Scrapping the Seanad is a Big Political Reform

Agreed, but the situation highlights what happens when a tired government tries to package “reforms”. For all we know, FF has lost interest in the Seanad not because of the above case, but because their electoral base in it is already weak with the local government losses over the years, and because they won’t have the 11 Taoiseach appointees after the next election. So as with hanging on till 25 March to keep the St Patrick’s junkets, it’s one more perk they can deny the Opposition.

We live in a perverse age: economics has appointed itself Queen of the Sciences and the Economists themselves are philosopher-kings, (self-) authorised to issue pronouncements about any and every issue that might concern the polity.

I really couldn’t care less if the Seanad is abolished or not, although it is much better and more democratic than the ridiculous House of Lords that those of us in the part of the country still hanging on to UK membership have to put up with. At least, members of the Seanad don’t have to put on fancy dress and are happy to be addressed as Mr/Mrs/Ms Bloggs rather than Lord/Lady Bloggs of Ballinasloe.

However, I predict that, after its abolition, the first time that any government introduces legislation or regulations that the media don’t like, the same media commentators/internet posters now advocating its abolition will be bemoaning the absence of a second chamber to stop the government doing whatever it is doing that they don’t like. This was allready evident in Richard Tol thread yesterday on what John Gormley is doing, with lots of those who disagree with what he is doing bemoaning the absence of a second chamber to stop him doing it.

One of the original reasons for the Seanad was to ensure a voice for the unionist minority. This was a perfectly legitimate aim. And, even if it is felt that a second chamber is no longer needed in a 26-county state, the matter will have to be revisited when a 32-county state comes into being. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that all these proposed reforms of 26-county institutions are largely temporary, and that, sooner or later, there will have to be an All-Ireland political convention to establish appropriate institutions for a 32-county state.

With regard to Dail numbers, the reason that there are so many today is that the population has gone up so much, from 2.8m in the 1960s to 4.5m today. It is in the Constitution that Dail numbers must maintain a fixed ratio (between 1:20,000 and 1:30,000), so the number of Dail seats has increased from 144 in the 1960s to 168 today. In fact, the ratio is currently the lowest it has ever been, the number of Dail seats not having changed since the 1980s when the population was 3.5m. Unless the Constitution is changed, the number will have to be increased in the not-too-distant future, as the population moves towards 5m.

Colm’s post is wholly persuasive. And when Colm later says that “Politics is the Queen” he is correct. But a major problem with our system is the almost monopolistic power of the executive within the political system.

POLITICAL CAPACITY HAS WEAKENED
Most members of the executive are souped-up county councillors who have struggled through a difficult Darwinian political battle to get to the top. Since, say 1977, the increasing professionalism with which that Darwinian struggle is fought has been at the expense of our TDs’ non-political qualifications and competence. The capacity of our TDs to deal with governmental problems has been weakened somewhat in recent decades by increasingly intense political combat.

CIVIL SERVICE CAPACITY HAS WEAKENED
When politicians in the executive (cabinet) exercise power, they do so in conjunction with senior civil servants. I would be surprised if the capacity of senior civil servants hasn’t been eroded somewhat in recent decades as a result of increasing jobs competition from the private sector.

PROBLEM COMPLEXITY AND DIFFICULTY HAS GROWN
The weakened individual capacity of the broader executive (cabinet members and senior civil servants) over recent decades has been accompanied by a massive increase in the complexity of the problems which confront members of that executive.

Just consider the two problems of Global Warming and Ireland’s current economic crisis. These are areas where even people who consider themselves expert differ hugely. This makes effective policy-making very, very difficult.

Or consider the failure of expert economic watchdogs (Central Bank, ESRI, IMF, OECD) to warn in 2005, 2006 of the economic crisis looming for Ireland. (And please don’t cite, as a counter-argument, ESRI warnings that economic activity had become overly reliant on construction. That missed the central source of our crisis: the role of massive amounts of debt used to finance massively over-valued property investment).

CONCLUSION
Political reform is needed. Abolition of the Senate is, as Colm says, a useful element of that reform. But we also need to look at improving the quality of our senior poltiicians and civil servants. And, given the growing complexity of the problems they will face, we shouldn’t expect reforms (valuable as they may be) to represent a golden bullet to our problems.

@Colm
“The politicians need to restore credibility as a group, and the public will see abolition as evidence of serious intent to reform, at the cost of some cushy numbers for the political class.”

Great that you are making explicit what motivates your reference group and/or clients (Ministers, civil servants) “Get rid of the Senate because it takes up our time and it costs” This limited approach continues the pattern of getting rid of any other centres with democratic power that can challenge central government eg. local government. When you couple this with limited discussion on increasing the powers given to the Government (eg. the recent legislation on banking) and senior civil service driven restrictions on Freedom of Information (something else that can potentially embarrass Ministers as well as taking takes up civil servants’ time), we can see what passes for a technocratic cast of mind at work in this Republic.

That said, the Senate has yet to be abolished. Just because there is what appears to be a cross-party consensus and civil service support for this change to political institutions does not mean it will actually happen with the prevalence of “implementation deficit disorder” in the governing classes.

Over 31 years ago, we citizens gave power (in the 1979 referendum on Seventh Amendment to the Constitution) to change the electorate for the 6 Senators elected from the two university panels. Since then, nothing has been done to change enlarge that electorate despite the opportunities offered by
1) the 1989 Dublin City University and University of Limerick Acts;
2) the 1997 Universities Act which restructured the university part of higher education.

