strange how enda never said anything about getting rid of the seanad during all his years in opposition, but as soon as he takes power it suddenly seems like a good idea! makes you wonder..
The presence or absence of the Seanad as it is currently constituted would have little material impact on whomever is Taoiseach. And given that the Taoiseach has the exclusive constitutional right to appoint 11 members of the Seanad I doubt being in government is an incentive to get rid of the Seanad.
Two things I think are probably more of relevance to Enda's stance, firstly it was a stated policy objective put forward in the general election literature and secondly, the East-West divide, the Seanad has an Eastern bias (driven partly by the higher profile of university candidates as the only ones who are elected by a voting public and the larger size of Trinity and UCD).
The more important question now is how to answer the question of reform which now hangs over us, what can be done within the constitution, what cannot.
The basic potential reforms would be
1) Size (given almost half those voted felt we didn't need the Seanad, do we need 60 senators?)
2) Constitution and election (i.e. how the Seanad is formed)
3) Function (what it can do)
4) Conduct (how it goes about that)
Reducing the number of representatives from 60 requires a constitutional change, removing the Taoiseach's right to appoint 11 senators requires a constitutional change. Size is probably not one we can tackle easily.
But there are things that can be changed, extending the universities franchise to other third level institutions is allowable under the seventh amendment (though I don't think you can increase the number of seats from six). Changing the "panels" system. This is the primary reason that the Seanad ends up as a home for failed Dáil candidates, they are ostensibly elected for their expertise or wisdom in a particular area - in truth it is no more than lip service and is entirely tied up with the political parties and has minimal public oversight. A Seanad where you have to renounce party membership and perhaps be obliged to sit with your panel colleagues rather than your (former) party colleagues would be one thing that I think can be done to discourage the cosy cartel. The panels are the candidates to choose from, is there a constitutional bar on the choice being by a universal vote? I don't believe so, though the requirement it be a postal vote would perhaps be a barrier. Using perhaps the European constituency boundaries an dividing the number of representatives per panel by those constituencies might be a possibility and would sufficiently distinguish it from the Dáil election.
In terms of function, that is probably the most difficult one in some respects. If the panels consisted of people who actually had relevant knowledge and understanding of their area the quality of contribution to debate may improve. Making better use of the Senators in terms of introduction of new bills, debating and testing them may flow on from that. Extending their remit is constrained by the constitution and as another poster has pointed out, who wants a US-style war of houses.
In terms of conduct, they sit two days a week, is that sufficient? What of their engagement with committees?
Can anyone think of anything else?
