Seanad Éireann

Seanad Reform: Trinity's Position

Referendum on abolition of Seanad Éireann

The Board of Trinity College Dublin considered, at its meeting on 11 September 2013, the forthcoming referendum on the abolition of Seanad Éireann and agreed that the College should include on its website certain information in relation to the Seanad and on the referendum including the contributions to the Seanad of Senators elected the University of Dublin Constituency over the years. In addition it was agreed that the College should endeavour to facilitate open debate on the matter among its staff, students and graduates.

**The information that follows below is information which was posted to the College website at that time. You can find information regarding Trinity College Dublin’s current position in respect to Seanad Éireann reform linked above.

Background to the Referendum

The Programme for Government contained a commitment to abolish Seanad Éireann, subject to approval in a constitutional referendum. The legislation was passed by Dáil Éireann and by Seanad Éireann in July 2013. The date for the referendum has been set for Friday 4 October 2013. The Referendum Commission published its information campaign on 5 September (see website at www.referendum2013.ie). The purpose of this article is to provide information to staff, students and graduates in relation to both the referendum and to Trinity representation in Seanad Éireann over the years. While the College Board is not advocating a particular position in the referendum campaign, it encourages staff, students and graduates to participate in the campaign.

University of Dublin representation in Seanad Éireann

The contribution of the 22 members of Seanad Éireann elected in the University of Dublin constituency since 1938 has been very noteworthy and a short summary of those contributions is available here. Many of those individuals have also served in other offices such as Ministers, Judges and, in the case of Mary Robinson, as President of Ireland. Dr Robinson is currently Chancellor of the University of Dublin.

Bunreacht na hÉireann (1937) provides that the 60-strong membership of Seanad Éireann will include three members elected by the University of Dublin, as well as three members elected by the National University of Ireland (Article 18.4). The wording of Section 18 of the Constitution was amended by referendum in 1979 to allow for the amendment of university representation by means of an Act of the Oireachtas. The intention was to extend the vote for the two university panels (University of Dublin and National University of Ireland) to all
degree holders, including those from other institutions, but no such change in the law has since been made (see Appendix 1 for a copy of Article 18 as amended). If the referendum is passed, Seanad Éireann will cease to exist after the next General Election, with effect from the day before the election of the Taoiseach by the new Dáil. Trinity has had representation in the Dáil of the Irish Free State and, prior to the foundation of the State, in the British House of Commons and before 1800 in the Irish Parliament.

Information on the eligibility criteria and on how to register as a voter for the University of Dublin constituency is provided on the Trinity website (see https://www.tcd.ie/vpcao/administration/records-awards/seanad-electoral-register.php). The registered electorate currently stands at 56,168 and the turnout at the most recent election was 29%. A copy of the result from the most recent election in the constituency is given at: www.seanadcount.ie

The Board previously considered representation in Seanad Éireann in 2003 when a submission was made by Trinity to the sub-committee of the Seanad Committee on Procedure and Privileges. That sub-committee was tasked with making recommendations for the reform of the Seanad and had sought submissions from interested parties. The proposals for reform which were recommended by the sub-committee were not implemented.

Article by Professor Michael Gallagher on Bicameralism

The College would like to encourage participation in the referendum debate and would like to highlight the issues around bicameralism.  This is an article by Professor Michael Gallagher, Department of Politics, School of Social Sciences and Philosophy, Trinity College Dublin, which first appeared on 3 September 2013 on “The Irish Politics Forum.”

Would a reformed Seanad be the worst outcome of all?

Never in its history has the Seanad been the focus of so much attention. Is it a vital bastion of democracy without which governments would be able to trample all over everyone’s rights, or conversely an expensive anachronism draining resources that could make a huge difference elsewhere?
Probably neither. It does a little bit of good – it provides a venue where legislation might be scrutinised in a more reflective atmosphere than in the Dáil, though no-one seems to have attempted to quantify its impact. In an article in the Sunday Business Post of 1 September Senator Katherine Zappone writes that ‘members of the Seanad have tabled 529 amendments to 14 Bills that have been passed over the past two years’. That’s a bit cryptic, but even if it is saying that all 529 amendments have been passed, it leaves uncertain how many of these represented good ideas that Senators and no-one else thought of, and how many were government amendments that happened to be introduced in the Seanad rather than the Dáil. Senators also take part in Oireachtas committees, which pretty much everyone seems to agree should have a larger role than they do – but on the whole the committees, if given a more meaningful role in preparing legislation and scrutinising government, would function perfectly well without Senators.