As we have seen, the only people who can initiate political and governmental reform are the incumbents – elected politicians and appointed senior civil servants. This they have singularly failed to do, preferring what the late Prof John Kelly described as “Ireland’s political and official rulers have largely behaved like a crew of maintenance engineers, just keeping a lot of old British structures and plant ticking over”

“It is essential that the Dail becomes a more effective chamber and that a better balance be restored between executive and legislative branches of government. “

This is necessary, but yesterday’s editorial in the Financial Times suggests that it does not go far enough
“In the long run, failing elites are discarded. That happened to the aristocracies and monarchies of old. In high-income countries, recent failures of elites have been too obvious to ignore. The advantage of democracy is that it discards failure more quickly and less violently than other systems. True, electorates may well make serious mistakes, by discarding what works for what turns out not to do so. Yet democracy imposes an invaluable discipline on elites: the latter must convince the public that they know what they are doing. Recent performance is making this quite a challenge. The people are complaining loudly. Elites must both listen and respond.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/777441d0-183a-11e0-88c9-00144feab49a.html#axzz1A9jBxUoV

It is not just politicians that need to restore credibility as a group.

The EU-ECB-IMF intervention shows that our governing elite has failed.

Veronica is right to point out that we need “a package of wider reform to democratise our political institutions and make them fit for purpose.”

Given your insight into the governing elite, perhaps you would care to set out what else, in addition to the proposed abolition of the Senate, you propose in terms of
1) checks and balances to limit the scope for excess by the powerful – be they public or private, elected or appointed;
2) so that our constitution is a framework for a free government that limits, restrains and allows for the exercise of political power, which we as citizens of a Republic own;
3) thereby enabling us to use our skills and energies to open the paths to sustainable standards of living and greater justice for all who wish to live and work here;
while ensuring that our way of governing ourselves has
4) the means to be successful for the common good with increased democratic accountability
5) the capacity and of adapting to the changes that constantly descend upon it.

With so much inertia in political and governing classes, we citizens need mechanisms to ensure that we do not have to wait for general elections to start the processes of reform and adaptation of our way of governing ourselves.

“Those with ambitions to serve in national politics will now have no option but to shoot for the Dail, which should make that a better chamber. ”

Name three people with ambitions to serve in national politics who chose to “shoot for” the current Seanad and who chose not to stand for the Dáil. Being a Senator doesn’t count as “ambitions to serve in national politics”; presumably you mean people who are currently being distracted by the Seanad who ought to be serving in the Dáil.

“The politicians need to restore credibility as a group, and the public will see abolition as evidence of serious intent to reform, at the cost of some cushy numbers for the political class.”

Or they will not care and they will assume that politicians are still extracting rents as a group, just like British voters did after the expenses scandal. The thing about populism is that you can never satisfy it – as you seem to recognise, if we cut the Dáil to 100 members, people would still think there were too many politicians and want to cut it to 50.

Notwithstanding any of these problems, it’s clear that the Seanad does not give us €25M of legislative value added.

@ Veronica: “All reform has proved impossible because the Senate has become a creature of the party political system.”

Most salient comment so far. If PPs are the problem – and I agree, then that is where the ‘reform’ needs to happen. Deleting the Seanad is merely re-decorating not re-forming.

BpW

For once, I think JtO is right (though I think his prediction of a 5m population soon is a bit off the mark given the number of people who keep telling me they are going to leave Ireland this year).

We should be considering political reform to lay the foundations for a 32-county state. A unified Ireland is going to happen certainly within most of our lifetimes and if the Conservatives stay in power for the full term, I’m sure they would just love to get rid of NI, regardless of what they might say in public…. especially if that runs in parallel with SF holding the balance of power here after the next election – and that has to be a possibility, regardless of how unpalatable that prospect might be to some.

Colm McCarthy.
Well done on this one. A top quango going. I wonder about the 25million saving. The only short term savings will be senator salaries and expenses net of all the “redundancy” payments they have arrange for themselves.
As for civil service personnel savings, we will have to wait a lot longer.
The Chinese system of burying the ‘soldiers’ with the emperor, never found its way into the Irish civil service.

Still it is a start. And this time the pain will be felt by those who can bear it.

Can we move the discussion on to the looting of the public purse by retiring politicians and senior civil servants.

@Donal O’Brolcain

What did the Seanad do to prevent the the citizens of Ireland being impoverished by the bank bailouts?
No doubt the Senators will put up a much better fight now that their own pockets are in danger.

Myth one: Ireland has too many TDs.

The focus on how many TDs Ireland has distracts from the substance of the political reform debate. If the Dáil had a 100 less or a 100 more TDs it would not have prevented the economic crisis. The debate should instead be focused on what the actual powers the legislature should have in holding the one of Europe’s most centralised executives to account.

Where is McCarthy’s research or evidence for this catchy statement: “Under the current Irish system, we have 166 TDs and 60 Senators, for a total of 226 national parliamentarians. This is rather a lot for a small country.”

According to Prof Michael Gallagher:
“The Dáil has 166 TDs for around 4.2 million people, ie around 1 per 25,000 people. On this basis the UK would have c2,200 MPs, while India would have c46,000 – so it might seem that the Dáil is over-staffed. On the other hand, with such a ratio Malta would have only 16 MPs and Luxembourg 19, well below what those countries actually do have, so now it might seem that the Dáil is under- staffed. If Ireland employed India’s ratio it would have just 2 TDs, if it employed Malta’s ratio it would have around 680.

