As the newly elected Seanad settles in, the Government is meanwhile clearly determined to see the Seanad abolished during the lifetime of its current term.
Some have argued that our approach with two houses of parliament is intrinsically fundamental. It is quite apparent, however, that the bicameral system currently in operation has had little effect in preventing our economic problems in recent years. When dealing with the management of legislative workload and review, the Seanad is simply part of a structure that has been crafted. It would be possible to establish an alternative structure in the Oireachtas without the Seanad by giving greater influence and power to review legislation to existing Oireachtas committees. Bicameralism is therefore not essential in order to instil a counter-balance to the Dáil. In fact, one negative aspect of Irish politics is that we do not take enough account of opinions, from a legislative review perspective, of those who will never seek election. We are are losing out on a great deal of expertise due to the limitation that someone wishing to participate in the Oireachtas must first win an arduous and expensive competition against other candidates. Reforming the methodology of our Oireachtas committees to take greater account of such voices would be an adequate substitute for bicamericalism.
Unicamericalism would also have the significant advantage that all those elected to the Oireachtas would effectively be able to serve in Cabinet. The last Senator appointed as a Minister was Jim Dooge, for Foreign Affairs, in 1981. There is no real tradition for those from the Upper House to serve as Ministers given that our system is predominantly based around the Executive having primary accountability in the Dáil. A TD can more directly challenge the work of the Executive in the Dáil rather than a Senator in a separate chamber on this basis, so the issue of Dáil Reform is a far more pertinent one.