On the debit side, it costs money, and this seems to be the main argument in the government’s case so far. However, whether this is of the order of the €20 million claimed by the government or the €7 million figure of Democracy Matters, it is a mere drop in the sum total of public expenditure. Against the cost of retaining it must be counted the cost of holding the referendum itself, which seems to be of the order of €20 million (answers, relating to the holding of the Lisbon Treaty referendums, by the Minister for Finance to written questions from Deputy Finian McGrath, 29 June 2011). And there is also a cost, harder to quantify, in the time that government ministers will spend between now and 4 October on this subject, when they could be working on the economy.
All of which might suggest that the Seanad is a body that does some good, though not a lot, and imposes a cost, though not a lot – not good enough to be worth saving, not bad enough to be worth abolishing. Perhaps it is hardly worth making it the focus of so much political activity.
However, a new and potentially alarming spectre has now arisen, that of a ‘reformed Seanad’. Opinion polls suggest that while in a straight choice between the status quo and abolition the latter would prevail, the idea of retain-and-reform is growing in appeal. Indeed, advocates of a No vote are at pains to emphasise that they do not want to preserve the Seanad as it is – a No vote, say Democracy Matters, ‘is the first step to a new Seanad’.
The reformed Seanad, as outlined by Democracy Matters, would be a directly elected body: elected not just by the current Dáil electorate but also by those in Northern Ireland who are eligible for Irish citizenship, by all Irish passport holders abroad, and by graduates of all third-level institutions (it’s unclear whether this would include non-Irish citizens, given that Irish citizens would already have a vote under one of the other headings).
What powers should this reformed Seanad have? The Quinn–Zappone draft bill is relatively modest in its proposals, suggesting roles such as scrutinising draft EU regulations and directives as well as statutory instruments, as well as ‘the power to inquire into the need for new legislation in certain areas’. Whether voters would bother turning out in significant numbers to choose the candidates whom they regard as best equipped to scrutinise draft EU regulations is doubtful, though. Far more likely that those elected would be aspiring TDs and ministers who would, as Senators, do whatever they thought most likely to secure their election to the Dáil, and that might not involve spending much time on scrutiny of draft EU legislation.
Others go further and would like to see the Seanad given more or less the same powers as the Dáil. Vincent Browne (Irish Times, 17 July 2013) argues that the lack of accountability in the current system could be addressed by ‘giving the Seanad the same powers as the Dáil, except the power to elect and unelect a government’. And Democracy Matters, on the front page of its web site (3 September 2013), seems to see the reformed Seanad as being more powerful than the Dáil – indeed, the body to which the Dáil should in some way be answerable – stating that ‘A new and effective Seanad is critical to make the Dáil accountable to a body other than themselves’. It would also have significant legislative powers: ‘A reformed Seanad means new expertise and new legislation to underpin Ireland’s economic recovery’. The range of views on the composition and powers of any ‘reformed Seanad’ suggests that if the electorate votes No on 4 October, it would not be easy to reach swift agreement on what such a body should look like, and that in practice the current Seanad would be with us for some time.
Part of the motivation underpinning the idea of a directly-elected Seanad with pretty much all the powers of the Dáil no doubt comes from despair at the deficiencies in the Dáil’s ability to compel accountability from the government. It is indeed surprising that the government has not yet set out a definite statement of intent for Dáil reform, or preferably implemented such measures already; the kind of measures discussed in David Farrell’s post here in July. Given the ‘power grab’ theme that features in the No side’s campaign, a vague promise by the government to ‘look at’ meaningful reforms sometime in the future won’t suffice.
Even so, the idea of a strong Seanad, elected at a different time and by a different electorate than the Dáil, is unlikely to be a remedy for anything except gridlock. When the two houses disagree, whose will should prevail – that of the Dáil, or of the reformed Seanad? Looking around Europe the only examples of genuinely strong second chambers are to be found in Belgium (a manifestation of federalism), Romania (close to a presidential system), and Italy. The power of the Italian Senate is one of the main reasons why left-wing governments rarely last their full term and why the Italian system of governance is regarded as one of the least effective in Europe. If the only measures that can get through parliament are ones that can command majority support from two different houses, elected at different times by different electorates, which appears to be the Democracy Matters preferred option, then only lowest common denominator measures have much chance of making it through. It might help the case of advocates of a reformed Seanad if they could point to another country that operates the kind of model they favour.
The desire for a strong Seanad is an understandable, though surely mistaken, response to the reluctance of the government to move as far and as fast as it could in giving a more meaningful role to the Dáil, or of non-government TDs to wrest such a role from the government – a role that, while not enabling the opposition of the day to thwart the elected government, would compel a higher degree of accountability and would enable meaningful input from government backbenchers and opposition TDs. A powerful second chamber has the potential to make a big difference to the governmental system – but not necessarily for the better.

