Fine Gael Abolish the Seanad booklet

7/29/2019 Fine Gael Abolish the Seanad booklet

1/18


2/18


3/182

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The experience of recent decades has exposed many serious weaknesses of politics in Ireland. Thepolitical system did not effectively protect citizens from major economic risks, nor did it deliver

modern, effective or accountable government.

The result was insufficient questioning of the foundations on which Irelands apparent success wasbeing built. Necessary reforms were long fingered. Political theatre dominated over substance. Trueaccountability was lost.

One of the key mandates sought and obtained from the people in the last General Election wasto create a New Politics by undertaking far reaching reform. Huge changes are now underwayto remedy the defects. This government is determined that substantial legal and institutional

change must be delivered so we can never have a repeat of the catastrophic experience which ourcitizens are now suffering. Many of these changes have already been implemented or are underway,providing better oversight on Government action, and dealing with regulatory failures, conflicts ofinterest and poor transparency.

Reform of the Oireachtas must go much further. Politics must rationalise its operations, bydropping elements that dont deliver effectively and embracing new activities that do. Just as everyfamily and every business has had to adjust - to make sacrifices, and to concentrate on core needs- so politics must do the same.

Ireland has 33% more politicians than the average in other European countries of our size.Abolishing the Seanad, an institution that costs20million per year, will bring us into line withinternational norms.

More and more countries have moved to abolish second chambers as a part of a range of coherentmeasures to deliver modern, accountable and effective government. No other European countryof our size has two chambers. Second chambers do not offer the vital checks and balances, whichcitizens need in the political system.

The Irish Seanad is particularly ineffectual. From its inception in 1937 it was designed to haveexceptionally limited powers. Its most significant power is to delay legislation and it has notexercised this power since 1964. Its electoral system was rigged so that existing politicians andthe government dominated the selection of its membership. It gave privileges to certain groups insociety which no longer fits with a modern pluralist citizen democracy.

Preserving the Seanad, an ineffective chamber elected by just 1% of the people, is not compatiblewith efficient and accountable management of the nations affairs. The search for a role and forlegitimacy has persisted fruitlessly through 10 reports during its 75 year existence.

It is time to end this pointless search for a purpose for a chamber that has long outlived itsrole. Instead we must make the Chamber elected by all of the people into an effective modernParliament.


4/183

2. WHY POLITICS MUST CHANGE

a) The lessons learned

The Irish People have endured the worst reversal of economic fortunes since the Great Depression.Its source was not the complex international financial derivatives that evaded regulatory oversightin many countries. Instead, it largely derived from a domestic property bubble fuelled by recklesslending, and an unsustainable expansion of public spending built upon the bubble. Importantinstitutions, that should have worked to restrain this, either encouraged it or looked the other way.The political system, which should have been keeping a watchful eye to protect citizens, failedmiserably. Many factors contributed to these failings. Most prominent among them have been:

Defective regulatory oversight

Diminished exercise of genuine scrutiny by parliament

Insufficient protection against conflicts of interest

Narrow involvement of citizens in politics

The result was insufficient questioning of the foundations on which Irelands apparent success wasbeing built. Necessary reforms were long fingered. Political theatre dominated over substance. Trueaccountability was lost.

b) The progress to date

One of the key mandates sought and obtained from the people in the 2011 General Election wasto fix this broken political system. To quote the statement of common purpose at the formation ofthis government:

But the old ways, the old politics that created the crisis from which we seek to release ourselvesfrom, will not do. Both our parties have long recognised this reality and we campaigned hard andsought and secured a clear mandate to break from the past and start anew.

Huge changes are now underway to remedy the defects which have been exposed by the financialcollapse. They are summarised in Figure 1.

Regulatory oversight has been strengthened particularly in the banking system, but also by the roleof the new Fiscal Council which publishes independent advice on the policy which should informthe annual Budget.

Unhealthy relationships that could conflict with the independent exercise of oversight powersare being tackled by abolishing corporate donations, by setting new rules for lobbyists and bystrengthening the standards which officeholders must meet.


5/184

New powers of scrutiny are being developed for the Dil to oversee the activity of governmentand its agencies. Citizen involvement is being systematically extended as Freedom of InformationRights and the remit of Ombudsman Services are extended.

