Sir, – Barry Walsh backs up his support for retention and "reform" of the Seanad by quoting the situation in Scandinavian countries (March 23rd). He ignores the fact that the Scandinavian countries and Finland have just one house of parliament and do not have the equivalent of our Seanad.
Despite having just one house of parliament, none of the Scandinavian countries has gone bankrupt nor had to have a bailout. Pressure on public services and level of government borrowings in Scandinavia are much less than they are in this country.
Reforming the Seanad by having it directly elected and giving it more power, as seems to be advocated by a group of our politicians, is just creating another Dáil. We already have one of those.
Giving power to passport-holding emigrants and Northern Ireland citizens to elect this “reformed” Seanad would give power to those who do not pay taxes in this country to advocate spending they would not have to pay for.
Barry Walsh complains about deficiencies in Irish local government giving more power to “the government of the day”. If local government needs reform, then let us do it. Electing the Seanad by direct election, however, is just extending the power of the government of the day to another directly elected equivalent of the Dáil.
If the much-lauded Scandinavian countries can get along very well with just one house of parliament at national level, why do we need a second one? – Yours, etc,
A LEAVY,
Sutton,
Dublin 13.
Sir, – In reply to Barry Walsh’s letter (March 23rd), the question should be “How many politicians can we really afford?” Also, how do the salaries of the politicians in the countries he mentioned compare to the salaries and expenses we pay our representatives? – Yours, etc,
BREDA O’FARRELL,
Killarney,
Co Kerry
Sir, – Tom Meagher (March 23rd) wonders if the Seanad is "fit for purpose". One does not need a doctorate in political science to answer that query.
The core purpose of the Senate is to amend legislation. However, the real measure of any upper house is its ability to check abusive acts of the other chamber in a bicameral system. On this score alone, the Irish upper house fails miserably, no doubt because it gets flooded with government chums or Dáil aspirants.
Upper houses the world over often get stick for irrelevancy, but the Seanad needs dentures badly. The House of Lords, although assuredly undemocratic in its make-up, regularly checks the lower chamber; it did so only a few days ago with David Cameron’s immigration Bill. The US senate is similarly audacious. And indeed this is precisely as things should be. Where power is diffused across branches, legislative overreach is surely less likely.
I voted to retain the Senate in the referendum, but I assumed our government would reform it. Another disappointment, Mr Kenny. – Yours, etc,
Dr SEAN
ALEXANDER SMITH,
Bellarmine,
Dublin 18.