Irish Constitutional Convention set to become a Hall of Mirrors

Both the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste in their article in The Irish Times on 11 July advise that the Constitutional Convention is to be the vanguard of profound social reform.

The challenges of the 21^st century they believe need to be met include curtailing the presidential term of office from seven to five years and giving citizens resident outside the State the right to vote at embassies overseas.

The length of the presidential term was not an impediment to the distinguished and illustrious transformative presidencies of Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese. The experience of the most recent presidential election highlighted concerns about the availability of a sufficient number of candidates with adequately compelling credentials to become President; whether they fully understood what the function of Head of State is and who could persuade the electorate that the presidential office would conducted with dignity, distinction and honour during their tenure.

The prospect of those outside the country being granted a vote begs the question of whether those who do not pay tax should have the privilege of voting. Perhaps the Convention may consider that there is some legitimacy between the presence of a tax evader in the membership of the Oireachtas making the laws of the nation and a constitutional entitlement for the wider Diaspora to determine who should be Head of State.

Another topic for the Convention is to be the greater participation of women in public life. If this is the urgent priority with the stature the political parties would like to convince us us it has, why did they only spend €76,896 of the €4,805,258 of taxpayers’ money granted to them in 2011 on the participation of women in public life? Surely some solid background effort on the ground is necessary before the electorate are asked to embrace profound social and institutional reform.

Tribunal fee claim a catalyst for reform of legal professions?

The Irish media this weekend carried two contrasting reports of contemporary life in Ireland. Once concerned a family in Co. Kerry who were starving after the breadwinner’s fragile income disappeared with his part-time job.

At the other end of the spectrum lawyers the Government rejected claims of €30,000 for senior counsel and €20,000 for junior counsel in ‘severance payments’ in respect of their engagement by The Moriarty Tribunal which got under way in 2007 and published its report last March.

The overall cost of this tribunal to the end of 2010 was €41,396,005 with estimates of costs outstanding being in the region of €6.7 million, although the final cost is inherently difficult to estimate, according to the Comptroller & Auditor General.

Public sittings commenced on 31 October 1997 and there were 390 public sitting days from then until 31 December 2010, 13 years later.  Lawyers fees accounted for 78.6% of the cost of the Tribunal.  Total expenditures on this Tribunal was equivalent to an average of €106,144 per public sitting day of which an average of €83,472 was spent on lawyers fees.

The total amount paid to the Tribunal legal team to the end of 2010 was:

 

NAME	FROM	AMOUNT €
Jerry Healy SC	October 1997	9,490,181
Jacqueline O’Brien SC (1)	October 1997	6,707,891
Maire Moriarty JC (2)	December 1997	2,351,893
Stephen McCullough JC	May 2002	1,775,551
Patrick Dillon-Malone JC (3)	2001-2003 and from October 2010	132,798
Stuart Brady, Solicitor	January 2005	1,732,404
Darach McNamara, Research Assistant	September 2003	753,775
FORMER MEMBERS
John Coughlan SC	Oct 1997 – Dec 2010	9,285,628
Brian McGuckian, Research Assistant	1998 -2002	324,122
	TOTAL	€32,554,243

 

The daily rate paid to these lawyers in 2010 was as follows:

Level	Daily Rate, excluding VAT, 1 Jan-31Dec 2010	Daily Rate, Excluding VAT, 1 Feb to date
Senior Counsel	€2,300	€1,955
Senior Counsel, 80% rate [J O’Brien]	€1,840	€1,564
Junior Counsel	€1,012	€860.20
Junior Counsel [P Dillon Malone]	N/A	€1,050

Recruitment

These lawyers were identified, selected, recruited, retained by the sole member of the Tribunal alone and the civil service department who paid them had no input.

No procurement procedures were followed in the selection process. 

In 2002 the per diem rate for senior counsel went up from €1,714 to €2,250 when the counsel engaged by the Tribunals in each case sought a review of the rate. The review was a function of specific proposals and representations made by the individual barristers concerned and, separately, a review conducted by the Department of Finance and the Office of the Attorney General about appropriate rates at that time. A legal cost accountant was consulted on what
would be a reasonable rate at the time.