Appendix 1, Article 18 of Bunreacht na hÉireann (as amended in 1979)

Seanad Éireann

Article 18

• 1. Seanad Éireann shall be composed of sixty members, of whom eleven shall be nominated members and forty-nine shall be elected members.
• 2. A person to be eligible for membership of Seanad Éireann must be eligible to become a member of Dáil Éireann.
• 3. The nominated members of Seanad Éireann shall be nominated, with their prior consent, by the Taoiseach who is appointed next after the re-assembly of Dáil Éireann following the dissolution thereof which occasions the nomination of the said members.
• 4. 1° The elected members of Seanad Éireann shall be elected as follows:—
  
  • i Three shall be elected by the National University of Ireland.
    
  • ii Three shall be elected by the University of Dublin.
    
  • iii Forty-three shall be elected from panels of candidates constituted as hereinafter provided.
• 2° Provision may be made by law for the election, on a franchise and in the manner to be provided by law, by one or more of the following institutions, namely:
  
  • i the universities mentioned in subsection 1° of this section,
    
  • ii any other institutions of higher education in the State,
    of so many members of Seanad Éireann as may be fixed by law in substitution for an equal number of the members to be elected pursuant to paragraphs i and ii of the said subsection 1°.
    A member or members of Seanad Éireann may be elected under this subsection by institutions grouped together or by a single institution.
    
• 3° Nothing in this Article shall be invoked to prohibit the dissolution by law of a university mentioned in subsection 1° of this section.
  
• 5. Every election of the elected members of Seanad Éireann shall be held on the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote, and by secret postal ballot.
  
• 6. The members of Seanad Éireann to be elected by the Universities shall be elected on a franchise and in the manner to be provided by law.
  
• 7. 1° Before each general election of the members of Seanad Éireann to be elected from panels of candidates, five panels of candidates shall be formed in the manner provided by law containing respectively the names of persons having knowledge and practical experience of the following interests and services, namely:–
  
  • i National Language and Culture, Literature, Art, Education and such professional interests as may be defined by law for the purpose of this panel;
    
  • ii Agriculture and allied interests, and Fisheries;
    
  • iii Labour, whether organised or unorganised;
    
  • iv Industry and Commerce, including banking, finance, accountancy, engineering and architecture;
    
  • v Public Administration and social services, including voluntary social activities.
    2° Not more than eleven and, subject to the provisions of Article 19 hereof, not less than five members of Seanad Éireann shall be elected from any one panel.
    
• 8. A general election for Seanad Éireann shall take place not later than ninety days after a dissolution of Dáil Éireann, and the first meeting of Seanad Éireann after the general election shall take place on a day to be fixed by the President on the advice of the Taoiseach.
• 9. Every member of Seanad Éireann shall, unless he dies, resigns, or becomes disqualified, continue to hold office until the day before the polling day of the general election for Seanad Éireann next held after his election or nomination.
• 10. 1° Subject to the foregoing provisions of this Article elections of the elected members of Seanad Éireann shall be regulated by law.
  2° Casual vacancies in the number of the nominated members of Seanad Éireann shall be filled by nomination by the Taoiseach with the prior consent of persons so nominated.
  3° Casual vacancies in the number of the elected members of Seanad Éireann shall be filled in the manner provided by law.