remove Art. 27 (5)(i), seen by commentators as an act unrelated to Seanad abolition but further empowering this amalgam of fascists and recently IRA supporting politicians to grab more power from those whose will is dominant in politics, the same Muintir na hÉireann.
    What is the attachment to providing a third level elite with additional input to an Oireachtas?
    As above, the wholly undemocratic Stormont regime, 1923-72, abolished this franchise some fourty six years ago, why have our sisters and brothers in the ‘Republic’ not followed our suit? Is it that Republicanism, or everyone having an equal say in governance of this Republic, is loss of control anathema to the elite which feeds our government, or a lack of respect for what they seem to believe are lesser persons, the cooks,hairdressers, plumbers, brickies, sparks, care assistants etc. or in another way, those whose hard work and taxes pay for the education system which supports this franchise?
    While obviously I welcome some extension of Oireachtas representation to the six counties, if the university franchise were removed, we should have six additional seats, or one for each occupied county, and, were we to remove the additionally undemocratic ‘Taoiseach nominations’ we should have, in total, seventeen seats for direct election by the people of Ireland here and our diaspora.
    Without doubt, the readers of this blog, largely graduates, will abhor such blasphemy however, from a moral, economic and republican perspective, retention of unelected representatives in Dail or Seanad Éireann, to me, smacks of the old idea that some people are worth more than others, an uncomfortable idea for a republican, perhaps not for others!
    fn, I myself am a graduate, and post graduate of Irish and Scot’s universities.
    Thank you to David for an interesting analysis and links.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s