All of this illustrates the obvious point that the smaller the country, the higher the number of MPs per head of population. The general relationship identified by Taagepera and Shugart is that the size of a country’s parliament is approximately equal to the cube root of its population, which in Ireland’s case would be 162. In short, Ireland is not over-staffed with TDs in comparative terms, especially when it’s borne in mind that unlike larger countries it doesn’t have a tier of provincial / regional MPs.” http://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/political_reform/MGRoleOfTDs.pdf

This is one of better made arguments I’ve seen for Seanad abolition. And you do agree that far more reform is needed. A poster on another website commented that Seanad abolition is to political reform what amputation is to weight loss 🙂

I’m not convinced that cutting political representation is going to help within the current setup. We’re a typical enough sized parliament. Many countries get by well enough with smaller unicameral chambers. But most of these countries operate using some kind of list system. I like PR-STV. It’s fair, proportionate and there’s a strong bond between politician and constituent. Perhaps too strong. The only thing I’d change is to increase the constituency size to 10 or more. But list systems also have their flaws. Rather than being accountable to constituents, politicians are now more accountable to party selectorates. A downside of our electoral system is that TDs spend a large portion of their time doing constituency work. Tinkering with parliamentary procedures and standing orders is not going to change this underlying fact. A more empowered secretly elected Ceann Comhairle would be a good thing. So would strengthened committees. But none of this will change the underlying constituency workload. Reducing the Dáil size by 20 certainly won’t help with this. After the 30 or so ministers and junior ministers are appointed, we may be left with 40 or 50 government backbenchers spread very thinly over all these revamped committees, and still juggling this with their constituency work. Contrast that with the house of commons, where almost 700 members are nearly falling over themselves to get onto committees.

Alterations to Dáil procedures won’t help this. Solutions?

We could go to a more elitist list based system. Personally don’t like this.

Another alternative would be a deeper more structural separation between legislature and executive, not just some tinkering with the rules. Perhaps a setup where the executive could recruit personnel from outside the Dáil. This would also solve the talent problem.

Otherwise, if we keep PR-STV (which has many upsides) I think we’re going to have to accept that our parliament will have to be larger than average for the population size we have. 166 TDs under PR-STV are going to be able to do far less legislating than 166 TDs under some more elitist list system.

A reformed Seanad could perform a lot of extra legislative oversight. As Elaine Byrne was recently pointing out, the Seanad in the early state was remarkably effective. Even if we ended up with an institution even half way in effectiveness between that and what we have now it wouldn’t be a bad thing at all. Or it could staff quite a few of these strengthened committees that seem to be the big answer to all our problems.

If we need to save money that badly, then cut Oireachtas salaries and expenses even further. But to be very contrarian, and to say something probably very unpopular, I think if it’s decided to stick with PR-STV and essentially the same executive/legislature model (even with some minor improving tweaks), then we’d be much better served actually increasing the number of TDs. My guess is that 300 TDs under the current system would be about as effective 166 TDs under some continental list system. Unless we radically change the system, I think we will have to accept that a high level of representation is the price that needs to be paid for the political setup we have. I’m yet to be convinced otherwise.

Myth two: The Seanad should be scrapped because it will save the exchequer money.

McCarthy argues, “most countries of our size make do with a single-chamber parliament”. That is true. But most countries Ireland’s size are consensual democracies. Ireland has a Westminster parliamentary system with an exceptionally powerful executive. Abandoning the Seanad only strengthens the power of an already excessively dominant executive. Analysing the world only through the prism of cost suggests that the President, local government and a couple of government departments should also be scrapped. The slide to democratic centralism, which began with the abolishment of the Seanad, would be complete.

The Seanad in its current form is indefensible. A radically reformed Seanad would save Ireland money. As an additional check on government, it would scrutinise legislation and identify legislative shortcomings. From an economic perspective, the micro intervention of abolishing the Seanad would have long-term macro consequences. Positive reform would provide the Seanad with additional powers to review proposed EU legislation, initiate constitutional referendums on matters of public importance, take presentations from the public on matters of national importance and interview applicants for various prescribed public positions.

Economists talk to economists and political scientists talk to political scientists. Both disciplines need to get out of their comfort zone and start talking to one another. See you at http://www.politicalreform.ie

@Joseph:
“We should be considering political reform to lay the foundations for a 32-county state. A unified Ireland is going to happen certainly within most of our lifetimes ….”

God forbid.

Unless, of course, it comes about as a result of this state’s joining a new United State of Great Britain and Ireland.

bjg

@Elaine Byrne,

Previously I saw some merit in a reformed Seanad – and argued the case on this board (can’t find the link), but the political wind seems to have changed and it is now as good as dead. (FF, of course, is well aware that it will cause more grief internally in FG and Labour than it will for itself.)

The push should now be for reform the Dail to compensate for what the Seanad should have being doing, but wasn’t able to and to stregthen the legislature relative to the executive.

And as for getting members of the disciplines out of thier respective silos, perhaps we need a new board – politicaleconomy.ie.

@Brian J Goggin – even Peter Mandelson said Gerry Adams would probably see a united Ireland in his lifetime…. and he should know, being the Prince of Darkness and all that!

May I suggest that the problems withen both upper and lower houses is not their structure but simply a lack of talent and a lack of madness.
We as a people are just not good enough.
We deserve this – we asked for the worst possible representation and received gombeens by the 100s.
I do not expect a House of Lords in such a provincial backwater Capital but with the possible exception of Senator Norris there is not a decent Senator amongest them.
Democracy has been a disaster for Ireland – we are incapable of making rational decisions – however destroying the illusion of democracy may be disturbing for the masses.
At least have a senate independent of constituency politics that will in some minor fashion counterbalance the powerful hybrid political machine of the Gombeen with the bank.