Local Government is being transformed we are reducing the number of Councillors, but they will

have more power, with new roles in enterprise, rural transport and ports for example. Crucially,Councils will be able to raise their own resources through the Local Property Tax. This will give themthe ability, in their roles as representatives of the people, to make decisions on how much moneyto raise and how to spend it.

Dil arrangements are being steadily improved. The hearings conducted on the Protection of Lifeduring Pregnancy Bill 2013 gave a strong example of the sort of engagement with citizens that isplanned.

Regulatory Oversight Restructuring the system of financial regulationWhistle-blowers protection

Independent Fiscal CouncilConflicts of Interest Registration of Lobbyists

Extension of Standards in Public Office

Abolition of Corporate DonationsScrutiny New Inquiry Powers for the Dil

Chairs of State Boards appear at Committee beforeconfirmation

Better Performance Reporting on SpendingDil Arrangement Extra Day of Leaders Questions

Committees considering legislation earlier

Friday Sitting for Bills sponsored byindividual deputiesImproved Profile for Topical Issues

Citizen Involvement Public Petitions Systems

Quota for Women CandidatesExtension of Freedom of Information

Establishment of a Constitutional Convention

The Dil is working harder than ever before. The changes made already have strengthened thework of the Oireachtas. The Dil is sitting longer. The recess at Summer and Easter have beengreatly shortened. The number of sitting days has increased by over 20% and the sitting hours willincrease further when new reforms are in place.


6/185

The number of sittings are up:

2010 2012 % variation 2010-2012

No of Dil sitting hours 843 1001 19%

No of Dil sitting days 100 123 23%

According to the Houses of the Oireachtas Annual Report 2012, Ireland had the highest number ofsitting hours for both Houses of a total of 14 Parliaments surveyed. Committees have also beenreorganised and are sitting longer and spending more time on important legislative work.

Between March 2011 and June 2013, 146 Bills were presented to the Oireachtas. This is a 66%higher rate of legislative activity than in the last Dil. However, politicial reform must go muchfurther. The Government will shortly publisha further set of changes to the way our politicalsystem works to make it more effective and responsive to the needs of the electorate.

c) This referendum marks the next phase of reform

One of the core reforms we pledged in the General Election was to hold a Referendum toabolish the Seanad. We are now honouring that pledge. This is a central part of our reform plan.Our reforms are designed to make the Dil, the parliamentary chamber elected by all of the peopleplay a decisive role in scrutiny and in the development of legislation.

Our vision is for a much stronger role for TDs whom every citizen has a role in electing. Thisis the pillar of our democracy, respecting the basic principle one person one vote. The Dil willbe strengthened by powers of inquiry, by access to independent expertise, by new forensic anddeliberative roles in scrutiny and law-making. It will be a Dil which sits longer, which reclaimsits rightful the role as the forum where real conflicts of policy are thrashed out, which is takenseriously by the Executive and by citizens.

The easy route would be to preserve the Seanad which serves political parties well. However,the country can no longer afford to run a political system which has almost 50% higherrepresentation per head of population than other countries of our size. A second chamber, electedby a privileged 1% of the people, which replicates in a weakened fashion the work of the Dil,has no place in the modern efficient pluralist citizen democracy which we aim to create. Politicsmust demonstrate not only that it is capable of reform that but that it is capable of making thenecessary sacrifices which every family and business in the country has had to make.

3. Best International Practice

Ireland stands almost alone among small countries which still has a two chamber Parliament.Of the sixteen unitary nations in the OECD, with populations fewer than 15 million, only


7/186

two countries have second chambers.1 There are also three federations (Austria, Belgium andSwitzerland) that each retain their second house of Parliament to give separate representation totheir constituent States.

There has been a steady move towards single chamber parliaments. Since 1950 Sweden,

Denmark and New Zealand among many other countries have abolished their second houses.These are progressive and reforming countries and have functioned very effectively with asingle-House Parliament. A total of 30 countries abolished their second chamber of parliamentduring the 20th century.

The experience of many countries with second chambers is far from universally positive includinglarger and Federal countries where the second Chamber has a specific role. In the United States inrecent times it has proved almost impossible to pass a Budget due to disagreements between thetwo Houses. Italy and Japan also provide examples of the gridlock that can be created by secondchambers. Federal countries such as Canada and Belgium are now considering abolishing theirsecond House.

