Abolition of the Seanad Faqs

Abolition of the Seanad FAQs Why are we having a referendum on the Seanad? ● This referendum fulfils the Government's promise that the future of the Seanad should be put to the people. ● The abolition of the Seanad is also an important element in the government’s wider programme of political and constitutional reform. ● All across our public services, people have been asked to do more with less. Politics should be no different. Is bicameralism or two chamber parliaments not the norm? ● No. Many parliaments across the world function perfectly well with just one chamber. ● Unicameral parliaments exist in about half of the world’s sovereign states. ● Many countries of similar size to Ireland including New Zealand and Denmark have only one chamber parliaments. ● New Zealand abolished their second chamber in 1950, Denmark in 1953 and both have remained effectively functioning democracies ever since. ● Finland abolished its second chamber in 1906, Sweden in 1970, Bavaria in 1999, Iceland in 1991 and Croatia in 2001. ● It is actually unusual for a small unitary country (with population under 10 million) to have a second chamber. ● Countries with two chambers tend to be larger, have a federal structure or are deeply divided and need to ensure the adequate representation of minorities within the state. ● In contrast Ireland is relatively politically mature, is not a federal state, is not divided among ethnic or religious grounds and is not an emerging democracy where the rule of law is threatened but instead we have strong and entrenched constitutional and judicial protections. ● Little purpose is therefore served by retaining an upper house of the Oireachtas as there are no clear sectional or institutional interests to be represented in the second chamber. What are the main powers of the Seanad? ● The Seanad’s limited constitutional role means that: ● It can only initiate nonfinancial bills. ● It cannot initiate bills which propose amendments to the Constitution. ● The Seanad can delay legislation by 90 days. Is the Seanad not an important part of the “checks and balances” of the parliamentary system? ● The Seanad has little power and has rarely, if ever, held the government to account. ● It has only used its 90 day delaying power twice since 1937. In both cases the legislation still went ahead. ● There are a number of powers the Seanad has never used such as challenging the designation of a bill as a Money Bill. ● The majority of amendments initiated in the Seanad are government amendments. ● The Dail with its mandate directly from the people of Ireland has the final say on all legislation and is the paramount body on proposals for legislation, public expenditure and taxation. ● The Dail is the chamber of the Oireachtas which is designated to hold the government to account under Article 28.4 of the Irish Constitution and most properly holds the watchdog or scrutiniser of the government role. ● The judiciary is also an important part of the Irish constitutional system and is highly independent. Why abolish the Seanad rather than reform it? ● Since 1937 there have been 10 reports on Seanad reform, including a number of allparty reports. None of these reports have ever been implemented. ● Part of the problem has always been that there has never been any clear agreement or direction on how the Seanad could be effectively reformed. ● A second chamber must have a different function and electorate than the lower one otherwise the second chamber would, in effect, be a redundant duplicate of the first. ● The question therefore boils down to whether we need or want a second chamber that represents a different configuration of the people. If so what should that configuration be? ● None of the Seanad reform proposals have been able to justify a reconfigured second chamber that is sufficiently democratic and sufficiently different from the lower chamber. ● That the question is rarely asked (outside of a Referendum campaign) also indicates the general popular indifference that has persisted in relation to the Seanad since 1937 – no one knows why the Seanad is there or what purpose it serves. ● Although this question is ultimately a decision of the people of Ireland, we believe that the case for a Seanad has failed and that it should be abolished. ● The abolition of the Seanad is also part of a wider reform of our political system. ● Reform of the Dáil is currently under way and we are working towards a renewed and enhanced political system with better accountability, better oversight and better scrutiny of legislation Who elects Senators? The electoral process for the Seanad is archaic and makes little sense in a modern democracy. ● 43 Senators are indirectly elected to five vocational panels by members of the incoming Dáil, the outgoing Seanad and Local Councillors. ● Six are directly elected by graduates of the National University of Ireland and Trinity College Dublin. ● 11 are appointed by the Taoiseach of the day. Is the Seanad really elitist? ● Only approximately 3.3% of the population is eligible to vote in Seanad elections. ● These eligible voters are made up of either Trinity College Dublin/National University Ireland graduates or local and national politicians. ● This means that nearly 97% of the Irish population are totally disenfranchised from electing members to one of the houses of our national parliament. ● In addition, it is estimated that in the last Seanad elections just 1.1% of the population actually cast their vote. ● In contrast, each and every citizen of Ireland who is 18 years of age and over is entitled to cast a vote to elect the members of Dail Eireann. ● The vocational panel structure used to elect 43 senators is also hopelessly outdated and a relic of the 1930s. What is the cost of the Seanad? ● The Public Accounts Committee was informed that the abolition could result in savings of up to €22.5 million. ● Direct costs of €9.2 million (Senators salaries, allowances and staff) could be saved immediately with indirect costs saved over time..

Load more