@Joseph:
I’ve drawn a pentagram ….

bjg

I have to agree with Elaine Byrne that the shape of the political apparatus of the state should not be determined on whether it saves 25 million here or there. This should be obvious and it is in some ways frightening that so many otherwise informed commentators can lapse when it comes to the political system.

Whether the Senate should be retained and reformed or abolished is an important issue in our overall attempt to significantly improve the effetiveness of our political machinery. The only cost that should be considered here is not the cost of senatorial salaries or running the second house, but the cost in terms of an effective, efficient, responsive, and accountable system of governance. By efficient I don’t mean in terms of what it costs to run but in terms of how it runs and the quality of its decisions.

A dictatorship I’m sure would cost less but that is hardly where we want to go.

The other point I think Elaine makes very well is on the number of TDs. Again the mistake here is to focus on quantity rather than quality. True it would probably be better to have larger constituencies to combat the dreadful, debilitating parish pump politics that is ruining our national parliament, but that doesn’t necessarily mean fewer TDs. In fact, if the Dáil was working effectively the bulk of the TDs would be very very busy, not getting passports and medical cards, but debating and finessing the significant bulk of legislation that a modern, complex, twenty first century state requires. Even the amount of information that needs to be mastered for effective decisions in Europe or in terms of world trade, would be enough to argue for not stripping away brainpower.

The trouble of course is, we don’t have brainpower, and that which we have is deployed on irrelevant projects in terms of national common good. Here is where it must be back to quality versus quantity. The question is this: how can we attract bright, capable people into politics from a wide spectrum of backgrounds who are capable of giving us effective leadership, or even, God love us, inspiration, at a national level. Tinkering with numbers, be it Senate or TD numbers is not the answer.

@Hugh Sheehy
The party list electoral system is pretty much designed to remove the focus on the parish pump, we need that rather than trying to bandaid the STV system.

@Hugh Sheehy
The US does not and never has used a party list system, and we certainly aren’t living in the time of Cromwell, attitudes have changed a bit since he brought his warped perspective to the country.

I have no idea what your comments on the Amhrán Nua website or the Republic have to do with the discussion.

@Ronan Burke
I assume Hugh Sheehy refers to me.
Anyhow I give up.
Please excuse me I must go and collect a bag of spuds from the local veg.

It seems to me that economists get ‘political reform’ wrong because they examine it in pure cost-benefit terms. If institution X costs the public exchequer anything that is > Y it should be abolished. It is a very crude (and potentially dangerous) way to approach a topic that deserves significant attention.

It also seems to me that a lot of political scientists get ‘political reform’ wrong because they only focus on the formal properties of how institutions operate (i.e. the formal properties of election procedures, parliamentary commitees, administrative structures) rather than analysing (empirically) how the politics actually operates.

Whilst institutions are important (and provide significant constraints and opportunities for actors) they are less important to the real power-relations that underpin them. The formal properties of institutions do not determine political outcomes (hence the irrelavance of the Seanad), those with sufficently organised power resources do. Hence, any attempt at real ‘political reform’ must challenge and change the underlying ‘power relations’ that dominate Irish society.

@Hugh Sheehy

From the 2010 rankings of the most democratic countries on earth:

1. Norway – full party list system
2. Iceland – full party list system
3. Denmark – full party list system
4. Sweden – full party list system

You are absolutely correct that the powers of local government need to be marginally built up to deal with problems formerly handled by TDs, but there is no question that a party list system introduces a democratic deficit or somehow does not represent the people or creates a gap between the electorate and elected.

What we have now with the single transferable vote system is the inheritance of seats and a situation whereby TDs can do what they like on the national level as long as they keep filling in the potholes, which has lead in no uncertain terms to our current national difficulties.

@ Eamonn Moran
I would agree the Seanad needs to go, although the question of a unicameral Dáil is far less clear. Since that’s basically what we have anyway however, what harm. The party whip system doesn’t go far enough – national parties need to live and die by their national policies, not by their clientilism on the local level. This is the behaviour that is enforced in the party list system.

Right now national policies are released almost as an afterthought by parties in Ireland, and even then only as a gesture to sweep up the undecideds and the nationally minded.

The party list system is PR-based also.

@ Hugh Sheehy
Correlation might not be causation in all cases, but it quite often is. At a minimum it does make it clear that a party list system doesn’t in and of itself introduce a democratic deficit.

So what if list inclusion is based on internal party politics, the votes will go to that party with the most effective policies on the national level. If internal party politics produce the best results for the country, bring it on I say. Those parties that don’t figure out how to put the most effective policies and candidates forward will fall by the wayside.

With the STV, which the vast majority of countries which use PR don’t have, people vote based on the local popularity of the politician, not on the effectiveness of their party’s national politics, which leads to the deranged political setup we have in Ireland right now.

I don’t see how anyone could view that as acceptable.

@Hugh Sheehy
Parties can only ever be strong if enough people vote for them. In Ireland nobody votes for parties, they vote for politicians, so you have strong parties with weak policies. Using the party list system, policies have to be strong (as in good for the country as a whole) or the party itself falls by the wayside.

As Roosevelt said:

“In our personal ambitions we are individualists. But in our seeking for economic and political progress as a nation, we all go up or else all go down as one people”

We can never achieve that goal while the likes of Jackie Healy Rae are pulling the country apart with demands for his little corner of the country, and while local popularity contests trump the national interest at the national level.

@ tull mcadoo

The data was compiled by “The Democracy Index” run by the Economist Intelligence Unit that measures the state of democracy in 167 countries. It’s based on sixty indicators grouped in five different categories: electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation and political culture.