The move towards single chambers has reflected a need to have parliament more accuratelyreflect the will of the electorate. The second chambers in many cases gave the privilege ofmembership to established vested interests and were subject to political patronage. This has notfitted well with modern citizen democracies.

The move to one chamber systems were accompanied by other more efficient measures to givecitizens protection from officious behaviour by government. These changes mirror the sort of

changes which are now being made a key feature of the Irish political landscape:

Ijh[d]j [d[ZEcXkZic[d"H[]kbWjehiWdZ


8/187

European countries with populations between 4 and 6 million:

Population No. of Politicians Politicians permillion

No. ofChambers

Croatia 4.4m 153 34.8 1

Denmark 5.5m 179 32.5 1

Finland 5.3m 200 37.7 1

Norway 4.8m 169 35.2 1

Slovakia 5.4m 150 27.8 1

Average 5.08 170 33.5 1

Ireland 4.6m 226 49.1 2

Level of over-representation compared to

average *

33% 47%

Reformed Oireachtas 4.6m 158 34.3 1

*226-170 = 56 = 33% of 170

49.1-33.5 = 15.6 = 47% of 33.5

Above is a list of all European countries with a population between 4 and 6 million. As it shows,not only is Ireland the odd one out in terms of having a second chamber. Also, the continuingexistence of the second chamber in Ireland results in substantially more politicians per head ofpopulation than other countries of our size. With abolition of the Seanad and a reduction in thenumber of TDs by 8 (as has already been agreed by the Government), Ireland would be representedat around the same ratio as the average in other European states of our size.

Our proposal for abolition of the Seanad is in accordance with best international practice. Webelieve we should follow the lead of progressive small countries, like Sweden, Denmark and NewZealand and deliver parliamentary work more effectively with one House of Parliament.

4. The particularly ineffectual nature of the Irish Seanad

a) A product of its time

Ireland has changed dramatically from the times in which a Seanad was originally created. The FreeState Senate in 1922 was designed to give reassurance to Southern Unionists. This Senate hadconsiderable delaying powers on government legislation. However, the arrival of the new FiannaFail government saw a number of bruising clashes when elements of the Programme of the newgovernment were blocked by the Seanad and lead to its abolition in 1936.

It is worth noting that Mr Eamon de Valera was very reluctant to include a second chamber when

drafting Bunreacht na hEireann. The Free State Senate, which had blocked important Bills, hadfrustrated de Valera and he was determined to construct a second chamber which would not really


9/188

challenge the Government as he said, the new House must never be in a position to challengethe Government as the old one had2.

The new 1937 Seanad had much reduced powers to obstruct the wishes of government. Its

delaying powers were cut to by two-thirds. Its most significant power is to delay a piece oflegislation by maximum of 90 days and it has not even exercised this power since 1964. TheSeanad cannot initiate or amend a money Bill, and it cannot delay a money bill from the Dil formore than 21 days.

The framers of the 1937 Constitution hoped that the Seanad would bring vocational expertiseinto Parliament. This aim was completely frustrated by the politicians Councillors and Oireachtasmembers using it to elect fellow politicians. While the value of bringing vocational expertiseto bear on legislative work is clearly important, the method of giving special interest groupsnominating rights was never an appropriate approach. The Governments reforms to the Dil willestablish a panel of available experts to be available to Committees to assist in their work. Thismodel has proven very effective for example in the Constitutional Convention and the Protectionof Life During Pregnancy Bill. In this way, we will effectively provide for inputs of vocational groupsand experts in legislative and scrutiny processes.

b) Rigged to ensure dominance by Government and politicians

The system of selection is designed to ensure ultimate government control of its membership.

A further result of the electoral system as designed is that virtually all members of the Seanad arecareer politicians and fully-whipped members of one of the major political parties.

-&e\I[dWjehiWh[i[b[Yj[ZXo[n_ij_d]feb_j_Y_Wdi((,J:iWdZekj]e_d]I[dWjehiWdZ780 Councillors) as part of the vocational panel system.

