An institution that has existed for a century and is still asking itself what its role is clearly has problems. The celebrations of the centenary of Seanad Éireann should not blind us to the fact that the Upper House of the Oireachtas is undemocratic, largely ineffective and frequently politically irrelevant. The public voted to keep the Seanad when offered the chance to abolish it nine years ago on the promise that it would be radically revamped; that never happened. Its 100th birthday should be the trigger for the reforms it desperately needs.
Last week, the energetic Cathaoirleach of the Seanad Mark Daly assembled two of its most effective members, former president Mary Robinson and its longest-serving member David Norris, to begin the process of marking its centenary. Both Robinson and Norris used the platform and the legislative processes afforded by the Seanad to make signal contributions to Irish life. The former president appealed to current senators to focus on the climate crisis. Norris reckoned he had helped to increase the happiness of many Irish people. It is a worthwhile political epitaph.
But appreciating the achievements of these two extraordinary figures should not delude us into assuming their calibre or careers are typical of their colleagues; the truth is quite the opposite. The Seanad remains in dire need of change.
The reforms needed are two-fold: to its membership and to its role. The “vocational” panels from which senators are elected by politicians are an anachronism, and the limited franchise indefensible; the “Taoiseach’s 11” is naked political patronage and the universities’ representation has been made ridiculous by the expansion of unrepresented higher education.
Reform plans have proposed various systems of universal suffrage. A carefully thought through plan proposed by a group led by former leader of the Seanad Maurice Manning seven years ago would have recast the membership to ensure half the members were elected by universal suffrage, with the remaining half split between those elected by politicians, the universities and the taoiseach's nominees. It had the virtue of not needing a constitutional amendment to be implemented. It remains on a shelf, of course, like all the others.
Just as important as changing the composition of the Seanad is changing what it does. There is a role for a revising chamber, but too much of the Seanad’s time is spent in aimless speechifying. International affairs, where it can speak with a freedom that the Government does not enjoy, climate change and plans for reform in areas of Irish life where change is desperately needed but are often now kicked into citizens’ assemblies – these are functions in which the Seanad could make a real difference. But when it comes to reform, it should start with itself.