Seanad shows the way when it comes to parliamentary reform

ONE of the most interesting contributions to the Dáil debate on citizenship last week was that of the Fianna Fáil deputy Barry Andrews.

While I don’t find myself in agreement with his views on the timing of the referendum, I agree entirely with what he had to say about the sorry lot of Government backbenchers and the need for Dáil reform.

Mr Andrews’s remarks were important, not just because of what he said but because he chose to say it in the Dáil debate.

In the last few years many backbenchers, on both the Government and opposition benches, have muttered frustrations at being no more than voting fodder. Few of them, however, have had the courage to make the same point in the chamber.

The irrelevance of the Dáil backbencher is a by-product of the declining relevance of the Dáil itself. In the power balance of our political system, cabinet members and party leaderships are almost entirely dominant over their parliamentary parties.

It has been soul-destroying to watch the neutering of the Dáil as a parliamentary chamber designed to hold Government to account.

There are too many set-piece exchanges at question time where no real information emerges. There is a growing inability of the Dáil to hold ministers or the civil service responsible for their actions and their policy development.

Seanad Éireann has also being struggling against a similar tide of parliamentary irrelevance, but at least senators are doing something about it. There is an independence of mind in the upper house which is sadly lacking on the Dáil benches.

This is due in part to the prominence of the independent university members, but it is also because many of the political party senators are less deferential to their party leaderships than the typically compliant Dáil backbencher.

This independent streak is also reflected in the report on Seanad reform published yesterday.

Reports on Seanad reform are not necessarily things to get overly excited about. There have been 11 previous reports on reform of the Seanad, all of which have merely gathered dust. However, you get a sense that there is something different about the report launched yesterday.

First, the Seanad itself took this initiative. The sub-committee on Seanad reform arose from a debate in the Seanad in October 2002, in which most members accepted the need for a change in both its procedures and its method of election.

Secondly, the reform committee was chaired by the current leader of the Seanad, Mary O’Rourke, and was made up of the leaders of the other groups.

They have been considering the issue for almost a year, received 161 submissions, held four days of oral hearings last September and even considered comparative upper houses in other jurisdictions.

This all-party committee managed to come up with a report upon which they could all agree and one which is likely therefore to attract widespread political support.

The report is full of proposals about additional areas of policy-making which the Seanad could explore without cutting across the Dáil’s primary position.

The recommendations include a formal public consultation process at an early stage in legislation and an extensive role of oversight of European affairs.

Perhaps the most significant suggestion is to give the Seanad specific responsibility for medium-term policy review. Too much political debate in this country is focused on the short term or on imminent electoral timetables.

There is a real need for the Oireachtas to lead strategic debate. Here the Seanad could carve out a niche for itself. It would also be a useful means of applying the diverse expertise which sits on the Seanad’s benches.

The report suggests that the Seanad systematically consider reports on medium-term economic and social planning and conduct multi-annual reviews of the performance of government departments and agencies. This is particularly welcome.

Currently, too much of the attention paid to government departments by Dáil committees is focused on expenditure controls and value for money. Too little attention is paid to the quality of the strategic planning and policy output in which departments should be primarily engaged.

Interesting too is the reform committee’s suggestion that the Seanad should have a role in approving senior public appointments.

Although the report does not specify the list of appointments in which the Seanad should have a role, it does recommend legislation to set out structures and categories of office-holders in whose appointment the Seanad should have a role.

IT is actually one of the minor changes suggested by the reform committee which could have the most impact if implemented.

They suggest that former Taoisigh and Tánaiste would have the right to attend and speak (although not vote) in the Seanad. Through this mechanism, these former senior politicians could continue to give the benefit of their insight to public and legislative debate.

While we still have the benefit in the Dáil of John Bruton’s views and we can read what Garret Fitzgerald has to say in a newspaper column, it would be interesting and useful to hear what people like Albert Reynolds and Dick Spring have to say, for example, on some of the more recent happenings in Northern Ireland, in Europe and in the Middle East.

However, what is most significant about the report published yesterday is that it acknowledges and accepts the general public view that any proposal to give the Seanad greater standing must involve a radical change of the manner in which it is elected.

Here the report is genuinely radical. It recommends abandoning the myth of a vocational basis for the election of the Seanad and proposes instead that 26 senators would be elected in one national constituency by everyone who has a vote in Dáil elections on a PR List system.

Another six would be elected in one constituency in which the graduates of nearly all colleges would vote. Both of these elections would be held on the same day as local and European elections.

They then suggest that the other half of the Seanad continue to be elected after each general election. Twenty senators would continue to be elected by councillors and sitting Oireachtas members, but in one constituency rather than on vocational panels, and the Taoiseach would nominate 12 senators.

Two of the Taoiseach’s nominees would be representative of Northern Ireland and he would also have regard to the need for emigrant/immigrant and marginalised voices in selecting his 12.

Also significant is the fact that the committee has set out an implementation process. They specify which of their proposals require constitutional changes, others which require acts of the Oireachtas and some which merely require adjustment to the Seanad’s own standing orders.

The Taoiseach’s announcement yesterday that Martin Cullen will chair an implementation group takes the process a step further.

The Seanad has taken the first step in a reform programme. The Dáil should not stand in the way of the Seanad in implementing this reform. The Seanad has shown the way and the Dáil itself should set about a similar reform process for itself.