There is no point to the Seanad

HUNDREDS of candidates are engaged in another frenetic election campaign, this time for a redundant institution: the Seanad. It need not be redundant, but it is.

There are only three plausible reasons for having an upper house or second chamber: to review legislation passed by the first chamber; to represent sections of society which are under-represented in the first chamber; and to provide a mechanism whereby parliamentarians not elected to the first chamber can be appointed to government.

As not one of these applies to the Seanad, there is no point to it.

The Constitution Review Group report in Appendix 22 shows that of the 177 Bills that passed through the Seanad in the period from 1985 to 1994, only 31 were amended by it - 17.5 per cent, about one in six. For several years, during that period, the proportion of Bills amended by the Seanad was far worse. In 1987, for instance, 23 Bills went through it and only one was amended. In its (almost) 60-year history, the Seanad never rejected a Bill.

As for giving representation to sections of society that are under- represented in the first chamber, this does not happen. For a start, one- third of the outgoing Seanad members were previously TDs, and, anyway, apart from the six university senators, the method of election or appointment of senators is such as to ensure that the second chamber is a mirror image of the Dail.

The Constitution Review Group observed: "A fundamental justification for the existence of a second house is that it differs from the main house in its representative character...The Senate... fails to satisfy (this) fundamental criterion"

And as for providing a mechanism for the appointment of padiamentarians who are not members of the Dail to the cabinet, this has happened only twice in the (almost) 60-year history of the Seanad (in 1957 with the appointment to the government of Sean Moylan and in 1981 with the appointment of James Dooge).

So, if the Seanad is to remain as it is, it would be better if it were abolished. The Progressive Democrats - the policy-driven party and all that was in favour of getting rid of the Seanad 10 years ago. Nothing happened in the meantime to justify a change in that policy-driven stance, apart from non-policy-driven issues (jobs for the disappointed boys and girls who failed to make it to the Dail). And certainly if there is to be no fundamental change in the Seanad's role and composition there is no reason to retain it.

Remember we did without an upper house from 1936 to 1938, when de Valera abolished the Senate of the Irish Free State. Also, many countries do without an upper house, for instance, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, New Zealand, Portugal, Norway and Sweden. Indeed Denmark, Sweden and New Zealand, having had experience of a second chamber, got rid of it and are none the worse for that.

True, the Seanad does not cost that much - about Pounds 3 million a year - but why waste the money? In addition, of course, the Seanad's existence makes the processes of government more cumbersome and, given what the Seanad does or, rather, does not do, unnecessarily so. Anyway, Pounds 3 million would finance a whole clutch of programme managers and ministerial advisers and at least they fulfil some useful function.

A second chamber could perform an important role if there was the will to make the constitutional changes that would be required.

In an appendix to that Constitutional Review Group report (page 492), Kathleen Lynch of the UCD Equality Studies Department notes: "Women have never comprised more than 12 per cent of the Dail membership or 10 per cent of the Senate membership, although they constitute 51 per cent of the population".

She also points out: "Almost 44 per cent of the population belong to the lower non-manual and the skilled and unskilled manual groups, yet only 3.6 per cent of the (last) Dail come from this socio-economic background. On the other hand, while professional groups comprise only 9.5 per cent of the population, they comprise 52 per cent of the current Dail membership." The current electoral system does not produce a Dail which is representative in either gender or socio-economic terms, she says, and observes this is also true of the Seanad.

She continues: "The lower socio-economic groups, which include the unemployed and many low-paid workers with insecure jobs and women, are forced to rely on members of higher socio-economic groups and men respectively to protect their political interests".

THE Seanad could be used to offset the Dail's gender and socio-economic bias. This could be done if, say, a quarter of the Seanad were representative of unemployed people and others from the lower socio- economic groups, if provision were made for, say, three representatives of travellers and if there were a requirement that 60 per cent of the Seanad membership was reserved for women.

Provision could also be made for representation from Northern Ireland, and emigrants. This would have to come about partly through direct election, partly through nomination by representative bodies and partly by nomination by, say, the President. The provision whereby the Taoiseach appoints 11 nominees would also have to be abolished.

But in addition to a change in the Seanad's composition, its role should also be changed. Its power to delay ordinary legislation should extend to 180 days (double the present provision) and it should have the power to delay money bills by up to 90 days (the Seanad has no powers of delay on money bills). It could also be given power to approve or reject senior public appointments, such as appointments to the Supreme Court, to heads of government Departments and to the positions of chairman or woman of semi- state organisations.

Of course, the six university seats would have to go - this is perhaps the most obnoxious aspect of the present Seanad membership. Isn't it extraordinary that we specifically provide for additional representation in the Oireachtas for precisely that group in society (i.e. university graduates) which is already vastly over-represented in the Dail and that otherwise enjoys such privilege in society? The suggested "reform" of this by extending the franchise to graduates to all third-level institutions would make the arrangement hardly less obnoxious.

Of course, such an arrangement would be resisted by whatever government is in power, for it would no longer be able to control the Seanad, as it controls the Dail. And so it is unlikely ever to happen.

It is best, therefore, that the Seanad be abolished.