Ronan,

here we are debating the flawed and parlous nature of our democracy index. Yet the benchmark that you refer to places us 12th out of 167 and above such despotic places as France, Germany the USA and the mother of parliaments in the UK.

The judges clearly don’t see much wrong with pothole filling and med card wangling.

@tull,

Is this policialreform.ie in disguise?; Eoin Bond must be disgusted 🙂

Politcial parties are a necessary evil. The main requirement is reform of Dail procedures to minimise the inevitable ‘tyranny of faction’. Avoiding this ‘tyranny of faction’ was a key factor driving the Founding Fathers’ development of the US system of governance. They were prepared to accept ‘gridlock’ as price worth paying to avoid this tyranny.

Irish (and UK) governing politicians have become too fond of exercising this tyranny. It’s time for Irish voters to elect TDs who will exercise the people’s ultimate authority delegated to them to hold government to account.

@ tull mcadoo
Some may be happy with 12th place, others might want to aim their sights a bit higher.

The point is that the party list system does not introduce a democratic deficit, a point that is wholly borne out by the EIU.

@Hugh and Ronan

In my humble opinion we need to be cautious before classifying Norway, Sweden Denmark and Iceland as “the most Democratic countries”. Although I will be the first to admit that all four are very open, free and prosperous countries.

Norway (unlike Ireland) endured a break in itś governance due to war time occupation by Germany and has unelected head of state courtesy of the monarchy.

Sweden (like Ireland) did not endure war time occupation. However itś election rules present barriers to poorly funded political parties which most people in Ireland would not consider very “democratic”. Sweden of course also has an unelected monarch.

Denmark (unlike Ireland) also endured war time occupation by Germany and also has an unelected monarch.

Iceland: While I am sure most of the “DOTTIRS” and “SONS” are happy with their system of governance I would not be surprised if one of the oldest legislatures (which is almost as hard to pronounce as their Volcano) in this part of the world implements “quaint” customs and laws which would not look out of place in an earlier century.

While the grass is always “greener on the other side” we can only examine the exact shade when we are closer.

@Colm
I agree that scrapping the Seanad is a “big political reform”!

So big in fact that (IMHO) proposals to scrap it should not be “rushed out” with only a few weeks left before the General Election. As sure as the sun will rise tomorrow as soon as the Seanad is gone there will be pundits bemoaning the speed of its “trial and execution”. The next Dail should put this matter to debate and referendum.

@Ronan B
I don’t want to dominate the thread with one point so this’ll be my last point on the subject…
The suggestion I was making would involve all TDs being prohibited from taking action on any purely local issue. Jackie Healy-Rae’s current raison d’etre would disappear.

I support Hugh’s point fully. We need a way of electing national politicians who’s only remit is national issues. It would be one way of cutting down on the gombeen culture we have in Dail Eireann. The local clown with the combover is not going to get elected on his promise to build a new ring road then.

“It seems to me that economists get ‘political reform’ wrong because they examine it in pure cost-benefit terms. If institution X costs the public exchequer anything that is > Y it should be abolished. It is a very crude (and potentially dangerous) way to approach a topic that deserves significant attention. ”

The alternative is to do what the political scientists have done here: first, assert without explanation why formal powers of EU scrutiny or so forth are worth any amount of money; second, lecture the rest of us on how we need to listen to them more!

On reflection, what is the point of saving €25 million when billions seems to disappearing right under the noses of NAMA. Billions that the taxpayers of Ireland will have to stump up.
How about disbanding NAMA and replacing it with a few strong Galway men, with hurleys-coached by Sylvie Linnane. There would be huge savings in closing down NAMA. And a lot more money coming into the coffers after the boys with the hurleys called round!

@tull mcadoo
The STV system is a blight on the country. You seem to envision a system where the politicians aren’t directly elected, and yet the parties somehow stay in power without getting votes, which means you don’t really understand the party list system. Pointing to the Seanad as an example of a party list system merely reinforces this evidence of incomprehension.

Here’s a decent primer to get you up and running:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party-list_proportional_representation

@Livonian
The Economist Intelligence Unit chose to include that and every other country in the Democracy Index, so you may take it up with them if you wish. 😉

http://www.eiu.com/public/

Abolishing the Seanad and reducing the number of TDs are headline grabbing, knee jerk reactions that do not reform politics. There will be no noticeable difference to how politics operates from these changes.

The problem with Irish politics is an excessive focus on local issues. Abolishing the Seanad and reducing the number of TDs does nothing to tackle this.

Instead of abolishing the Seanad, it should be elected using a party list system and given equal power to the Dail. This means that the entire country is one constituency and the electorate can only vote for the party of their choice. They cannot vote for candidates. This removes local issues from politics in the Seanad.

The parties can then nominate Senators based on the proportion of the vote they get: If Labour get 10% of the vote, Labour can nominate 6 Senators. Each party now has the opportunity to bring people from outside politics into the Seanad. There should be no limit on the number of Senators that can be Ministers. This would bring outside expertise right into the heart of the cabinet.

Independents should also be allowed run for the Seanad. If they get 1/60th of the national vote, they win a seat.

If the Seanad had equal powers to the Dail (could actually veto and propose legislation), Senators will not use their time in the Seanad to eye up a seat in the Dail. They would not focus on local issues in a particular constituency – their constituency is the entire country.

This is similar to how Congress in the US works. The House of Representatives (Dail) and Senate have equal power. They can both propose legislation and veto each other’s legislation. They compromise to get legislation through.

The role of the reformed Seanad would be to focus on national issues whereas the role of the Dail would be to remain very connected to citizens on the ground. This is the best way to find a balance between local and national issues.