Three senior counsel at the Moriarty Tribunal were paid €2,500 a day for an extraordinary 304 days in 2008. The Moriarty Tribunal sat in public session for an average of 20 days in each of the past three years. The report advised that there were no specific attendance records for the legal teams maintained at the Morris and Mahon Tribunals. The Moriarty Tribunal records attendance of Tribunal legal team members but does not take account of arrival and departure times.

 

Extra Payments

An extra €1 million has been paid to counsel because of an error in the Department of the Taoiseach, where counsel have been paid a per diem rate of €2,500 instead of €2,250 and where the matter was allowed continue without rectification. After lengthy negotiations, a rate of €2,500 per day was agreed with Moriarty senior counsel and notified to them by letter in June 2002. A few weeks later, in view of the setting of the fee of €2,250 per day for senior counsel at other Tribunals, it was realised that the Moriarty rate had been agreed at a higher figure arising from a misunderstanding between the Department and those setting the fees. The Moriarty fee was reviewed again. It was considered that in view of the particular circumstances of that Tribunal, the higher fee was appropriate and, following advice from the Attorney General this rate was sanctioned by the Department of Finance on a personal basis.

The Department of Finance saw no basis for paying the higher fee of €2,500 per day and having regard to this, is of the view that steps should have been taken to apply the lower fee. The Department of the Taoiseach should have acted with more vigour in refusing the higher rate of payment.

 

Catalyst for Reform?

The scale of these costs and the absurdity of these claims aptly demonstrate the urgent and compelling need for the radical reform of the legal professions and promptly ending the combined role of the Bar Council and the Law Society regulating and representing the professions.

The combined roles of self-governance and representation causes restrictive impediments, less transparency, openness and accountability leading to the typical cost of legal services in Ireland being the highest in the developed world – an observation validated in a 2009 World Bank report and the widespread perception that lawyers can simply charge what they like.

This buccaneering culture is a severe constraint on the prospects for reform, economic recovery and investment. The State, as the biggest buyer of legal services needs to deal aggressively and effectively with the underlying issues that facilitate absurd and outrageous costs and claims, such as these.

Successful intervention will mean fewer unemployed and underemployed barristers and solicitors and a legal system that becomes a more dependable purveyor of justice and equity.

When Cowen played golf with FitzPatrick in 2008

TThe response of Taoiseach Brian Cowen to the recent disclosure that the affairs of Anglo Irish Bank were apparently not discussed during a golf outing to Druid’s Glen GC in July 2008 he had with Seán FitzPatrick, at the invitation of Cowen’s friend, Fintan Drury defies credibility and beggars belief. It is tone like the response one might anticipate from a shifty, tribal African chief with vulnerable democratic credentials and more to hide than reveal.

But Cowen’s reaction also provides an interesting insight into where his own centre of gravity is; what his default position is with respect to the entire banking debacle.

Cowen issued a statement on 10 January in which he “refutes any suggestions of impropriety” and that the outing was arranged by “a friend Fintan Drury which Mr FitzPatrick also attended”.

No one had made any suggestions of impropriety! But when precious time is spent by the Taoiseach with the Chairman of a Bank that is about the nobble the Irish nation and the invitation is extended by a friend who is a six-year veteran of the Anglo’s Risk & Compliance Committee and Chairman of that Committee for the prior four years -  until day’s prior to this golf outing – would this not be a wasted opportunity to ask some searching and penetrating questions? Who could possibly better informed about the intricacies of Anglo Irish Bank than this combination of experience, genius and insight?

Cowen’s friend, Drury, was co-opted to the board of Anglo Irish Bank on 30 May 2002 and remained on the board until 27 June 2008. He became a member of the Risk and Compliance Committee immediately and succeeded by former Anglo director Michael Jacob, who is a former President of the Royal Dublin Society, as Chairman of the Risk & Compliance Committee from 2004 until he departed from the board. This was a small committee whose membership included Lar Bradshaw who was entrusted to lead Dublin Dockland Development Authority.

The function of the Committee was to review key risks and compliance issues inherent in the Anglo business and the system of internal control necessary to manage them and present its findings to the board of Anglo Irish Bank. Did these findings, for example, include the history of FitzPatrick’s loans from Anglo and his annual year-end transactions with Irish Nationwide Building Society which came into public awareness in December of that year?

