Irish Seanad abolition referendum

[timrollpickering]

Ireland is holding a referendum later this year on whether or not to abolish the Seanad, the upper house of the Oireachtas.

The Seanad has limited powers to delay and to team up with a third of the Dáil to force a bill to a referendum. In practice the government of the day nearly always has a majority thanks to the composition, though the 1994-1997 Fine Gael-Labour-Democratic Left government took power mid-Dáil and was not particularly weakened by not having nominated many members.

The Seanad is composed as follows:


43 elected from five special "Vocational "Panels". Candidates are nominated by either designated specialist bodies in the field or by members of the Oireachtas. Senators are elected by TDs, Senators and local councillors by STV (with votes worth about 1000 to allow for extra fractions). By-elections are filled by the Oireachtas. There's a long history of horse trading between parties without much in common (even by Irish standards) to get Senators.

6 elected by graduates of two universities - University of Dublin (sort of aka Trinity College, Dublin) and the National University of Ireland. Voting is by STV postal vote and the only current voting outside the Republic. There is provision to extend this to other universities' graduates but it's never been taken up.

11 nominated by the Taoiseach.

The composition after the last election was as follows:

Fine Gael 19
Labour Party 12

Fianna Fáil 14
Sinn Féin 3
Independents 12

One indy Taoiseach nominee has since joined Fine Gael and another has resigned without yet being replaced whilst one Labour Agricultural Panel member has lost the whip.

On paper this is a narrow majority for the current government, largely due to Enda Kenny not nominating any Fine Gael senators and instead picking independents.

Another change will cut 20 members of the Dáil.

The governing parties are supporting abolition though some members instead favour reform. Fianna Fáil has settled on a reform approach whilst Sinn Féin wants the Constitutional Convention to consider it. Various independents inside and outside the Oireachtas are also behind a reform not abolition approach.

There will be various knock-on changes if passed but the most significant electoral one is that nominations for President will require only 14 members of the Dáil not the 20 of the Oireachtas at present. If Sinn Féin can retain almost all their seats in a cut down Dáil then they'll have an easier task of nominating in future. It will become much harder for independents to find enough nominations.

[irish observer]

Jun 17, 2013 2:21:47 GMT timrollpickering said:

Another change will cut 20 members of the Dáil.

The governing parties are supporting abolition though some members instead favour reform. Fianna Fáil has settled on a reform approach whilst Sinn Féin wants the Constitutional Convention to consider it. Various independents inside and outside the Oireachtas are also behind a reform not abolition approach.

There will be various knock-on changes if passed but the most significant electoral one is that nominations for President will require only 14 members of the Dáil not the 20 of the Oireachtas at present. If Sinn Féin can retain almost all their seats in a cut down Dáil then they'll have an easier task of nominating in future. It will become much harder for independents to find enough nominations.

Fine Gael pledged to cut 20 seats in their manifesto from the Dáil, they have only agreed to cut 8 instead.

Your last issue is somewhat tendentious as regardless of numbers Sinn Féin would not seriously compete in a Presidential Election for the next 20-30 years or so. People have memories.

Earlier this year Phil Hogan, the Local Government Minister, abolished the Town Council layer of local government and with it 500 net councillors at the next election next year in an alleged exercise in reform. However, no significant additional powers are being devolved from central to local government.

The Government, in justifying Seanad abolition, points out that our Nordic neighbours have only one parliamentary chamber and a similar population size. Iran, Iraq, North Korea, China and Syria among others also operate a unicameral system to my knowledge. However, all the Nordic countries have significantly larger tiers of local government with much greater powers than in Ireland. This is an exercise in naked populism to gain some cheap popularity. Removing the Seanad will eliminate a crucial parliamentary layer of oversight (to amend legislation) particularly in the present Dáil where you have a bloated Executive branch and excessive use of the guillotine to eliminate Dáil debate.

I will be voting no because while at present the Seanad is an exclusive institution it needs reform rather than abolition. A reduction in members by say half elected by universal suffrage with salary reductions together with a defined agenda such as European legislation and second stage legislation for a new Seanad to scrutinise. There is simply no guarantee that TDs will reform the Dáil which they have talked about doing for 20-30 years.

[The Bishop]

Originally misread this as "Irish Sea abolition referendum" - that's taking climate change a bit far, I thought

[timrollpickering]

Jun 17, 2013 12:46:58 GMT irish observer said:

Fine Gael pledged to cut 20 seats in their manifesto from the Dáil, they have only agreed to cut 8 instead.

Now where have I heard that before?

Your last issue is somewhat tendentious as regardless of numbers Sinn Féin would not seriously compete in a Presidential Election for the next 20-30 years or so. People have memories.