The other issue that is not being faced lost in the verbiage is the fact that the top echelons of the PS enjoy relatively high salaries, pensions the a private sector worker could only dream of and security of tenure. Yet this cadre is responsible more than any other group for the mess we are in.

The top echelons of the DOF and the CB did not spot the credit bubble, allowed the emergence of lax underwriting and acquiesed to a lunatic fiscal policy. Not one of them has had the decency to resign. In fact in the best tradition of the CS, the head of banking policy in 2008 in the DOF was promoted to the top job while the only CEO of a major bank still in situ is in the CB. At least Messrs Goggin and Sheehy are gone into well upholstered retirement.

Everybody above PO level in DOf or CB ought to be fired unless they can produce files saying they said “stop”.

@ Colm
Reading all this, I think the form of governance is distracting from the greater issue of the character of the government.
Any form of governance can be subverted for factional ends.

If ones analysis turns to the character of government and clear subversion of the national interest be identified, it should then be declared so and the subverter and their constituency clearly notified as to the situation, and how the national interest worsened.

We have a factional mindset, from the parish to the county teams, etc

Hey there! What does all this have to do with the Irish Economy? Not a lot on the face of things. Looks like the blog is being used as a convenient pulpit by yet another pundit eager for the swift and destructive abolition of the Seanad.

The lack of debate on this is beyond shocking. How many countries have decided to scrap their upper house of parliament in the space of less than three months as is being proposed? The Property Ascendancy seems to have made its mind up very quickly on this one.

The long knives are out for the only institution in the state that has given us public representatives like David Norris, Joe O’Toole, Shane Ross and Mary Robinson(I can see why some don’t like the place). An institution with massive potential which was never given a chance. Meanwhile the Dail benches were all but _empty_ during every debate on the Budget, IMF/EU deal, and bank bailout. Everyone knows where and what reform is really needed.

I’m disappointed in you McCarthy; you used to at least have the diligence to produce a report before you recommended cutting something. I guess in this country, the government only needs reports for things it won’t do.

@AMcGrath
“Colm Mccarthy made an unanswerable and, despite the blizzard of verbiage above, unanswered case for the abolition of the Seanad. Just get it over with. All this linking to Dail reform will just prolong the agony.”

Colm McCarthy makes a good argument. But I don’t believe there are cut and dried answers here. There’s no doubt the Seanad is a damaged entity. But when something is damaged, do you fix it or dump it?

As an analogy, suppose I own a rundown and leaky cottage out the back of my house and it’s a terrible eyesore.
Do I:
a) leave it as it is, and be forced to look out my back window at it every morning for the next umpteen years?
b) spend some money and employ an architect and contractors to renovate the building?
or
c) just get a JCB and knock the whole damn thing down, and spend any money left over on the first house?

The answer, of course, will depend on how damaged or renovatable I think the building is, how much money I have to spend, and also crucially assumes my first house is not an even bigger wreck than the one out the back. Same with the Seanad. Opinions on these kinds of considerations will vary. And so will people’s ideas for the Seanad.

I think it’s worth renovating. You probably think it’s a smouldering ruin, which should be demolished with a large wrecking ball! 🙂 Fair enough!

@Colm
Having checked your reference to your own report, I find that the following

“ The most recent population estimate from the Central Statistics Office put the April 2008 population at 4,422,100. On this basis, the number of TDs could be no fewer than 148, but could be as many as 222. The number of TDs could be reconsidered when the results of the April 2011 Census become available, probably in the Autumn of 2011, and there could be scope to decide on a reduction in the numbers.”

Unlike your Review Group, I used the 2006 Census (4,239,848 people http://census.cso.ie/Census/TableViewertableView.aspx?ReportId=77113) result in my submission to the Review which you chaired, on the basis that constituencies boundaries are reviewed after a formal Census – not on the basis of population estimates, not matter how authoritative the source is.

Did your Review Group staff mislead you?

Well said Colm McCarthy and Cormac Lucy. I only wonder if we would not benefit from some kind of directly elected second chamber populated by politicians who focus only on national issues, who are banned from addressing local issues or making any representations, who cannot be affiliated to a party on the lower house, who can propose legislation and have access to support staff etc

Btw, how many nintendo rating points for an article in the farmers journal?? 😉

PS can we scrap the Teeshop and El Pres while we’re at it? The MoF and his DoFfers seem to both own everything and make all the decisions anyway. I’m sure a number of government ministers could also get the chop as the answer to every request for funding is going to be no, so effectively they’ll all be minister without portfolio…

@Christy,

Yes, perhaps my statement is a bit sweeping but in essence, and in recent experience of the workings of Dail Eireann, I believe it is correct. Over the years there have been some courageous TDs who chose, on occasion, to swim against the tide of their parties and a political and media consensus on particular national issues, but they have become fewer and farther between in recent times. Des O’Malley comes to mind, not just for standing up to his own party’s ludicrous position on socially liberalising legislation (for which he got chucked out of Fianna Fail in due course) but notably in the mid-eighties for leading the charge against a ridiculously protectionist proposed Bill on air travel on which, by the force of argument, he persuaded the government of the day, and his parliamentary colleagues, to abandon.

On other forums, Labour TD Joanna Tuffy has argued trenchantly against a precipitous abolition of the Seanad. Now that her own ‘Duce’ has pronounced on the matter, I expect she will keep her mouth shut about her own views. Well, if she has any aspirations to furthering her political career in the next Dail she will anyway and who can blame her.

