Last October, Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny made it his party’s policy to abolish Seanad Éireann, the second house of the Oireachtas. This has been the most recent of a long line of recommendation for its abolition, reflecting a generally held opinion that the Seanad has somehow lost its way since its creation in the 1930s. A perception has developed that the Seanad is a weak, powerless home for aspiring (and failed) politicians, plucked from interest groups and universities through a complicated system of patronage and panels.

The Seanad has become the whipping boy for the failures in the Irish parliamentary system to hold the Government to account. With a majority in the Dail and the ability to manufacture a majority in the Seanad, the government never need worry about the passage of legislation. Very few people know what a senator does. Unless something spectacular happens, Seanad debates rarely appear on the news. And if a voter didn’t like what a particular Senator was doing when creating laws, they have no idea how to get rid of them. I would be sceptical about using these weaknesses as an excuse to abolish what could be an important debating chamber. Rather than abolish an important check on the power of Dail Éireann, the Seanad should be reformed, strengthened and given a new sense of purpose.

In looking for a new purpose for the Seanad, international experience gives us very few pointers. It has been extremely difficult for other countries to find a role for its upper house. The United Kingdom, having decided to abolish the hereditary system from the House of Lords, has been unable to find a reasonable alternative. It’s likely that the current half-way system, where appointed and hereditary Lords remain in unhappy co-existence longer than anyone had intended.

The use of Vocational Panels was originally intended to allow access of civic interest groups into the heart of policy-making in Ireland. The five panel system allows senators to be selected by business groups, trade unions, charitable and social bodies and represent their interests when deciding the future of Ireland. Grassroot members of organisations such as Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport in Ireland, the Irish Country Houses and Restaurants Association, the Irish Playwrights’ and Screenwriters Guild, People with Disabilities in Ireland appoint senators on their behalf.

Of course, many of these interests have another access point to policy-making through Social Partnership, the hugely powerful process of deliberative democracy which – over the last twenty years – has brought together unions, employers, community and voluntary organisations, and government to agree multi-annual policy frameworks on economic and social issues.

I have written about Social Partnership on this site previously when it looked like Partnership was dead. Recent public pay negotiations at Croke Park – and the subsequent discussions at the teachers’ conferences – confirm the death of Partnership and a return to simple wage bargaining. Gone are the non-pay elements of Partnership agreements such as social development, environmental improvements and “the developmental welfare state” (a favourite term used by Partnership policy wonks). Instead, late night debates beyond the scrutiny of the media and the public between unions and the State have focused on money and workplace issues. We are back to the 1970s.

Partnership is dead, and the Seanad is on its last legs. Why not try to give both the kiss of life by merging them? Make the Seanad the national Social Partnership plenary debating chamber. Most of the interest groups which participated in Partnership are already represented in the Seanad, and it would be very easy to dissolve the current Vocational Panels and organise senators into the six pillars of Partnership (Government, unions, employers, community and voluntary groups, agriculture and environmental groups). Negotiations on Social Partnership agreements would then be held in open session, rather than closed rooms. Pay and workplace issues would be discussed in full view of the people whose jobs will be affected rather than through off-the-record leaks to journalists.

It is good for a democracy to bring in expertise into its policy-making forum. Indeed, the creators of the Seanad went out of their way to do exactly that. A parallel process of Partnership confirmed the importance of engaging civic society in the creation of policy, but it has been hampered by criticism of its secretive and unaccountable structure. Bringing that process from windowless rooms in Croke Park conference centre into the grandeur and spotlight of Leinster House and the full scrutiny of the populace will allow daylight in upon the magic, as Walter Bagehot said of the Victorian monarchy. A Seanad comprising of the Social Partners whose purpose is to debate their vision for Ireland’s development will undoubtedly win over many of its current critics. It will remove from the Oireachtas the friends of the Taoiseach and the future (and failed) politicians who see the Seanad either as a holding pen to election to the Dáil or retirement. Opening the Partnership debate to the public will make it easier for members of the Partnership groups to see what is being negotiated and it will give a renewed sense of purpose to a potentially important policy-making arena which has currently lost its way.