Sir, – Kieran Mulvey’s insistence that his involvement chairing the anti-Seanad group “One House” will not compromise his professional duties is perturbing. In my profession, a requirement exists to be seen to be independent, in fact and appearance. I would hope similar guidance applies to the role of chief executive of a statutory body like the Labour Relations Commission, though it’s hard to tell as the Code of Conduct on the LRC’s website is currently “being updated”.
Mr Mulvey should pick his cause, labour relations or abolition of the Seanad, and urgently reconsider his position on either management structure. Juggling both roles, one of which explicitly supports the Government, would evaporate any faith the public has in the LRC when next it acts as mediator or fails to highlight non-adherence to LRC agreements by the Government. – Yours, etc,
VINCENT HIBBERT,
Camac Close,
Inchicore,
Dublin 8.
Sir, – Ross McCarthy (September 2nd) rightly identifies failings in the way we elect our Senators. Both reform bills, which the Coalition allowed to pass to committee stage earlier this year, would radically alter that electoral process. All Irish citizens, at home and abroad, can be given a vote if Dáil Éireann agrees to reform the Seanad.
More worryingly, Mr McCarthy takes “a somewhat longer view” of tolerating executive overreach in the name of a basic understanding of republicanism. He feels we can live with overreach until the Seanad is abolished and Dáil reform occurs.
First, I’m at a loss to as to when and how the Seanad ever prevented such Dáil reform.
Second, tolerating executive overreach, even in the short term, is the greater offence against republican ideals. Republicanism demands power be dispersed among institutions to prevent such dominance by any one power-broker.
Abolishing the Seanad and tolerating the resulting “temporary” centralisation of power in the Dáil, the Government and the Economic Management Council will further distance us from the diversity associated with republicanism. – Yours, etc,
SEÁN Ó SIOCHRÚ,
Dalcassian Downs,
Glasnevin,
Dublin 11.
Sir, – Further to Steven Carroll’s article “Figures show failed Dáil hopefuls recycled by parties for Seanad” (Home News, August 27th).
If the number of Seanad members is 60 and the number of Senators failing to obtain a Dáil seat in the 2011 general election is 25, that means circa 41.6 per cent of the members have failed to fulfil their ambition of being elected to the Dáil, as per Carroll’s article. However, further calculations reveal much more if we exclude the Taoiseach nominees (11) and the senators elected via the university panels (six) which leaves us with 43 members of the Seanad to be considered. That being the case, the 25 members of the 43 who have failed in their election to the last Dáil causes the percentage figure to jump to 58.1 per cent of members.
Then if we take the number of 37 current Seanad members who have at some stage contested and failed in their attempt to be elected at a general election from the 43 members, we are left with an astonishing 86 per of current members of the Seanad who have had intentions at one stage or another to have themselves elected to Dáil Éireann.
So if 86 per cent of members of the upper house see it as the waiting room for the Dáil chamber or a consolation prize following unsuccessful general election campaigns, unfortunately for supporters of Seanad retention it is not a case of “Lies, damn lies and statistics”, but more so a justification for abolition. – Yours, etc,
JOE CORR,
Park Road,
Rush,
Co Dublin.