In the Bertie era, Mr Ahern regularly and deliberately sidestepped the Dail when it came to the announcement of major policy initiatives. The Opposition didn’t even get the opportunity to critique such policies until after the all bells and whistles media presentation had taken place somewhere else; which rendered their subsequent critiques as either carping or irrelevant. To be fair to Cowen and Lenihan, they have shown more respect for the parliamentary process than Ahern ever did. The whole charade of ‘social partnership’, which has ultimately ended in tears, is another example of the Executive taking issues of national importance outside the parliamentary domain, as has been the unjustifiable ‘quangoisation’ of whole areas of national social policy such as the HSE and health.

The role of the media needs to be critically examined as well – as it has itself dumbed down, so has its coverage in volume and scope of parliamentary and public affairs. Media coverage of politics has become increasingly trivialised in its nature – note how the question of who presents a bowl of shamrock to Barack Obama on St. Patrick’s Day is currenlty being built into an issue of national importance. We have an excellent cadre of political and parliamentary correspondents, but parliamentary coverage has diminished remarkably in the past two decades. It has also shifted from issues coverage to smart alec soundbites in the main.

Far from making an ‘unanswerable’ case for the abolition of the Seanad and in light of previous comments on this thread from Elaine Byrne, Tomaltach and Donal O’Brolchain among others, I think that Colm’s argument is flawed: the proposal to abolish the Seanad respresents posturing by the political parties in response to public anger at the manifest failure of our political institutions and the mediocrity, with few exceptions, of our political class. Further, since the process of dismantling the Seanad will take considerable time, the abolition proposal is no more than a distraction and will act as a delaying mechanism from the sort of reforms that could easily be implemented without recourse to legislation or constitutional referenda, such as reducing the number of TDs and changing standing orders of the Dail, extensive reform of the workings of both the Dail and Seanad etc., that would be far more effective in delivering an institutional framework that actually works properly and is answerable to the public that elects it.

@ ObsessiveMathsFreak

The long knives are out for the only institution in the state that has given us public representatives like David Norris, Joe O’Toole, Shane Ross and Mary Robinson (I can see why some don’t like the place). An institution with massive potential which was never given a chance.

Apart from the franchise of the educated or more likely than not, people who have had education, both Ross and Robinson failed to be elected to the Dáil, which suggests that it was the place they wished to be members of.

In pre-TV and web times, it could be argued that it was worthwhile having a talking shop of almost 60 wasters because of the odd member like Owen Sheehy Skeffington who was willing to sail against the dead orthodoxy.

Some of the university senators reflected the establishment view.

Professor Magennis, who held the Chair of Metaphysics at UCD and was chairman of the Censorship Board said in the Senate in 1943, in support of the banning of The Tailor and Ansty, the account of conversations with the Gougane Barra tailor Tim Buckley and his wife : “My standards do not date back to Queen Victoria’s days; they date back to Moses. The standards under which we operate go back to 1,500 years or so before Christ. If the Senator cares to accuse us of being old-fashioned, I am pleading guilty: I am so old-fashioned as to take my standards of life and conduct from Mount Sinai and not from Seán This and Seán That, whose books have been banned.”

I heard Jim Power giving out about Healy Rae and Lowry on the radio a few months ago.

Personally, I have seen no evidence that Jim Power has a better grasp of the national situation than Healy-Rae or Lowry or that Jim Power would be more responsible or strategic in power than the two independents.

The reason Healy Rae gets abuse is becasue he speaks with an accent and Lowry gets abuse becasue he floats the odd grandiose plan for tipperary or gets air-time to talk about local concerns.

It’s funny how people abhor the whip but also abhor independents.

Just because independents holding the balance of power have to pursue some local agendas it does not mean that they act against the national interest. Indeed, they have to be conversant with all areas they may be questioned on and cannot just refer to a party policy formulated by somebody else.

@Zhou
I am also inclined to agree that Independents are not the problem.

However, for Independents and party TDs both, localism is a big problem. TDs not engaging in or caring about national policy is a big problem.

TDs swallow whatever the executive decides because they – as individual TDs – are not elected on policy related issues. They’re elected as party representative (which is policy related, but they’re policy takers) and as local super councillors. This is not entirely an invalid approach, but it’s far far from idea.

@ Dave Ryan

I think decision making should be returned to the local level where possible. There is nothing actually wrong with polititians wanting to serve their local electorate (I’m thinking of Healy-Rae, Lowry et al),

Is it any wonder that the country is banjaxed?

In 1997, the same year tribunals were set up to investigate corruption, Bertie Ahern agreed a new allowance for bizarrely dubbed ‘independents’ that over a Dáil term gave them more than €200,000, which they did not have to show any evidence of expenditure.

What sheltered workshop do you inhabit?

The only power left to local councillors and with good reason is rezoning of land and the record there suggests that they shouldn’t have that either unless you believe in a Tammany Hall system.

If you believe that rezoning has generally been motivated by the common interest, you are a fool; there has been a costly tribunal sitting since 1997 investigating planning corruption.

@Hugh Sheehy

There is clearly a problem with the design of the system.

One wonders would a first past the post system make it infeasible for TD’s to address all constituents concerns after they are elected and also force them to concentrate on the issues that are common to all constituents rather than tending assiduously to their “core vote”.

@zhou
The problem with a first past the post system is that constituencies in Ireland would be too small – about 22k per constituency? It would easily be possible for ’embedded’ consituencies to come about.

How about larger electoral areas? With multiple constituencies in each, not by geographical grounds, but by random voter selection?

So all of Dublin would be a pool, with four or five consituencies in it, and each voter assigned to one of those constituencies? The other areas would be split by province or economic region (BMW, Midlands etc.).

