Sir, – Michael McDowell’s arguments (Opinion, January 29th) in favour of retaining the Seanad focus on its supposed role in safeguarding the nation from the depredations of a rogue government. His argument is considerably weakened by the fact that the Seanad has never exercised its powers in this regard, despite any number of poor government decisions. Either the Seanad is a pointless lapdog of government, or the Dáil has never made a decision poor enough to merit rejection. In either case, no upper house is required.
Mr McDowell’s other argument is that the Seanad gives a voice to worthies such as Yeats, Norris et al is who would otherwise be silenced. In fact the Seanad merely confines these grand voices in a place where no one can hear them. If the Seanad were gone, erstwhile Senators who really had something to say could seek election to the Dáil. Alternatively they could write Op-Ed pieces or letters for the broadsheets, where their views are certain to be consumed by a far greater number of citizens than pay attention to the goings-on in either house. – Yours, etc,