The Government is on the cusp of introducing the biggest package of political reform since the passing of the Constitution in 1937. It has already introduced changes in parliamentary procedures, gender quota legislation and political funding. Previous Governments promised for years to reform the way in which we conduct our business. I genuinely hope that the difference this time is that the Government will deliver.
The Seanad was created in its current form in the 1937 Constitution. It was inspired by the idea of corporatism, which is the belief that voters should not be organised in groups according to geography, as in the Dáil but on the basis of occupation. Much of the rationale for the inclusion of the Seanad in Bunreacht na hÉireann has ceased to be relevant over time. Serious questions must be asked about the continued role of an entity which is still struggling to justify its existence after three quarters of a century. For 75 years, political insiders have discussed and debated Seanad reform, with ten reports published, not one of which was implemented in any way, shape or form.
In the context of the Government proposal to abolish the Seanad and deliberations of the Constitutional Convention, there has been much discussion on Dáil reform. Countries across the world have, at one time or another, wrestled with the question of how to design political institutions that best support an open, stable and prosperous society governed by the rule of law. In 1987, the Progressive Democrats Party promised it would "terminate" the Seanad. The former Minister, Michael McDowell, who has since experienced a lightbulb moment and become a supporter of the Seanad, stated in the past that the Seanad had been "largely used as an ante room to Dáil Éireann, to house would-be newcomers, temporary absentees, and as a consolation prize for those who had lost their seats". These are Mr. McDowell's words, not mine.
Ireland is one of a small and declining band of small non-federal states to have a second chamber. The Seanad, as currently constituted, has little role in or influence over politics or the legislative process. While there have been great Senators, debates and speeches, individuals such as Mary Robinson and Jim Dooge and many others who graced the Seanad over the years did not need the platform of the Upper House.
Let us consider the most crucial issue, the essential difference between the Dáil and Seanad, namely, the former is elected by the people whereas the Seanad is not. Under the current model, almost 20% of Senators are appointed rather than elected - hardly a model of representative democracy. While there are ostensibly a number of outside nominating bodies to ensure vocational interests are represented, no candidate put forward by any of those bodies has a snowball's chance in hell of being elected unless he or she has acceptable party political credentials.
While everyone may be different in their economic or individual lives, when citizens stand before the political institutions of this State and vote they must be treated equally. The Seanad fails that test completely. Most citizens have only one vote in a general election. Thanks to the Seanad system, it is possible for some individuals to have eight votes. For example, in addition to voting in elections to the Dáil, a person who is an NUI and Trinity College graduate will have two votes. If he or she happens to be a Deputy or county councillor, he or she will also have five votes for the vocational panels. This is hardly democratic. The notion of a separate panel for university graduates, which is written into the Constitution, is an accident of history which has no place in a modern democracy. There is agreement on one issue, namely, the need for reform, and the Government, under the Taoiseach, is ensuring we get reform.
Throughout its history, the Seanad has rarely added democratic value. The healthiest development in respect of this debate would be if it were to focus attention on the need to give meaning and life to the Dáil. A major element in the argument of the "No" campaign is that we need the Seanad to provide a system of checks and balances. While there is no doubt that we desperately need checks and balances in our system, the Seanad has never acted as a check or balance in the system because it was not designed to do so. On the contrary, it was designed to mirror party support in the Dáil. This was made possible by the provision for the Taoiseach to make 11 appointees to the Upper House. Every Seanad has reflected the composition of the Dáil, which has meant that all legislation introduced by the Government in the Dáil received support in the Seanad.
Other systems, such as those in place in Denmark, Finland and New Zealand, the three longest established democracies, have shown it is possible to introduce checks and balances in a single chamber parliament. However, the issue of whether a parliament should have a second chamber is only one aspect of parliamentary design. The presence or absence of a second chamber cannot determine whether a parliament will be an effective democratic institution. A parliament's procedural arrangements can remove the need for a second chamber.
Dáil reform is crucial and not merely an added extra. A radical overhaul of the committee system will be required to make it more independent. A new legislative system must allow for greater and closer scrutiny of key legislation.
A comprehensive committee system can take care of the second Chamber review function. Last week, the Taoiseach said measures will to be introduced to improve the working of the Dáil to ensure proper accountability and oversight, and I have every faith that will happen.
The Bill is part of real political change. Parliaments need to be designed to ensure they are a constant, credible and legitimate check on Government. The Government is giving us the opportunity for this. The recent past has shown us all too painfully the dangers of bad Government. We deserve more so let us get it.