7\khj^[h(&e\I[dWjehiWh[i[b[Yj[ZXoj^[JWe_i[WY^e\j^[ZWo"]kWhWdj[[_d]j^Wjthe Government will have a clear majority in the Seanad. Before the current Government,normal practice was that these Senators would be members of the governing political

parties. 7\khj^[hhkb[h[gk_h[ij^WjWjb[Wij*&e\j^[m_dd_d]YWdZ_ZWj[iedj^[i[fWd[bi"ckijbe from among those nominated by the existing members of the Dil and Seanad

As an illustration of the consequence of that system, the present Seanad would have had 66%government membership had the Taoiseach and Tnaiste chosen to exercise their powers andappoint a full complement of party members to their eleven places3.

2 Dil debates, Vol. 69: Col 1607, 2 December 1937 in Maurice Manning, The Seanad, pp.153-166 in Muiris MacCarta-

aigh and Maurice Manning (eds), The Houses of the Oireachtas(Dublin: Institute of Public Administration, 2010), p.159.

3 In 2011, six of the eleven government appointments to the Seanad had no party affiliation. In 2007, only one

was not affiliated. Eligible Graduates elected 6. About 1000 politicians elected 43 and the Taoiseach elects 11. If the rela-

tive worth of a graduates vote is 1, a politicians vote is worth 100 and the Taoiseachs vote is worth 257,000


10/189

Every one of those elected on these so called vocational panels in 2011 was a fully whippedmember of the major political parties. Their connection to the supposed area of expertise isoften tenuous or non-existent and they never meet as a group to discuss their area of vocationalpurpose.

The system of Taoiseachs nominees has often been abused in the past, with recess appointmentsmade in the two-month period after a General Election and before a Seanad election to grantOireachtas privileges to party loyalists.

This system has served the established political parties well. As Michael McDowell said, it hasfunctioned largely as a cross between a political convalescent home and a creche.

c) An elitist and undemocratic institution

J^[I[WdWZ_i[b[Yj[ZXoWc[h['e\j^[fefkbWj_ed$

/&e\I[dWjehiWh[[b[Yj[Z[nYbki_l[boXofeb_j_Y_Wdi$

J^[ej^[h'&Wh[[b[Yj[ZXo]hWZkWj[ie\jmekd_l[hi_j_[i$

7feb_j_Y_Wdm^e_iW]hWZkWj[e\J9:ehDK?Kd_l[hi_j_[iYWd^Wl[,eh[l[d-lej[i in the Seanad, while the vast majority of citizens have no vote.

Seanad electorate:

Number Seats Turnout

Population 4.6 m 0 -

TCD/NUI graduates 0.15m 6 33%

Politicians (TDs, Senatorsand Councillors)

0.001m 43 98%

Taoiseach 0.000,001m 11 100%

The vocational panels were a product of corporatist thinking of the 1930s, which sought to give

privileges to special interests in society based on their perceived importance. Direct nominatingrights for special interests no longer is acceptable in a modern pluralist democracy . There isa need for specialist expertise in the law-making process, but this should come as independentexpert advice, not members of Parliament.

There is simply no reason why people who have had the privilege of higher education shouldbe also conferred with extra voting rights in our parliament. Every person, regardless of theirstation in life, is entitled to be treated equally in a democracy.

The inclusion of six university Senators was to compensate for the abolition of such representationin the Dil in 1937 and it was designed to ensure a voice for the Unionist minority through thethree Trinity College seats.


11/1810

Even on its own terms, this system is totally anomalous in that it denies representation to thecountrys new Universities and Institutes of Technology. More than half of those graduating from3rd level education are not entitled to vote for the Seanad. The people agreed in a referendum in1979 that the mandate should be extended to all graduates. However, no Government ever actedto deliver this extension.

In all only about 140,000 graduates are entitled to vote. However, almost two out of every threedo not vote.

(d) A powerless institution

The Seanad is also almost completely powerless. The most significant power the Seanad has is todelay a piece of legislation by 90 days.

The last time the Seanad blocked a piece of legislation was 1964 and it has done so on just one

other occasion in its history, in 19594. On both occasions, the Dil simply pressed ahead withthe legislation.

A watchdog that has only barked twice in 75 years isnt much use.

Many powers on paper have remained unused. The Seanad has never exercised its right to challangethe designation of a Bill as a Money Bill.