I agree they're unlikely to win any time soon but just being in the election can be a factor in itself. And ISTR the other parties threatening to hammer any indies who got McGuinness onto the ballot paper. (I doubt Healy-Rae is concerned though - his voters probably wouldn't care if he murdered the Pope so long as he used the body to fill the pot hole at the end of the road. But what about that pothead?) But indies may find it harder to get on the ballot paper, coupled with losing three county councils.

[irish observer]

I must clarify the proposals of the farcical "Constitutional Convention" if any regarding nominating an Independent candidate for President as they were examining changes to the Presidential term. Of course the Government insisted that the Seanad was not put on the Convention's agenda so it was not even debated there.

Interestingly Tim no referendum has been passed when the main opposition has opposed it and many former Attorney Generals, lawyers and media commentators have also come out against the referendum. Early polls indicate a vote in favour of the amendment but its only skirmish stages yet.

[Deleted]

NZ also operates with a single house, having voted to abolish their upper house.

[erlend]

i think single chamber works fairly OK in small countries. Not necessary under perhaps 5 million fairly necessary over 20 million and a bit of a sliding scale between. In a Western European context I note there are none in Scandinavia (4.8 to 9.8 million. Belgium (10) and Netherlands (15) have them as do France, Germany, Italy and Spain. So if it were independent Scotland could do without but England (with or without other UK bits) would need one.

Can anyone point to a liberal democracy over 30 million without one. Note the lack of capitals on those words I had to correct as I was clearly on autopilot.

[timrollpickering]

On another forum I'm on there's been discussion about one of the proposals of the Irish Constitutional Convention about separating the government from parliament - TDs appointed ministers would have to resign their seats and non-TDs could be appointed as well. One point is whether or not constituency based parliaments are good at electing good potential ministers, particularly for some of the more technical ministries, as opposed to good constituency representatives who are good at doing the local casework and getting re-elected. And then there are sometimes scandals about ministers securing contracts for their own constituencies and sacificing the countrywide need for efficient effective services on the altar of the constituency parish pump.

Upper houses can sometimes offer a route to get ministerial talent into parliaments and take a countrywide approach to problems, whether in government or outside it. But the former sometimes doesn't work in practice if either there's a tradition of all ministers being in the lower house (give or take the leader of the upper) or the upper house tends to fill up with either free floating independents or failed constituency candidates eyeing up lower house seats for next time.

[tricky]

Personally I think separating the executive and legislature is a good idea.

It would be really difficult to do here due to tradition etc but a separately elected executive would take away the 'strong government' argument of those who argue against a proportionately elected legislative body.

[timrollpickering]

Yet you oppose having an elected Mayor. I'll never understand that contradiction.

[tricky]

Jun 27, 2013 23:49:21 GMT timrollpickering said:

Yet you oppose having an elected Mayor. I'll never understand that contradiction.

Where did you get the impression I opposed elected Mayors? (As a concept although the current implementation is pisspoor)

[erlend]

Tricky may not oppose them but I do. I believe in Parliamentary Democracy rather than Presidential. And this has very fewer powers to block the mayors than most Presidential Democracies have in their legislature.

That said I don't have an enormous problem with ministers being outside the legislature. It works well in Scandinavia. They remain accountable to the legislature.

[timrollpickering]

Jun 28, 2013 7:15:09 GMT tricky said:

Jun 27, 2013 23:49:21 GMT timrollpickering said:

Yet you oppose having an elected Mayor. I'll never understand that contradiction.

Where did you get the impression I opposed elected Mayors?

Your comments in past threads, particularly on Lords reform, have been to that effect.

[timrollpickering]

Jun 27, 2013 15:34:42 GMT @trident said:

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a good idea though. I remember looking at Mary Harney's website a few years ago when she was the Tanaiste. IIRC the main item was a story about how she had managed to get some swings fitted in a childrens' playground in her constituency.

That's not the worst of cases. I remember someone once stating that the Minister of Finance devoted 70% of their time to constituency casework. The person stating this was trying to hold up the virtues of STV but given the Irish economy had taken a nosedive it did sound like eyes off the road.

And then there was a hospital plan that had a couple of locations added - which just happened to be in the Health minister's constituency.

[irish observer]

Jun 27, 2013 13:48:06 GMT erlend said:

i think single chamber works fairly OK in small countries. Not necessary under perhaps 5 million fairly necessary over 20 million and a bit of a sliding scale between. In a Western European context I note there are none in Scandinavia (4.8 to 9.8 million. Belgium (10) and Netherlands (15) have them as do France, Germany, Italy and Spain. So if it were independent Scotland could do without but England (with or without other UK bits) would need one.

Can anyone point to a liberal democracy over 30 million without one. Note the lack of capitals on those words I had to correct as I was clearly on autopilot.