Drury, a former journalist at RTE was appointed Chairman of the State-owned television service during his tenure at Anglo, an appointment likely to have been strongly advocated by Cowen. His non-executive role at Anglo was handsomely paid. His cumulative fees his six years service amounted to €462,000. He also accumulated shares in Anglo – starting in mid 2002 with 15,000 shares and finishing with 53,796. This portfolio was worth €90,000 on 30 September 2002 and €713,335 on 20 September 2007.

Drury became a member of the board of Paddy Power Plc on 29 August 2002 and held the post of Chairman of that company from 26 May 2003 to 31 December 2008 for which he received cumulative emoluments of €818,000.  His shareholding in Paddy Power Plc increased in value from €58,420 to €448,362 when he concluded his term was Chairman.  Group revenue increased from €673.7 million in 2002 to €2,751 million in 2008.

Cowen’s statement also refers to a phone call he received from FitzPatrick on St Patrick’s Day about issues connected to the shares of Anglo Irish Bank when he was Minister for Finance. Cowen says that he informed the then Governor of the Central Bank, John Hurley, ‘that a situation was developing in regard to the contracts for difference issue in Anglo Irish Bank – the exact scale and detail of the difficulty was not apparently known as that point.’ A meeting between FitzPatrick and the Central Bank Governor and Financial Regulator (Patrick Neary) took place on 21 March 2008.

It is also noteworthy that Drury Communications have been retained by the current regime to promote the Anglo Irish Bank annual report in the post nationalisation phase. Fintan Drury founded this company in 1988 and retired from the business in 1999 when he sold his controlling interest in the company. One of the directors of Drury Communications, until September 2009, was 72-year old David M Kennedy, former boss of Aer Lingus and, incidentally, father of Patrick Kennedy the chief executive of Paddy Power Plc.

Cowen needs to mobilise public opinion on expenditure cuts

Brian Cowen needs to successfully mobilise public opinion if the exchequer deficit is to be tackled and the shoots of economic stability are to yield jobs, stability and opportunity.

During the first six months of 2010 our national debt has increased by €9 billion and the amount of interest paid on it has increased by 20% between June 2009 and June 2010. Interest now accounts for over 15% of all tax revenue, up from 11.5% a year earlier. When the State had tax revenue of almost €46 billion in 2006 the government spent €44 billion. This year spending will be in the region of €60 billion but taxes could be as low as €31 billion.

The Finance Minister has indicated that serious expenditure cuts can be anticipated in the next Budget if the exchequer deficit is to be tackled in a meaningful way – and it must. But in the run up to the Budget the media will be cluttered with a cacophony of special, frequently vacuous, pleadings of vested interests seeking to defend their own resources typically citing some really heart-rending testimonials as a defence that are often quite atypical. Furthermore, the availability of the resources many of them will speak of are of relatively recent origin given the explosive and often wholly indiscriminate growth in government spending as was demonstrated vividly, for example, in FÁS and the HSE; when paying off delinquent executives in public institutions and the banks and building societies now controlled by the State and spending commitments based on benchmarks that are obsolete, or unsustainable.

If this government was not so snookered by a bunker mentality they would mobilise support through the public identifying spending cut suggestions rather than relying exclusively on the observations and advice of An Bórd Snip.

Would the Taoiseach’s much criticised capacity to communicate not be somewhat remediated if his own Department’s web site included an e-mail 'have-your-say' input facility for a finite annual 60-day period for the public to make practical suggestions that would save public money? These could be coordinated by an identified champion and criticised by interested members of the public before being presented to ministers for consideration. The cost of gathering suggestions need not be too burdensome, nor the electronic administration too onerous in the context of there now being fewer human resources in the public service working for less money.

Practical suggestions, illustrated by specific application in given instances, such as saving electricity, saving money through recycling, less travel and greater use of conference calling and video conferencing technology, less spending on contractors and consultants, using more efficient double-sided printing, greater sharing of resources, tighter rules on sick leave, more critical evaluation of discretionary spending, and more economical computer costs are examples of what might emerge. The compacting, postponing or elimination of certain academic programmes could also stretch educational resources and redefine priorities.  A critical review of publically funded advertising expenditure ought to enhance its relevance, focus, impact and practicality.