Virtually all of the amendments made in the Seanad are Government amendments.

This cannot be described as adding any meaningful value in the development of legislation.

The Seanad was never designed as the watchdog which some claim it is. The powers to scrutinisespending, to question the Taoiseach and Ministers, to hold inquiries are primarily matters for theDil. In addition, since its inception in 1937 huge changes have been made to oversee the activityof the government. An enormous range of bodies have now been put in place to watch over theway citizens are treated by government.

Amongst these are the development of Ombudsman Services (Public Service, Gardai, Financial

Service), the establishment of SIPO to police standards in public office, the creation of independentRegulators, the creation of the Independent Fiscal Council. These have created effective checks andbalance on executive power for citizens and vocational interest groups, which the Seanad has neverexercised. The Seanad simply duplicates the work of the Dil, in weaker form. It comprisesanother group of largely party political politicians, examining the final stages of a legislativeprocess when the legislation is virtually set in stone and the outcome is a forgone conclusion giventhe Governments inbuilt majority but does not have the power to do anything other than delaylegislation.

This cannot be construed as an independent oversight of the work of Government or the Dil.4 Maurice Manning, The Seanad, pp. 153-166 and Muiris MacCartaaigh and Maurice Manning (eds), The

Houses of the Oireachtas (Dublin: Institute of Public Administration, 2010), P.160


12/1811

e) The frustrated efforts to reform It

No less than 10 reports dealing with reform of the Seanad have been produced since 1937 yetthere has been no substantive reform. Most of these reports recognised the failure of the Seanadto satisfy the criteria for a relevant effective and representative second house. They acknowledged

the impossibility of giving effect to any meaningful form of vocational representation. Generally,they offered to allow citizens vote for a subset of members while retaining the right of theTaoiseach to make 20% of the appointments and the right of politicians to select a furthersubstantial share of the members.

Reports on Seanad reform:

1. Report on Seanad Reform by the Seanad Eireann Committee on Procedure andPrivileges 2004

2. Seventh Progress Report of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on theConstitution (March 2002)

3. Second Progress Report of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution(April 1997)

4. Report of the Constitution Review Committee (May 1996)

5. Report of the Committee on the Constitution (December 1967)

6. Report of the Seanad Electoral Law Commission (1959)

7. Seanad ireann (1953), Report of the Select Committee on the Seanad ireann(Panel Members) Bill, 1952

8. Report of the Joint Committee on Seanad Panel Elections (1947)

9. Report of the Commission on Vocational Organisation (1943)

10. Dil ireann (1937) Special Report of the Special Committee on the SeanadElectoral (Panel Members) Bill, 1937

The most recent report from 2004 proposed a larger Seanad in which politicians would stillselect more than half the members. Its powers were to remain unchanged. It sought to carve

out a special role for the Seanad in early consultation on legislation and scrutiny of policy. Thosereforms were not implemented by the then government composed of parties now demandingreform. Indeed, this was just one of three Reports on reform of the Seanad presented to theFianna Fail/PD government and not one reform was implemented.

The basic problem faced by all in favour of reform is that creating a directly-elected Seanadwould pointlessly create a replica of the Dil while retaining a different electoral system wouldperpetuate the current elitist undemocratic model.

This is an entirely fruitless search for an agreed role for a Chamber that no longer serves aneffective purpose. Its defenders have totally different views as to what is should be or do. Whatwe need to strengthen the work of the Dil which is elected by all of the people. That is thesimple choice offered in this Referendum. Instead of more politicians, it proposes fewer politicians.


13/1812

Instead of finding roles to keep the Seanad going, it proposes that those whom the people directlyelect should take on new tasks. However, hand in hand with the abolition of the Seanad, newprovisions will be put in place to make the Dil more effective and to continue the programme ofpolitical reform.

A No vote will ensure that the Seanad remains in its current toothless, elitist, undemocraticform for years to come.

5. Constitutional safeguards following abolition

With a move to a one chamber parliament, most parliamentary duties will now be exercised by theDil alone, working with the President where appropriate. This includes the passing of legislation,the adoption of international agreements into law, and the right to raise and maintain an army. Itwill also include the specific sanctioning of actions under enhanced cooperation at EU level, underthe Schengen Agreement and the opt-outs in the area of Justice matters, and in respect of actions

to allow the European Council to act in certain areas or to act other than by unanimity.

