Sir, – Stephens Collins reports on a new role for the public in framing legislation (Home News, September 12th). In the article he notes that An Taoiseach Enda Kenny says it is a radical new departure in Irish democracy. Alas it only highlights that Mr Kenny has, after a short few years in power, forgotten that he and his colleagues in the Dáil are in fact “the public” and have been elected by the citizens of this State to govern and legislate. Are election promises not proposals on how the country will be governed if certain parties are elected to govern?
Throwing it back on the unelected seems like a cop-out to me and begs the question why we then need so many elected representatives? Mr Kenny should remember he is just one of us – “the public” and should chant a mantra from Lincoln’s quote, “‘Government of the people, by the people, for the people”. – Yours, etc,
ROBERT PERRYMAN PhD,
Leeson Park Avenue,
Ranelagh,
Dublin 7.
Sir, – One of the ridiculous lines which Fine Gael keeps repeating is that only 1 per cent of the electorate can vote in a Seanad election, and therefore it should be abolished.
By the same token, just 0.003 per cent of the population (our 166 TDs) have a vote in the election of taoiseach. Will Fine Gael be calling for the abolition of that office as well? – Yours, etc,
THOMAS RYAN BL,
Mount Tallant Avenue,
Harolds Cross, Dublin 6W.
Sir, – If Irish voters are so naive as to vote to retain the Senate, then we must stop complaining about poor government.
To govern this small country, we don’t need 220 Leinster House members, who are among the best paid parliamentarians in Europe, with very many family members also enjoying a nice salary at taxpayers’ expense.
Over the years the Senate has been a handy source of income for many rejected TDs, some of whom use it to regain their seats, often at a colleague’s expense.
It is time we woke up. – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL O’DONOHUE,
Rock Vale,
Tubber, Co Clare.
Sir, – Is not now the time to establish a “House of Experts” in the form of a reformed Seanad that would complement rather than supplement contributions made by members of the Dáil? Thus the current system elects members, having, in general, no more expertise than TDs, but who are elected by a narrow selection of the public who happen to be graduates of particular colleges or institutions. This process should be inverted so that aspiring candidates for election have a minimum requirement in expertise and knowledge in relation to a particular area of knowledge and who are elected by the general voting public.
By way of illustration there might be a science constituency divided into seats of learning/expertise such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc. Candidates standing for this constituency would be required to have a minimum qualification and experience in science before being eligible to stand for election for a particular seat. Other constituencies might be economic affairs, law, physical health or sport .
Any one entitled to vote in a Dáil election should be entitled to register as a voter in a particular “constituency of knowledge/expertise” in accordance with his or her particular preference and without regard to whether that voter was a past graduate of a particular college or institution. Elected candidates should be prevented from standing for the Dáil for up to three years from the date of their retirement from the Seanad.
Thus the Seanad would not represent particular interest groups and consequently not be seen by working TDs as potential future Dáil competitors. Instead, senators would focus exclusively on the technical aspects and not the policy aspects of any particular legislation.
I believe any costs incurred by such members would be offset by the avoidance of expenditures on well-intentioned but poorly thought out decisions as for example the blanket guarantees to the banks. – Yours, etc,
DECLAN NESTOR,
Dodder Park Road,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 14.
A chara, – EF Fanning (September 12th) in a defence of Sinn Féin, attacks Fianna Fáil for changing position regarding Seanad abolition. The writer will be aware that Sinn Féin had regularly called for Seanad reform and wanted the issue referred to the Constitutional Convention. It also opposed the holding of the referendum when a vote was called in the upper house.
Let us be clear. None of the political parties want the Seanad retained as it currently operates. The Sinn Féin/Fine Gael position is to abolish it outright while the Fianna Fáil position, supported by, it seems, most in Labour and on the Independent benches, is that a reformed second chamber can strengthen our democracy.– Is mise,
Cllr MALCOLM BYRNE,
Fianna Fáil,
The Chase,
Gorey,
Co Wexford.
Sir, – Those who wish to retain the Seanad say that it is essential to counteract the enormous power of the Government with its huge majority.
It is surprising that all the “experts” regularly trot out this line which is of course specious nonsense.
If the Seanad is abolished it will cease to exist after the current Government has completed its term.
Even the know-all “experts” advocating retention cannot claim to know the composition of the next government nor the extent of its majority , if any. – Yours, etc,
HUGH PIERCE,
Newtown Road ,
Celbridge,
Co Kildare.