Sir, – I think Daniel Griffin is unduly harsh on Enda Kenny when he asks in his recent letter (January 4th), “How can a Taoiseach who identified many of the flaws of the Seanad during the campaign now preside over that same flawed institution?” In fairness to Mr Kenny, we have to recognise that the man is still reeling following the rejection by the electorate of his proposal to abolish the Seanad. Furthermore, the recently published report of the Referendum Commission on the October ballot has effectively demolished the excuse put forward by the Government for its failure to win a majority in favour of the abolition of the Upper House. Prior to the release of the commission’s report, Ministers and their spokespeople maintained in a series of non-attributable briefings that voters were bewildered by the fact that they were asked to vote on a counter-intuitive basis, ie, vote Yes to abolish the Senate, vote No to retain the Upper House.
It is clear, however, that voter confusion served to depress artificially the majority in favour of the retention of the Seanad. The Referendum’s Commission’s report states that “13% of declared Yes voters actually wanted the Seanad to be retained . . . However 6% who voted No said they actually wanted the Seanad to be abolished”. If the percentages quoted in the previous sentence were applied to the total No vote (634,437) and Yes vote (591,937) recorded in the referendum, we would see a net increase of 38,886 in the number in favour of retaining the Senate. When the latter figure is added to the actual majority of 42,500 recorded on polling day as being in favour of retention, that majority increases to 81,386. It is also worth noting that the total number of votes spoiled on polling day (14,355) clearly had no material impact on the final result.
Adding to Mr Kenny’s post-referendum difficulties, Minister for Children Frances Fitzgerald was reported in a recent edition of your newspaper (Front Page, December 27th) as saying that the campaign to abolish the Senate was “demeaning” and that there was “absolutely no need, ever” to “rubbish” the Upper House and its members, past or present. Your report of December 27th also states that, during the referendum campaign, Ms Fitzgerald, along with other Fine Gael Ministers, backed Mr Kenny’s position that there would be no reform of the Seanad if it was retained. That particular article then goes on to point out that Ms Fitzgerald “now says her position was that there should be reform”.
I am sure that the Taoiseach is, like me, still trying to resolve the difficulty posed by the comments from his Minister for Children.
Precisely how can a member of the Government be against reform of the Upper House in advance of the referendum and in favour of reform afterwards? In addition, did it really take Ms Fitzgerald almost three months from the date on which the referendum was held before she realised that the campaign was “demeaning”? – Yours, etc,
PAUL GULLY,
St Lawrence’s Road,
Clontarf,
Dublin 3.