It is wholly correct that specific sanctioning for all these decisions should ultimately made bypublic representatives whom all of the people elect. There are a number of important powerswhich are already exercised by the Dil alone.

There are certain parliamentary decisions whose particular gravity has required more than simpleapproval, and where certain joint action of both Houses has been required. In order to retain thespecial nature of these decisions, new provisions have been included in the Constitution to take

account of the removal of the Seanads role. They are set out in figure 8.

To maintain the special gravity of decisions to impeach important constitutional officers, thethreshold for decision has been increased to two-thirds in the case of a Judge or the C&AG, four-fifths in the case of the President.

Parliamentary representation on the Council of State is being maintained. The number ofparliamentarians required to nominate a candidate for the presidency is being reduced to reflectthe lower number of members.

The 32nd Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Eireann) Bill introduces a number ofcounterbalancing measures to compensate for abolition of the Seanad:


14/1813

Description Existing procedure New procedure

Impeachment ofPresident

(Articles 12 and13)

The President may beimpeached for stated mis-

behaviour by the Housesof the Oireachtas

TWO-THIRDS

Two-thirds of themembership of eitherHouse is required toprefer a charge againstthe President. The otherHouse must investigatethat charge and two-thirdsof the membership of thatHouse is required to passa resolution to remove the

President.

FOUR-FIFTHS

Four-fifths of themembership of theDil must prefer acharge, and if aninvestigation sustainsthat charge, four-fifths of the member-ship of the Dil mustpass a resolution toremove the President

Impeachment ofthe C&AG

(Article 33)

The C&AG may beremoved from office forstated misbehaviour orincapacity by the Housesof the Oireachtas

SIMPLE MAJORITY

Both Houses of theOireachtas must passresolutions to remove theC&AG

TWO-THIRDS

Two-thirds of thetotal membership ofthe Dil must passthe resolution

Impeachment ofa Judge of the

Supreme or HighCourt (Article 35)

A Judge of the Supremeor High Court may be

removed from office forstated misbehaviour orincapacity by the Housesof the Oireachtas

SIMPLE MAJORITY

Both HousesBoth Houses of theOireachtas must passresolutions to remove theC&AG

TWO-THIRDS

Two-thirds of thetotal membership ofthe Dil must passthe resolution

Membership ofPresidential Com-mission (Article14)

The PresidentialCommission consistsof the Chief Justice, theCeann Comhairle of the

Dil and the Chairman ofSeanad ireann.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Cathaoirelach of theSeanad and Ceann

Comhairle representparliament

Leas-CheannComhairle

The Leas-Cheann

Comhairle replacesthe position of theCathaoirleach of theSeanad

Membership ofthe Council ofState (Article 31)

The ex-officio membersof the Council of Stateare: The Taoiseach, theTnaiste, the Chief Justice,the President of theHigh Court, the Ceann

Comhairle of Dil Eireann,the Cathaoirleach ofSeanad Eireann and theAttorney General.

CATHAOIRLEACH

(as above)

Leas-CheannComhairle

(as above)


15/1814

NominationPresidential Can-didates (Article12.4)

At present, a candidatemust either obtain20 nominations fromOireachtas Membersor be nominated by at

least 4 county councils.Incumbent presidents canalso nominate themselves.

20 members

At least 20 members ofeither of the Houses ofthe Oireachtas

14 members

At least 14 membersof the Dil

6. Politics must continue to become more cost effective

a) Substantial changes being made

From its very first action, when Ministerial pay was cut and State cars abolished, this governmenthas been determined to make politics more cost-effective. Enda Kenny now earns roughly half ofwhat Bertie Ahern did. Much has been done to reform the system. Increments for Members yearsof service have been abolished. The number of Committees and the Ministers of State has beenreduced. Soon the number of TDs will be reduced as well. Payments within Committees have beensharply shorn back. Expenses paid to politicians have been cut by 25% and now must be vouched.Politicians who retire or are defeated now only qualify for pension at normal retirement age.Severance Lump Sums for Ministers have been abolished. These cuts are, of course, in addition tothe various pay-related cuts

that have been applied to politicians in line with all other public servants. We have considerablyreduced the use of the Government jet.