Apart from the practical benefits that might emerge from such an initiative, surely it would enhance the overall process of governance by a regime headed by a Taoiseach who does not yet have the reassurance of his own electoral mandate and who seems increasingly shy of connecting to the electorate by holding three long overdue by-elections well ahead of the next Budget.  He would be seen to be directly and robustly engaging with the general public on a matter which needs their widespread support and commitment, rather than merely consorting with the 'shakers and movers'. 

President Obama successfully mobilised public opinion in 2008 through the slogan ‘yes, we can’. This is an opportunity for Brian Cowen to emulate his approach through 'have your say'. It might also severely discourage his party colleagues from threatening to replace him with someone else who has not earned a mandate from the electorate to serve as Taoiseach and who would therefore be devoid of political capital and street credibility.

Over 80 individuals in Irish public sector paid more than the Taoiseach

Brian Cowen is paid a salary of €228,446.  His counterpart, David Cameron, is paid €237,475, including his MP’s salary of €77,700.

The following are paid more than the Taoiseach

Sector	Function	Number of persons
JUDICIARY	Chief Justice	1
	Supreme Court Justice	7
	President of the Circuit Court	1
	Judge of the High Court	35
EDUCATION	President of UCC	1
COMMERCIAL STATE BODIES	CEO of Coillte, ESB, Bord na Móna, Bord Gáis, An Post, RTE, VHI. Dublin Bus, CIE, Dublin Airport Authority, Iarnród Éiresann, Irish Aviation Authority	12
NON-COMMERCIAL STATE BODIES	CEO National Roads Authority, Director General, Science Foundation Ireland	2
FINANCE	EBS, Executive Directors Anglo Irish Bank Irish Nationwide, Executive Directors Irish Nationwide, Management	2 17 2 2
HEALTH	CEO, HSE Master Consultant Academic Consultant Clinical Directors	1 ? ? ?

The HSE are unable to provide details of how many are paid more than €228,446.

Remuneration at the Central Bank and Financial Regulator are not included in the foregoing.  Remuneration at NAMA and NTMA are also excluded from this list.

A total of 39 individuals in the entire British public sector are paid more than €228,446.

Response of dithering Taoiseach to Boucher pension deal is devastating

I watched with quivering embarrassment, revulsion and genuine horror, as Brian Cowen, our Taoiseach, waffled on Monday in Tullamore and again yesterday in the Dáil Éireann about the €1.4 million spent by the Court jesters of Bank of Ireland bloating the pension entitlement of their chief executive, the esteemed insider, Mr Boucher.  Cowen states that he has no legal power to intervene in this sacred contract between rational parties, but suggests that it would be ‘helpful in public perception terms’ if Boucher refused to accept the bloated pension.  Cowen urges public sector workers, who are to vote on a pay freeze of indeterminate duration, that they ‘should see the big picture’.  I have no doubt they will and see it very clearly.  They will see it in kaleidoscopic clarity.

That, my dear readers, is precisely how the Irish financial system was regulated by flaccid, stuttering, incompetent, bow-legged, politically compromised morons and gobshites, before the economy collapsed from exhaustion in early 2007 with a half million people lost their jobs and everybody’s equity holdings fleeced to near extinction. 

The verbal and leadership skills of our regulators and leaders did not move beyond nuanced euphemisms and when combined into paragraphs these looked and sounded as robust as a pre-fabricated hen house in a raging storm.

When a chief executive presides over a company that loses €1.8 billion, equivalent to no less than 98% of its market capitalisation and that loss is substantially attributable to his own decisions, what usually follows is the presentation of a crisp P-45.  Very few are presented with a gilded pension allowing them to retire with defined benefits of a magnitude that is beyond the range of most people.

Cowen will down in history as the most dangerous Minister for Finance the country ever had; the Minister who supervised an expansionary credit bubble that has beggared the nation the consequences of which he never understood.  As Taoiseach, he presents as a delusionary, curmudgeon who blames everyone but his own ineptitude for what has transpired. and never a word of apology.

His body language and demeanour when referring to Boucher has been as taciturn as might be anticipated had an elderly, blind, poodle piddled beside him on the floor of a convent parlour.

Contract, or no contract, this is a matter of fundamental public interest, morality and moral authority - the Taoiseach's moral authority.

