The Seanad doesn’t get my vote: it’s an expensive insiders’ charade

THE debate about abolishing the Seanad reminds me of the Groucho Marx line: “I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.”

I have never voted in a Seanad election, but as a graduate of University College Cork, I’m entitled to register to do so. I can’t remember if I registered after graduation, but I would have given my home address; I have not notified the register as to changes of address. I’m fascinated by Irish politics — as a citizen as much as a journalist — but I have never wanted to vote in a Seanad election.

Why not? There are many reasons, but the make-up of the electorate is one. I am also a graduate of Dublin City University, but that doesn’t entitle me to a Seanad vote. There is discrimination between places of third-level learning.

This was supposed to change after 1979, when a referendum endorsed giving all third-level graduates the right to vote in Seanad elections. The legislation was never introduced.

But even if it was, I wouldn’t be interested. Why should third-level graduates be given a vote, but not other citizens? How can we call ourselves a republic if we indulge this elitism? The electorate of Seanad Eireann is so tiny that the results of each election are falsified to give the impression more people voted. So if, for example, somebody got 15,000 votes, well, that person didn’t. He or she got 15. A thousand is added to the score to make it look respectable. What a joke.

The Seanad is the ultimate insiders’ charade. Its electorate consists of local politicians conferring favours on friends or buying influence. Those standing for election often do the buying. Politicians bearing gifts as they campaign for elections are common. It can be a good investment. A €60,000-plus salary for a part-time job is not to be sniffed at, especially when expenses are added. A Seanad seat is a useful step-down for politicians ejected from Dáil Eireann who want the buzz of being around the place. It can also be a stepping stone for a subsequent run at promotion and the real prizes and greater influence.

Consider this: 43 of Seanad Eireann’s members are elected by just 800 city and county councillors. Most of those are party members and vote accordingly. Three are chosen by graduates of Trinity College Dublin, and three by the three colleges of the National University of Ireland (NUI). Graduates don’t care too much about the opportunity: the NUI electoral register shows a one-to-eight ratio of registration to graduation.

Then, there is balance of Seanad members, those appointed to the gig. The Taoiseach picks or nominates 11 of these. There is much bluster about these selections, how they display the Taoiseach’s imagination and magnanimity, but if that happens it is only after the 11 chosen copperfasten the government’s majority in the upper house.

Too often, the nominations are rewards for services: Bertie Ahern confirmed the disrepute of the system when he nominated Eoghan Harris to the Seanad in 2007. Harris may be one of the country’s most readable, enjoyable and provocative newspaper columnists, but his support of Ahern, between 2006 and 2008, was a massive mistake. Taking reward from Ahern, no matter how much he enjoyed the platform of An Seanad, compounded it.

It gets worse. Senators have resigned shortly before new elections, leaving gaps that can be filled by those who have no intention of ever standing again. PJ Mara was one of the beneficiaries of such an arrangement. The former government press secretary now enjoys the benefits of parking for life in the grounds of Leinster House, and full access to the members’ bar of Dáil Eireann. How other lobbyists must envy such access.

It can be argued that these are all reasons for reform, rather than abolition, of the Seanad. The Government is offering a straight-choice referendum: abolish it or keep it, and has been criticised by supporters of Seanad retention. But the Government’s strategy is correct, for two reasons: effective reform of the Seanad is impossible; and offering abolition or reform would confuse voters.

Seanad supporters will decry the idea that reform is impossible. Well, why has it not happened before now? It is not as if it has not been discussed. There have been 14 reports about reform since 1938. Little or nothing has happened. Little or nothing will.

There are good financial reasons for being done with Seanad Eireann. It costs tens of millions of euro directly each year. The economist, Colm McCarthy, made an interesting point about its true cost, beyond salaries and expenses: it adds to the civil-service pay bill by requiring the preparation of official responses to senators’ representations on behalf of constituents.

What does the Seanad add to our political debate? Answers on a postcard please. Not much space is needed. Seanad advocates say its debates would not happen elsewhere. Really? And for what audience? Much is likely to be made of the great names of Irish history who have contributed to the State as senators: our first female president, Mary Robinson, cultural giants such as WB Yeats, Oliver St John Gogarty and Owen Sheehy Skeffington. Present Seanad members may be spoken of with similar reverence in decades to come. But they have plenty of other platforms that weren’t available to previous generations. We have plenty of talking shops, but the lawmaking impact of the Seanad has been minimal.

ONE of the country’s most prominent senators, David Norris, would surely disagree. “It would, no doubt, be politically easy, at this time, to make the Seanad a convenient scapegoat for the entire ills of the nation,” he said, when the idea of scrappage was mooted. Nobody is making the Seanad a scapegoat. It is part of a system gone wrong. And every vested interest has an excuse for itself.

Which is why many Fine Gael and Labour parliamentarians are likely to oppose abolition, or stay silent on the issue. There is support from the outside, particularly in academic circles.

Michael McDowell, the former Tánaiste and PD leader, has weighed in, too, in favour of saving it. Enda Kenny may be blessed in who has chosen to be his enemy. McDowell is undoubtedly bright, able and well-intentioned, but he has a way about him that turns many people off.

There is no guarantee that the Government will win a referendum. Voters love giving a bloody nose to governments when they float big ideas, usually for unrelated issues. The Government should resist over-selling its argument. Enda Kenny’s contention on Wednesday, for example, that the upper house did not warn against the excesses of government policy during the early years of the century, was absurd. The opposition in the Dáil failed to do that, and competed with the Fianna Fáil/PD government in making expensive promises during the 2007 general election. It’s proof that we need a better calibre of candidate for the Dáil. That is a different issue to address; let’s get rid of Seanad Eireann first, to concentrate on that.

- The Last Word with Matt Cooper is broadcast on 100-102 Today FM, Monday to Friday, 4.30pm to 7pm.