@ Donal O’Brolchain

Whether central or local, they are cut from the same cloth.

The buck stops nowhere.

@ Denis Linehan

is it not the case that more rather than less political scrutiny of the behaviour of the state and its institutions are necessary to address the social and political crisis Ireland is mired in.

If it’s the same cronies, insiders and aspiring insiders, who would dominate this process, then the answer is no.

As I said elsewhere, Niall Crowley was a rare individual in Ireland who resigned on principle and it’s interesting that he was defending those who would have few to defend them; bishops, politicians, academics, senior public servants and business managers go with the flow as white swans are more likely than black ones.

The Irish don’t like rocking the boat.

We have an annual science budget of €1bn. Wonder why there is no serious scrutiny of it? Is it that we haven’t enough Oireachtas committees?
We’ve heard of FÁS space cadets and Mary Harney’s hair operation.

Recently, it was reported that a “new world-class skills organisation” is planned. Bullshit is cheap of course and maybe the new government will give a plum assignment to management consultants to check out the €1bn training black-hole gravy train.

Bertie Ahern said in April 2008 that the estimated 800 state agencies/quangos was “too many agencies by half.” 

Like so much else, change happens at glacial speed.

We prefer to talk and why not set up another taskforce to look at the problem?

I just wonder if the salaries of the great Senators was reduced to E10,000 per annum, no expenses and no pensions would we have anyone interested in working in this “great” institution. Lets stop codding ourselves this place is just a gravy train for assorted political wannabees,media junkies and Government appointees. We dont need it and lets get rid of it. Then move on to the Dail and reduce TD salaries to Clerical Officer level in the CS and not Principal Officer as at present together with related expense and pensions. You will be then left with genuine Politicians who want to make real change to the system.

@ Donal O’Brolchain

Individual accountability is the key as collective accountability in practice is generally no accountability.

A fairer society would be a good aspiration; the National Competitiveness Council says in its latest report that there is not a strong appetite in Ireland to tackle high costs in sheltered sectors and who pays for cartel type operations and lawyers becoming very rich investigating corruption?; the politicla response to collective power is evident in the privileges available to public sector workers compared with the typical private sector worker: with less pay, no occupational pension, no job security and no power to enforce attractive redundancy terms.

The Labour Party reform document make the point that “in 1906 Finland abolished its second chamber, as did New Zealand in 1950, Denmark in 1953, Sweden in 1970, Bavaria in 1999, Iceland in 1991 and Croatia in 2001. And since 1937 the State of Nebraska has also had a one-house legislature.

New Zealand has 122 MPs and salaries/expenses are lower than for Irish counterparts.

To those who say €25m is a pittance, the Chinese proverb: a fish rots from the head down,” is apt.

Bord Snip identified more than €5bn of potential savings; gardaí retiring on full pension at 50 and a long litany of other perks that a small bankrupt country cannot afford.

Ireland of course needs more than an economy but try living in a money economy with no money.

@Ragusa

+1

The “wider debate” as per Alex White is just another Croke Park fudge paid for by lower paid private sector workers that Labour has deserted.
Costs at the top level need to cut. The time for debate is over.
Your proposal to cut salaries to €10,000 is excellent.
I’m quite sure that David Norris would still turn up. He is always worth listening to.

@Alex

You are up to the usual political tricks with this Constitutional Convention. We have Task Forces, Special Reports like Colm Mc Carthys, White Papers, Green Papers etc etc and all ignored. Just put a straight forward Referendum proposal to the people to abolish the Senate Yes or No and you will get a straight answer.

@Michael
I agree with you about individual accountability. The issue is how to make that the norm in politics and public administration. I also agree with you that €25m is not trivial.

re. “A fish rots from the head down,”

I am simply very puzzled that Colm McCarthy chose a hard-to-implement measure, instead of an easier to implement measure which would send a very strong signal about reform starting at the top.

Abolishing the Senate cannot be done without a referendum and all that implies of extra costs and delay.

Reducing the number of TDs by 25 can be done using methods are well tried, tested and accepted by most of us (including the TDs and the political class) as the basis on which boundaries are redrawn. According to his report, this would save €6m.

see p. 152 of http://www.deti.ie/publications/corporate/2009/volume2.pdf
“The most recent population estimate from the Central Statistics Office put the April 2008 population at 4,422,100. On this basis, the number of TDs could be no fewer than 148, but could be as many as 222. The number of TDs could be reconsidered when the results of the April 2011 Census become available, probably in the Autumn of 2011, and there could be scope to decide on a reduction in the numbers. For illustrative purposes, a reduction of 12 in the number of TDs would lead to savings of around €3m a year, including savings on the numbers of personal assistants and secretarial staff.”

Yet, 18 months after he submitted his report, he defends maintaining the status quo regarding the number of TDs which his report decided to kick down the road, on what appears to be very flimsy grounds.

In this context, Colm McCarthy’s support for abolishing the Senate has the appearances is a red herring.

If you want to continue looking at the head where the Chinese consider
the first place to rot, why not start with the number of Ministers?

In my submission to An Bord Snip Nua, I also suggested cutting the size of the Cabinet to 7 – a reduction of of over 40 percent. I cannot find any evidence that the Review Group looked at this, but perhaps my search strategy lacks merit!

I also returned to the same issue when there were a number of
vacancies in the Cabinet last Spring see here http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2010/0302/1224265429948.html

does anyone know the cost [in total ] of running the talk shop called the seanad inc the pensions of past senators how many nurses -teachers -bank tellers ect would be employed if we were to get rid of the most expensive chat shop