The value of the Bank of Ireland Staff Pension funds are reporting a deficit of over €1.6 billion, a deficit that has increased by over 200% since 2008.  The funds' assets are now less than 70% of the present value of future obligations.

If this adverse trend were to continue, even at a more moderate rate of deterioration, there is a real and grave threat that there will not be enough resources to pay Bank of Ireland pensions' in full.
How would Fianna Fail and Green Party candidates feel about canvassing Bank pensioners' in forthcoming elections if they are only receiving forty or fifty percent of the pension payment they are entitled to and personally paid for, against a background of the Taoiseach's apparent indifference to the Boucher gilded pension deal that has been funded from gigantic Bank of Ireland losses and bailout money?

Social Partnership needs an urgent reality check if its legacy is not to be ‘a one-trick pony’

Peter McLoone, General Secretary of IMPACT and chairman of FÁS (2006-2010), warns of an ‘abyss’ as the social partners are “staring failure in the face”. Would this not suggest that it is time to restate the fundamental objective of partnership in the context of prevailing circumstances and a Live Register that has increased by well over 100% in twelve months?

We cannot spend our way out of recession - even if this is a classical economic response to reigniting an economy. We cannot subsidise our way out of difficulty either. The Government faces the prospect of only being able to fund 53% of what in intends to spend in 2009 out of what it is likely to earn in 2009. Personal debt, at €172 billion, is well in excess of what is prudent and a by-product of housing bubble where buyers bought houses at the equivalent of up to 15 times their household income. We cannot tax our way out of difficulty because that aggravates the basic problem rather than ameliorates it.

We are told that when an international recovery becomes evident that we can aspire to an ‘export-led recovery’. But what will the components of this be?

There have been many own-goals that contribute to current difficulties and one of these is the erosion of competitiveness. Many cliché-laden tomes have been published commenting on this but little action has been taken to improve matters.

If social partnership has any real purpose surely that should relate to enhancing national competitiveness.

If the process is to degenerate into a bidding process where each of the social partners are essentially seeking parity of subsidy (€1 billion ++) for their particular constituency, it is hardly worth the cost of the Pledge furniture polish the maintain the talks table.

Can partnership offer anything that will stimulate economic recovery and growth or is it merely a subsidy -dispersing talk-shop with each stakeholder reduced to seeking parity of resources? Is the suggestion that the national Partnership process in its current form maybe faltering really such a bad thing?

Social Partnership has been in existence since 1987 and has accomplished a great deal. It brought the industrial relations process to a more sophisticated and far reaching level and its impact extended beyond bilateral industrial relations matters to encompass the perspective of farmers, construction and the voluntary sector. It reduced the incidence of days lost through strikes (4,179 in 2008, 6,038 in 2007) to provide me and thousands of beneficiaries with a sense of enhanced prosperity that are now illusory as a consequence of the financial crisis and especially that element of it that is attributable to an absence of economic leadership and direction in Ireland. We now realise that a society cannot be economically sustainable on the basis of its citizens buying poorly constructed houses in out-of-the-way locations for 15 times their annual income when they ought to be able to do so for three times their annual income. The fault lines of voodoo economics and its first cousin, leveraged investment, have been brutally exposed.

However, the process has been defined by the stakeholders in the one-dimensional direction of being able to deliver incremental financial benefits to their constituencies. We are in an environment where the Government is intending to spend €63 billion out of a potential income of €34 billion in 2009.

The last time that Ireland operated with the level of tax revenue anticipated this year was in 2003. The following gives a high-level glimpse of how fiscal circumstances 2009 compares with those of 2003:

	2003 € 000	2009 € 000
GDP at current market prices	139,097	Est 168,000
Expenditure Department of Social & Family Affairs Department of Community, Rural and Gaelteacht Affairs Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment Expenditure % GDP FÁS	5,611 257 1,025 6,893 4.9% 823	21,271 476 1,449 23,196 13.8% 1,080
National Debt Cost to service National Debt	37,610 2,276	Mar 54.245 2,108
Surplus (Deficit) on current account Surplus (Deficit) on capital account Exchequer Balance	3,685 -5,554 -1,869	-6,093 -8,698 -14,791
Live Register Unemployment	166,142 4.6%	384,448 Apr 11.4%

The foregoing does not take into account the implications of redeeming our zombie bank sector. The recent US announcement that tests to of the capacity of leading American banks to survive an economic downturn will require to raise the level of core capital by collectively raising $75 billion in new equity and to maintain a higher ratio of core capital. Irish banks do not have a high level of core capital by international standards. If they are to compete for new equity with American banks they will be judged adversely for the inadequacy of their core capital in the context of these higher norms.