As I mentioned above Fine Gael keep quoting Scandinavia as a comparison for Ireland. However, their argument has been scotched by the evidence. The Scandinavians have strong local government with strong powers and accordingly do not need an additional parliamentary chamber. The total number of Councillors in Denmark is 2,500 across 98 Councils. Finland has just under 10,000 Councillors across 304 Councils and Norway has 12,000 Councillors across 423 Councils. Under Phil Hogan’s alleged “radical reforms” there will be 31 Councils and 949 Councillors throughout this State with reduced powers particularly as water services are being centralised under a state agency away from local government. Some Ministers keep saying there will be extra powers for local government but candidates facing election in 2014 have no idea what their full range of powers will be thanks to the Government's actions.

Our Seanad is actually doing its work of parliamentary oversight while the Government with a massive majority closes down debate in the Dáil through the guillotine system. In addition the Government say that Dáil reform will follow once the Seanad is abolished. This is utterly fallacious and a cod. It is not wise and healthy to invest so much power into one chamber while local government has no serious powers and we are already one of the most centralised states in Western Europe.

Don't take my word for it just because I'm Fianna Fáil, people in Fine Gael, Labour, Greens, Independents and non-aligned, in the media and academia have spoken out against it too.

[Deleted]

Whilst I am sympathetic to the idea of unicameral parliaments, I would go along with IrishObserver in that it would need more powers at local level to make this feasible. As things stand, I would reluctantly oppose the abolition of the Seanad but only if I could be convinced that a better method of election (and subsequent replacement/byelection)were in place.
Whilst I can vote in Eire, I don't, so it is theoretical for me.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Jun 28, 2013 11:32:01 GMT irish observer said:

Our Seanad is actually doing its work of parliamentary oversight while the Government with a massive majority closes down debate in the Dáil through the guillotine system.

The irony that the Dáil uses a guillotine system modelled on Westminster, which was specifically invented to stop the Irish Parliamentary Party disrupting debates to demand home rule, is presumably lost.

[irish observer]

Jun 27, 2013 14:13:08 GMT timrollpickering said:

On another forum I'm on there's been discussion about one of the proposals of the Irish Constitutional Convention about separating the government from parliament - TDs appointed ministers would have to resign their seats and non-TDs could be appointed as well. One point is whether or not constituency based parliaments are good at electing good potential ministers, particularly for some of the more technical ministries, as opposed to good constituency representatives who are good at doing the local casework and getting re-elected. And then there are sometimes scandals about ministers securing contracts for their own constituencies and sacificing the countrywide need for efficient effective services on the altar of the constituency parish pump.

Upper houses can sometimes offer a route to get ministerial talent into parliaments and take a countrywide approach to problems, whether in government or outside it. But the former sometimes doesn't work in practice if either there's a tradition of all ministers being in the lower house (give or take the leader of the upper) or the upper house tends to fill up with either free floating independents or failed constituency candidates eyeing up lower house seats for next time.

The constitutional conventional is chiefly a load of high falluting crap. It dealt with easy issues of constitutional reform and dodged major ones. The Government refused to allow the Seanad be debated there.

The above proposal you mention is largely irrelevant in an Irish context. There is provision under Bunreacht na hEireann for the Taoiseach of the day to appoint 2 members of the Seanad as Ministers. To date only 2 Senators have ever served in this capacity; Fianna Fáil's Joseph Connolly in the original Seanad from 1932-6 and Fine Gael's Jim Dooge from 1981-82 who was a close friend of Garret FitzGerald. In a reformed Seanad, reduced by half and elected by a list system for example, the Taoiseach could easily select outside experts to serve as Ministers.

I would hazard an opinion that the other proposal will not find its way to a referendum especially under this Government who are very keen in preserving Ministerial contact with their constituencies.

[Deleted]

My Grandad used to vote for a man whose views he mostly despised because "he's a minister and he makes sure he looks after those who hate him most.. If he loses that job, we'll all turf him out." So the idea of Ministers being shifted to even a list-system Seanad won't be popular to TDs needing to keep their seats.

[irish observer]

Jun 28, 2013 11:48:43 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Jun 28, 2013 11:32:01 GMT irish observer said:

Our Seanad is actually doing its work of parliamentary oversight while the Government with a massive majority closes down debate in the Dáil through the guillotine system.

The irony that the Dáil uses a guillotine system modelled on Westminster, which was specifically invented to stop the Irish Parliamentary Party disrupting debates to demand home rule, is presumably lost.

I am sorry my good sir I was actually informing some apparently interested people of some of the recent developments about this referendum in the past while.

I am aware of the history the IPP, its involvement in creating the whip system, its obstructionist policy, and many other matters which I could debate elsewhere. Great fan of Parnell myself but not those who came after. Family were never home rulers.

My point, however, is that even Irish media favourable to this Government has criticised the excessive use of the guillotine in this Dáil session. Do some reading if you don't believe me. Once the relevant legislation comes upstairs to the Seanad they have debated it thoroughly. Some 600-700 amendments have been secured in the Upper House demonstrating their useful scrutiny. You see Mr. Boothroyd they have not been using the guillotine there.