Madam, – There are some who consider the current format of the Seanad to be a “waste of space”.
This may well be the case as it stands, but as a candidate on the Industrial Commercial Panel, I believe there is a wealth of opportunity for our upper house to be used more effectively. I merited the nomination from the Restaurants Association of Ireland based on my experience in the hospitality sector.
I am not a public representative but someone with first-hand experience in the hospitality business who can accurately reflect the views of the sector, at a time when businesses across the country are closing for the last time, while others merely survive. We must utilise the Seanad as a platform to nurture new ideas that will bring growth and jobs back to our shores, ensuring long-term sustainability and competitive advantage amongst global markets.
The list of nominating bodies is one example of the type of reform required for politics today. Pharmaceutical, IT and alternative energy are three sectors that will play a major role in our economic recovery, yet they cannot nominate candidates to represent them. This must change.
We need changes, we need reform, the Seanad can serve an important purpose and has much more to offer than the current perception as a “waste of space”. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – As a candidate, I share the concern and frustration expressed by Rosalind Matthews (April 4th) regarding the quantity and accuracy of the election material postage in respect of the Seanad elections.
At the time of the last Seanad election, a number of the candidates including myself, discussed the use of a small booklet to contain a short profile of each candidate, presented in an order to be decided by lottery, with explicit reference to the availability of more information online. This we considered would be a reasonable and equitable solution to the spiralling cost of these elections. The cost of delivering a single booklet instead of dozens of leaflets of varying sizes would be a fraction of the current costs. It was an idea that did not find favour.
Other candidates with considerably greater resources available to them to produce glossier and more extensive material felt that this was not the right approach. While candidates do bear the cost of producing the material, the greater cost is borne by the taxpayer. In the absence of spending limits for the Seanad elections, and the lack of attention being paid to donations made to candidates, were an individual or grouping inclined to purchase a seat in the Oireachtas then this is the best place to do it. Who is to say that it is not being done right now?
As for the accuracy of the addresses, candidates do not address the actual Litir Um Thoghchán themselves: this is done by An Post based on a database supplied by the respective university. As candidates, just like the potential voters, we are entirely at the mercy of these institutions for the accuracy and completeness of this information. The universities claim it is all out of their hands, that they are limited in what they can do to ensure accurate and complete registers by legislation. Yet they are highly effective at lobbying governments to change legislation and decisions when it is a priority for them. Witness the recent reversal of the decision to abolish the NUI.
I hope that these will be the last elections to be conducted in this manner. It is said that democracy and freedom have no price, that shouldn’t mean that you simply throw money at them and hope for the best. – Yours, etc,
Madam,– Mary O’Rourke writes (Opinion, April 1st) that the recommendations of the 2004 Oireachtas cross-party report on the Seanad should be considered instead of the option of abolishing the Seanad.
In July 2007, I wrote to the then minister of the environment, John Gormley asking whether he had any plans to proceed with a referendum on Seanad reform, alluding to recommendations made in the 2004 report and others before it. I suggested the date of the 2009 local and European elections as a suitable one. After the 2007 general election, the main mandate in the Oireachtas that had been garnered from the people was one in preference for Seanad reform.
However, the response to my mail from Mr Gormley’s office indicated that “the programme for government commits the Government to determining the extent of cross-party agreement on the recommendations of the Report on Seanad Reform [from 2004] and to advance proposals for implementation.”.
As indicated in the Irish TimesEditorial of July 8th 2010, which accurately described then ongoing attempts to proceed with Seanad reform as "elusive", Mr Gormley's ambition to pursue this avenue did not succeed. The problem with the 2004 report was that although a delegation of Oireachtas members from each party participated, the conclusions of this delegation did not then automatically represent the official positions each participating party individually had on Seanad reform. Essentially, Mr Gormley, no doubt from a well-intentioned but less clinical viewpoint, endeavoured to establish full cross-party agreement to recommendations made in a cross-party report. This was as pedantic as it sounds. Mr Gormley should have proceeded directly to word a referendum question based on the direct implementation of the 2004 cross-party report.
At this stage, the window of opportunity for Seanad reform to be implemented has clearly passed as the consensus among the major parties has moved on to the proposal of abolition of the Seanad. On the issue of proposed changes to how the Oireachtas is elected, the mandate obtained for this policy in the general election recently concluded cannot be ignored. It is clear that a referendum on Seanad reform cannot realistically be initiated during the lifetime of the current Oireachtas before one on abolition.
The key focus at this point therefore, regarding policymaking, should not be Seanad reform, but Dáil reform, as preparations should be made for the aftermath of Seanad abolition, should it be ratified by the people. – Yours, etc,