Without big changes, the Seanad will remain a toothless debating chamber, writes Mark Brennock.
Next month the Leader of the Seanad, Ms Mary O'Rourke, will chair a series of public hearings on Seanad reform. But before you make a case for reforming the Seanad, you have to make the case for having a Seanad at all.
A second house of parliament is traditionally a gathering of elder politicians, or representative of strands of civil society or regions not given a voice in the political-party-dominated main house. In theory, these people are there to provide an extra and wise input into legislation, and to counter the natural desire of the government of the day to turn parliament into a rubber-stamp for its decisions.
Ireland's Seanad, however, is largely a parody of this model. Most senators are indeed elected on "panels" which bear the names of different strands of society: Industrial and Commercial, Agricultural, Cultural and Educational, Labour and Administrative.
But these titles are a mere smokescreen. Although candidates must seek a nomination from organisations in these sectors in order to stand, they are then elected solely by local authority members, TDs and outgoing senators.
A party headcount of councillors and Oireachtas members at any given time can tell you exactly how many candidates from each party will be elected to the Seanad.
So rather than representing these grandly titled sectoral interests, the senators elected in this way largely represent one very small sectional interest: the political establishment. They elect large numbers of politicians who failed to be elected to the Dáil; although Fianna Fáil, interestingly, is an exception to this, electing many senators who are neither aspirant nor former TDs.
However, other party senators are mainly either future Dáil prospects, those who have lost Dáil seats and are hoping to win them back, or former TDs at the end of a political career.
Just as it fails to represent civil society, the Seanad also fails to act as a check on the government, or the government-dominated Dáil.
The Taoiseach of the day nominates 11 senators, ensuring there is always a government majority in what is called the Upper House. Once in a blue moon the Seanad delays legislation, or successfully makes intelligent amendments to it. But it is the creature of the government, unable to stand up to it in a meaningful way.
So why have it? Many states get along fine with just one house of parliament.
Sweden, Finland, New Zealand and Portugal are among the states apparently getting along just fine without an upper house.
But there is an argument for a second house. In its better manifestations - such as the French Senate - it brings together people with substantial political experience, who see themselves as a house of wise men and women.
French senators are elected for nine years and therefore less open to influence by transient fads and trends in public opinion.
This is, of course, an elitist argument, but the argument is that in politics there may be a place for an elite with political experience, not to run the country but to have an input into the framing of legislation.
Traditionally a second house can cause trouble, slow legislation, suggest amendments, but ultimately not block the will of the directly elected house.
This gives an opportunity for errors or bad legislative decisions to be spotted and corrected. This happened notoriously in relation to the Government's proposed ban on mid-campaign opinion polls, which was withdrawn after Senator Shane Ross pointed out that the Bill as framed would in fact have allowed opinion polls to be published on polling day.
A second house should also make the job of lobbyists harder, as it means they must influence two houses as well as committees. A second house with an imaginative system of election to it can make it more likely that minority views will be represented in the Oireachtas.
But the Seanad can only attain these worthy objectives if it is transformed from its current position of being a toothless debating chamber inhabited by many people who would prefer to be somewhere else - the Dáil.
Senator O'Rourke's sub-committee on Seanad reform has received 161 submissions so far. They have concentrated on altering the current system whereby there are 60 senators, with 43 elected by councillors from the vocational "panels", six by graduates of TCD and the NUI and 11 nominated by the Taoiseach.
In the context of the current Seanad's shortcomings, the largest two parties have come up with very modest proposals for change. Fianna Fáil would have the Taoiseach of the day appointing an additional five senators from Northern Ireland and make the Leader of the House - currently Ms O'Rourke - a minister of State with the right to attend Cabinet meetings.
They would consider allowing emigrant groups abroad nominate candidates to run, rather than electing senators themselves.
Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour would allow all third-level graduates, and not just those from TCD and the NUI as at present, to elect the six university senators.
Fine Gael's suggestion would have 20 senators directly elected by the public, five from each European Parliament constituency, while Labour has a similar proposal.
Fine Gael also wants three to be elected by Irish citizens abroad; the number elected on the "panels" would be reduced to 23; the Taoiseach would nominate eight rather than 11; and would also allow all third-level graduates elect the six university senators.
Labour's proposals make the astute observation that while the "panels" don't really elect representatives of the sectors of civil society after which they are named, these sectors have a very powerful political input to the heart of government through social partnership.
The party is open to having some or all of the 43 senators currently elected by councillors chosen instead by the social partners. This would ensure that the members of a political process (social partnership), which has arguably become more powerful than the Oireachtas in deciding government economic policy, would be part of a constitutionally recognised democratic forum.
As for what the Seanad would do, Fine Gael and Labour would give it a greater role in scrutinising European legislation, while Fine Gael would have it considering long-term strategic issues rather than immediate legislation alone.
However, those with the power to effect radical change have a big interest in preserving the status quo. Senators who are elected by their own party councillors don't want to have the Seanad elected by social partners instead.
A government seeking to push legislation through the Oireachtas won't fancy setting up an independent-minded body which can cause it trouble.
The September hearings will give a public airing to suggestions for reform. But if you are waiting for radical change, don't hold your breath.