“Eh, the what?”

“The Seanad…the Senate…upper house in the Oireachtas.”
“Oh. I dunno. Sorry.”
It’s two o’clock on a Thursday afternoon and Hot Press’s attempted vox pop isn’t going well. What do the citizens of Ireland (well, Grafton Street) think of Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny’s proposal to abolish Seanad Éireann? Polite shrugs and apologetic smiles all round. Few people seem to have heard of this Seanad thing.
In fairness to the general populace, even na Seanadóirí themselves don’t appear to be very interested in the goings on of Ireland’s upper house. An hour later, I’m in Leinster House. A monitor in the lobby shows one lonesome senator reading out a statement on NAMA to an entirely empty chamber.
Green Party Senator Dan Boyle is one of those who’s absent that afternoon – he’s in a party meeting, and then he’s in the canteen (which is very fancy) telling Hot Press why abolishing the Seanad is a bad idea.
“I’ve already contributed to that debate,” he says in defence of his absenteeism today. “If I was in my office I’d have the monitor on. To be honest, I’m NAMAed out at this stage.”
The Seanad’s function is to debate and amend legislation which has passed through the Dáil. Boyle believes the second house offers “more considered” debate and a “more cerebral” and “more technical” examination of legislation; he also believes that legislation is much improved by the process.
There are 60 senators. Eleven, Boyle among them, are directly appointed by the Taoiseach. Three are elected by graduates of Trinity and three by graduates of NUI. The rest are elected from very loosely defined ‘vocational panels’, by councillors and Oireachtas members.
One of the many major problems with the Seanad, say critics, is that it is grossly undemocratic. Unless you’re a politician or a graduate of one of those five universities, you don’t have a vote (so it’s no surprise that so few people know much about the Seanad). The bizarre vocational panel system, introduced in the 1930s, was modelled on an encyclical from Pope Pius XI.
In theory, the Senate is supposed to be above party politics. In practice, most senators are either failed general election candidates or would-be TDs. The ‘Taoiseach’s 11’ means the government of the day always has a majority, which effectively ensures the Seanad is something of a rubber stamp.
Everyone agrees that if the Seanad is here to stay, reform is needed. But that consensus is nothing new. There have been 12 official reports since the foundation of the state on reforming the Seanad. A referendum on extending the university franchise was passed in 1979. But nothing about the Seanad has been changed since 1937.
Enda Kenny says abolishing the Seanad altogether (and reducing the number of TDs while he’s at it) will save the exchequer €150 million over a five-year term.
Does Boyle think that’s a decent saving? “€30 million a year in the context of €55 billion being spent? No, I don’t. I think it’s always unfair to put a price on democracy. The more democratic you make a society the more it will cost.”
But Fine Gael Senator Paschal Donohoe, one of the most vocal advocates of Kenny’s proposal, disagrees:
“€30 million a year – it’s a huge amount of money. There’s a real risk that because we’re talking about NAMA and the budget and we’re dealing in billions, when someone says €1 million or €10 million we think, ‘that’s not much.’ Ten million euro would pay for cervical cancer screening for every girl in the country,” he says.
“That said, I don’t believe the argument is just about money. The primary issue is whether the Seanad, as it’s constituted, is performing an adequate enough role given the crisis we’re in.”
Donohoe believes the only effective step that can be taken in relation to the Seanad is to ask the people of Ireland in a referendum whether they want to keep it.
“Democracy is about checking whether people are happy with the way they are represented. The reform agenda doesn’t go anywhere because it comes up against the power of the party in government – the last thing any government wants is an institution that can compete with the power of the Dáil. I believe the only way that life can be breathed into the Seanad is if we consult the only ones who have more power than the Government, and that’s the people,” says Donohoe.
He’s a bit hazy on the details when asked whether that would be a referendum on scrapping the Seanad as it is now, or if people would have the option of a reformed, more democratic upper house. But then, as he says, “the likelihood is that a referendum is a few years away.”
As part of the recently negotiated programme for government, the Green Party have secured a commitment for reform of the Seanad voting-system. The electoral commission is to report back in 12 months on what reforms can be achieved through legislation (probably very few – the constitution is detailed on the subject of the Seanad so any major changes will require a referendum).
“The reforms we can make through legislation in the short term will be to the university senators – the constituents will be graduates of the other universities,” suggests Boyle, adding that some extension of the electorate for the vocational panels may also be possible. Eventually, a referendum would be held to overhaul the Seanad’s composition and powers.
Ultimately, Boyle would like to see the Seanad entirely elected by a popular vote. That would mean scrapping the ‘Taoiseach’s 11’. As a 2007 appointee of Bertie Ahern, maybe he should resign, to make a statement?
“It’s a constitutional position just like the Attorney General. If I wasn’t doing it, someone else would be doing it. And if someone else was doing it, they wouldn’t be doing what I’m doing,” says Boyle.
We’ll take that as a no then. For that matter, why doesn’t Paschal Donohoe resign his seat, if he believes the Seanad is so ineffective that there should be a vote on its abolition?
“Because we have it at the moment – while the constitution mandates me to do my duty I’ll do it. But it’s also my duty to ask is it [the Seanad] fit for purpose and does it reflect the views of the people who elect me,” says Donohoe.
Boyle dismisses the referendum idea as “a bit populist.” His explanation for Enda Kenny’s announcement: “Red C were doing a poll on that day and he wanted to grab the news headlines. It was ‘look at me’ politics , that’s all it was.”
Donohoe rejects this, arguing that the “context” for debate on the Seanad has completely changed – the country is in crisis and people must consider whether the political machinery is “fit for purpose.”
Enda Kenny has said he’ll hold a referendum on the Seanad within a year of taking office. Even if the Green Party have extended the franchise to all third-level graduates by then, the Seanad electoral system would still be anachronistic, undemocratic and elitist.
And as long as most people have no say in who represents them in the Seanad, it’s difficult to see why they would vote to keep it open for business.