ICTU and IBEC have each advocate spending initiatives costing €1 billion plus to respond to their individual constituencies. Who is going to pay for this against this fiscal background?

A consequence of partnership since 1996 is the erosion of Ireland’s competitiveness and this has resulted in the benefits that recipients thought were assured were in fact unsustainable.

The most recent quarterly report from the Central Bank demonstrates how this has come about:

	1990	1996	2009
Ireland: average hourly earnings	82	100	196
Major trading partners: average hourly earnings	80	100	156

Our labour force in December 2008, 2.28 million was 17,200 lower than a year earlier. Unemployment increased from 101,500 to 170,700 in this period. The participation rate in the workforce dropped from 65.1% in December 2007 to 54.1% in December 2008. The index for modern industrial production at December 2008 was 152.5 compared to 173.8 in December 2007, a downturn of 12.3%.

Many of the multinational businesses operating in Ireland have established positions in developed countries. Some are seeking growth in emerging countries which account for 85% of the world’s population and more than 50% of potential worldwide GDP growth. Can Ireland offer products and services to these markets and be competitive in doing so? When this recession eases and new businesses begin to emerge across the world they will seek lower barriers to entry and affordable technology. Will Ireland have anything to offer them and will the advantages be sustainable?

If economic recovery in Ireland is predicated on exports can partnership contribute to Ireland becoming sufficiently competitive to achieve the earnings and the tax revenue to pay its way, or is it incapable of doing so?

A second issue concerns leadership. McLoone, in his remarks to the IMPACT biennial conference on May 8^th also stated with his chairmanship of FÁS, “when the heat came on”, in relation to the spending controversies, his initial reaction was to walk away. He also stated that trade unions had no influence in the State’s key economic agencies. Power comes to those who seize it and use it. To suggest that the chairman of a State agency with a budget north of €1 billion is disingenuous.

A crisis need stellar leaders, not fair weather friends. Can the social partners provide this or are they merely capable of cheer-leading to the most short-term postures of perceived influence?

To summarize: we cannot subsidize our way to recovery; we cannot tax our way to recovery and we cannot spend our way to recovery. But we can compete our way to recovery and we can only prosper to the extent that we can pay our way. The alternative is that the economic management of the nation is outsourced and the vested interests are rendered truly impotent.

52 Senators Directly Elected in 26 Counties

The relevance of Seanad Éireann, the Irish Senate, got an airing on RTE’s Late Late Show on Friday, March 20th. Many people strongly believe that it should be shuttered; other consider that an urgent and radical overhaul is required

Thirty two nations operate a single parliamentary chamber. Many are small countries with relatively homogenous populations. These include Denmark, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Singapore and Sweden, to mention some.

Forty three countries opt for a duel parliamentary system, like Ireland, and several of these have federal structures. Examples include Australia, Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. An argument often cited in favour of a bicameral structure relates to the complexity of their demographic structure and a risk that elements of their society, or its former aristocracy if there was one, would be otherwise excluded from the governing system.

The first Seanad was convened on 11 December 1922 by Timothy Healy the Governor General. Members swore an oath prescribed by Article 17 of the Constitution of the Irish Free State. Its members included such luminaries as the banker Henry Seymour Guinness, Lord Glenavy, the former Lord Chancellor of Ireland from 1917 to 1921 and pioneer of the Courts of Justice Act 1924 which established the court service in newly independent Ireland, Sir Nugent Talbot Everard, the former High Sheriff of Meath, Galway born British Army General Sir Bryan Mahon, The 5th Marquis of Headfort, Andrew Jameson, a former Governor of Bank of Ireland, The Earl of Wicklow and Nobel Laureate William Butler Yeats. The oldest senator on inauguration day, Strabane-born Dr George Sigerson (1836-1925) was appointed chairman for the first day because he was the oldest member. The Sigerson Cup came into being in 1911 in his memory. When the Seanad met on the second day of its existence, 12 December 1922, two senators were proposed as candidates for chair, Sir Thomas Henry Grattan Esmonde, a former Irish Parliamentary Party MP and Lord Glenavy. Lord Glenavy was elected Cathaoirleach and Mr James Douglas as Leas Cathaoirleach. The final meeting of the first Seanad took place on 19 May 1936.

