Sir, – May I, as a Roscommon citizen, end the debate in your paper regarding the future of the Seanad? It will remain in place. Why do we know this in Roscommon? It is very simple: before the last election we were promised that our A E department was to remain open and the Seanad abolished.
Now, over two years later, and after 11 people have been appointed to the same, by the now Taoiseach, it remains open and our AE consigned to history by the same man. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Michael McDowell (Opinion, January 29th) outlines that the gross annual saving from Seanad abolition would be about €9.2 million, instead of a previously speculated amount of €25 million per annum, which he claims to be a dishonestly exaggerated figure.
From review of the Oireachtas Annual Report 2011, the salaries of Senators; secretarial assistance payments; travel expenses and other allowances carried a direct estimated provision cost of €9.07 million. However, the corresponding estimated figure for the Dáil was €48.05 million, while the total expenditure for the Oireachtas was just short of €127 million.
Bearing in mind the approximate €70 million difference outlined above, the Seanad costs far more than the amount indicated by Mr McDowell.
The debate vis-a-vis bicameralism versus unicameralism is often misplaced.
In the event of the people deciding to abolish the Seanad in a referendum, an alternative structure could involve giving greater approximate influence to existing Oireachtas committees. The sitting hours of committee meetings in 2011 totalled 541 hours and exceeded those of the Seanad, 520 hours.
The Taoiseach could selectively appoint experts to Oireachtas committees to compensate for the loss of his (or her, in the future) established prerogative to appoint 11 Senators, should the Upper House be abolished.
Of course, the people may decide not to abolish the Seanad and if such a scenario were to arise, a backup reform strategy should be deployed speedily. – Yours, etc,