This drive for savings and better use of public money will continue. The proposal to abolish theSeanad is inherently connected to this drive. It is no longer an effective use of public monies.

b) The abolition of the Seanad will bring significant savings

The only independent assessment of the cost of running the Seanad comes from the Houses ofthe Oireachtas Commission the body in charge of running the Seanad. Others have have comeup with estimates but they are only that. The Oirechtas Commissions assessment is that thatthe Seanad costs just over20 million per year to run in direct and indirect costs. As this is anannually recurring cost, we can save around100 million over the typical 5-year Dil term.

The Houses of the Oireachtas Commission has broken down these 20 million annual costs asfollows:


16/1815

Breakdown of Seanad costs:

Direct costs of8.8m:

4.2m Members salaries

2.5mMembers expenses

2.1mMembers staff costs

Indirect costs of9.3m:

1.9m

ICT Section costs (estimate of proportion of overall ICT costs for

Houses of the Oireachtas incurred by Seanad members and staff)

1.6m

Superintendent Section costs- this includes Parliamentary Ushers, for example.(estimated proportionally, as above in ICT costs section)

2.8m

Procedural Sections costs - services include services provided by the Commit-tee secretariat and the procedural offices e.g. the General Office (ParliamentaryQuestions, adjournment matters), the Bills Office (Bills, Amendment Lists) andthe Journal Office (Journals of Proceedings, Standing Orders, Rulings of the Chair,Order Papers).

3mOther support sections costs - eg. Office of the Parliamentary Legal Adviser. Also,lighting, heating, office equipment, postage, stationary, etc.

Pension costs of2m:

2m

There is also an annual cost of approximately2m in pension relating to theSeanad. This relates to pensions accrued by current and former members. It doesnot cover the actuarial calculation of approximate savings for pensions that will

never be accrued by potential new members of the Seanad if the referendum toabolish it is passed.


17/1816

In addition, substantial savings across the public service will accrue across Government from nolonger having to service the Seanad, which has not been included in these figures.

Direct savings, such as Senators salaries and allowances, will be made as soon as the currentSeanads term ends. Indirect costs include the general expenses of staffing and running the House,

along with the offices and equipment which will no longer be needed. Some indirect savings willonly be made more gradually, over time. Public servants who serve the Seanad will be redeployedacross the public sector to areas where they are needed, or used to replace those who retireelsewhere without the expense of hiring new staff. Offices will be released to other purposes.This distinction between immediate and long-term savings is a common features of all of therationalisations and closures which are underway. All have the objective of releasing resources toprotect important frontline services by achieving efficiencies, and this Government has a record ofsuccess in achieving savings in this way.

A saving of

20 million is a considerable amount of money, especially considering it is an annuallyrecurring saving. It will be for government to decide how this saving will be deployed. However, itwould, for example, pay for approximately 350 primary school teachers.

c) Any additional resources needed for new structures in a single chamber can be funded fromsmaller Dil membership and continuing savings in the Dil

Separately to the20 million Seanad saving, we estimate that approximately2 million5 insavings will be generated by cutting the number of TDs from 166 to 158a measure which isalready scheduled to take place at the next general election.

The Houses of the Oireachtas will continue to drive down costs, like all other governmentdepartments. There were overall savings of over 8% on the three year Oireachtas budget for201020126.

These savings will be sufficient to fund the additional resources required to serve a reformed Dil,such as the panel of independent experts and additional Committee Hearings.

7. Conclusion

This Referendum presents a simple choice. Abolishing the Seanad will reduce the number ofnational politicians, where Ireland has 33% more than other countries of our size, and bring us linewith international best practice. It will dispense with a Chamber which is selected by just 1% ofthe population, which has limited power, and which has proven ineffectual.

It will bring with it reforms in the Dil, the chamber elected by all of the people to ensure a farmore open and effective scrutiny. It will release 20m in resources each year which can bedevoted to urgent priorities.

5 The cost of a TD is based on an estimate of a TDs salary, staff, various allowances and a conservative estimate ofpension costs

6 Houses of the Oireachtas Annual Report 2012, p. 12


18/18

Documents

Fine Gael Abolish the Seanad booklet