Seanad Éireann, as we know it today, consists of 60 members and came into existence on 27 April 1938. A knowledge of the Irish language, as well as a thorough grasp of parliamentary procedure, were deemed to be the vital qualities of a Cathaoirleach. Senator Seamus O hEochadha, also known as An Fear Mór, was elected. Candidates for senator are nominated by one of several vocational panels, the senate electoral costituencies comprising graduates of Trinity College Dublin or the National University of Ireland. Those chosen by the vocational panels are elected by the country's county councillors and Dail deputies. 49 of the 60 candidates are thus elected; the remaining 11 are nominated by An Taoiseach and these usually comprise political cronies either on the way in, or the way out, of parliamentary politics. Just a handful of distinguised individual have arrived in the Senate courtesy of a Taoiseach's nomination since 1938.

Today, there is a huge need for politicians with highly tuned political skills. Volatile Irish political opinion polls mirror an electorate greatly traumatised and threatened by unprecedented economic instability and horrified by the subversive leadership of the banks that aggravated the severity of this downturn in Ireland. Many decisions of unprecedented importance are pending. Each of the political parties in the Oireachtas has among its ranks some truly committed, able and talented members but there are also far too many in each of the parties whose capacity to inspire has become obsolete and uninspiring. If there is a dearth of real leadership how will this be filled, notwithstanding which combination is in power and forms a government.

The political system will only attract high calibre candidates if they have the chance of being able to make a real, sustainable, impact in a radically reformed legislature. The starting point for radical reform is Seanad Éireann with a different mandate, expanded powers and greater integration with both the lower House and the local authorities.

There have been 12 official reports addressing the issue of Seanad reform from 1928 to 2002 but we still have a grossly dysfunctional institution that has become an asylum for former TD’s and a crucible for prospective TD’s. The process of electing senators by county councillors and serving Deputies, based on a nomination from a vocational panel, is redundant. The university constituencies no longer represent the entire third and fourth tier of education in Ireland. These voting processes may have had some relevance when the nation was an adolescent, its institutions immature and when the worldwide capacity to instantly communicate was very costly, or non-existent.

Vocational issues in Ireland have found an effective voice through the partnership process of the past 22 years. The electorate has no empathy with senators because they did not elect them. It would be surprising if more than 1% of the electorate could name 10 of the 60 members of the Seanad. They are strangers to the population as a whole.

It is also an impertinence for political parties, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Sinn Féin and The Labour Party to list their Senate members as a component of a Dáil electoral constituency, on the basis of their residence, unless and until they have been chosen to contest a prospective Dáil election. The Green Party does is not at fault in this repect.

The practice of An Taoiseach nominating 11 members is another perversion, especially in circumstances where An Taoiseach is not directly elected by all citizens.

A reformed Senate should be directly elected by all eligible citizens.

Its membership should be limited to 52 members, two from each of the 26 counties. It should have the capacity to initiate legislation and approve certain State appointment. The Oireachtas committee system could be the venue to eliminate inconsistencies in the legislative proposals of both Houses, should these arise. The Cathaoirleach of Seanad Éireann should have the same status and salary as the Dáil counterpart. Closer linkages could be fostered with local authorities if the senate candidate who secured the greatest number of votes in a county was also mandated by that election to become chairman of the largest local authority in that county for the lifetime of the Seanad. An exception could be made in the case of Dublin City Council which is to have a directly elected executive mayor by 2011. A wider talent pool, mandated by the electorate, would also be available from which to choose cabinet ministers and minster of state (whose overall numbers clearly need to be reduced from the present 20 and aligned to credible political functions).

The consequence of these initiatives should be a streamlined legislature that has an abundance of talent; a legislature which is more effective and more efficient and an electorate somewhat more reassured that the nation is on the road to recovery and not the road to perdition.