Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Last September, I joined Members from a cross-section of political parties in attending a meeting at Government Buildings which the Taoiseach had called in order to involve all parties in what he described as reform of the Seanad. That was a hopeful move and, as far as I recall, it was decided that our great reform movement would meet again in February. It is now October and nothing has happened. We were promised that there would be reform of the university seats but no legislation is pending. If that is the extent of the Government's commitment to Seanad reform, we can forget it. An enlarged university constituency has democratic appeal and I have no quarrel with it. However, it gives the impression of reforming elitist ways of electing people to the Seanad while leaving all the patronage in place.

There is a fanfare about the new reforms and radical measures to change semi-State bodies and patronage by the Government that are to be introduced on 1 November but the greatest haven of political patronage will be left untouched, at least until the next general election, and a system which is recognised by all parties and the electorate as rotten is being fastidiously preserved. As has been pointed out by other speakers, 11 Senators are directly nominated by the Taoiseach through naked patronage. That does not exclude the fact that some have turned out to be very independent, to the surprise of the Taoiseach of the day. The 43 Members who are the chosen proteges not just of the Taoiseach of the day but also the leaders of the other political parties will also survive. That system involves insiders electing insiders from the parties concerned. The party leadership and headquarters give the signal to the people in these Houses and to councillors on who they want elected. They are not automatically elected but the result is usually that the leaders of political parties get their own people elected. It becomes a reward.

What I heard today from the Minister was a reflection of that reward. His speech set out a charter for cronyism. He was utterly misleading when he claimed that the Government had proposals to reform the Seanad. Then he gave us a list of nonsensical and minor reforms which would not make a bit of difference to the way in which the Seanad operates. It was insulting. The purpose was to give the Seanad something to do. When the Seanad is in trouble about what it should be doing it asks to be tasked with reviewing EU legislation. That was on the Minister's list. He also suggested that it review the work of the European Commission. The Commission does not give a hoot whether the Irish Seanad can review its work but it would give the lads something to do because they are really in the Seanad as a reward for what they have done in the past and what they are expected to do in future.

The primary problem with the Seanad is its electorate. Everyone has their own proposals and I have no monopoly on wisdom but I believe this problem could be solved very quickly by keeping the nominating bodies and changing them somewhat. The idea of vocational representation is totally acceptable because the Seanad should not be a straight reflection of the Dáil. Why do we not allow the nominating bodies to nominate candidates for 54 out of 60 Senators but ask the wider electorate to make the final selection in a demonstration of popular democracy?

See this speech in context