Three all-party reports have urged fundamental reform of the functions and composition of the Seanad and its election processes in the past 10 years. That followed a referendum, nearly 30 years ago, which provided for changes in the electoral base for six university seats. In spite of political commitments from Taoiseach Bertie Ahern and successive governments, however, nothing has happened. Now, Minister for the Environment and Green Party leader John Gormley has reopened the issue.
There is general agreement that the Seanad, as currently constituted, serves little purpose. Reformers have approached the Upper House of the Oireachtas on the basis that it should be made more relevant and democratic. Even its own members took as their starting point the premise that it should be abolished if a viable and creative role could not be found for it. On that basis, a Seanad group led by Mary O'Rourke proposed many of the changes that will now be considered by Mr Gormley and another all-party committee.
There are difficulties with those recommendations. No convincing argument has been made for a need to increase the size of the Seanad from 60 to 65 seats. And while few would quibble with ending an antiquated system of vocational panels and the introduction of direct elections, the changes may not go far enough. Why should direct and indirect Seanad elections take place at different times? If the intention is to reduce its subordination to the Dáil, surely the interests of TDs should not be made a consideration and all elections should be held together? Why should the number of directly-elected members be confined to 32? What about gender balance? And should political patronage be further entrenched by increasing the number of Taoiseach's nominees to 12?
The Seanad is not permitted to frustrate the wishes of the Dáil. It cannot initiate money Bills. Its modest contribution has come mainly through university representatives who advocated socially-reforming policies. Political parties have used it as an unofficial lying-in hospital for those Dáil members who lost their seats, or as a staging post for aspiring TDs.
If the Seanad is to make a relevant contribution, it must step out from beneath the shadow of the Dáil and have distinctive personnel and functions. Members should be encouraged to debate social partnership issues; consider trends and difficulties in our developing multi-cultural society; examine long-term implications of government policies; scrutinise EU legislation and North/South developments and review appointments to public bodies. That way, it could make a difference.