Sir, – The Government is asking us to abolish the Seanad to save €20 million while on the same day they are also asking us to approve the creation of an appeals court, which presumably will be a considerable additional cost to the exchequer. The debate is not about cost, it’s about value.
The Seanad may not be fit for purpose but the Coalition’s reform proposals for the Dáil, if we ditch the Upper House, lack vision, detail or intellectual rigour. The fact that there is any doubt about the outcome of this particular referendum is testament to the Government’s inability to convince the electorate that their new model for better governance is credible. – Yours, etc,
JOHN O’MAHONY,
Friarsland Road,
Goatstown, Dublin 14.
Sir, – Your correspondent Eric Keane questions my support for the abolition of Seanad Éireann, given that I had previously advocated reform of that body. But is it seriously to be contended that because one has previously advocated reform of an institution while serving therein as a member, one is prohibited thereafter from advocating its abolition?
As a response to mounting criticism of the Seanad, there have been many calls (largely, it must be said, in the Seanad itself) for reform, instead of abolition. For my own part, I repeatedly expressed scepticism about the Seanad’s role and future – stating, for example, in the 2010 debate to which Mr Keane refers, that the Seanad’s future was “on the line”. The fact that I engaged in those debates, when abolition was not immediately on the agenda, cannot be said to disqualify me from advocating abolition now that such a proposal is before the people.
Incidentally, Mr Keane is quite incorrect when he likens the Quinn/Zappone reform Bill to the proposals made by Senator Joe O’Toole in November 2010. For example, the current Bill includes a proposal for self-selection and registration by the entire population into “constituencies” to be defined by the existing anachronistic vocational panels. This is completely unworkable and would, in my view, actually reproduce inequality of representation in the Seanad.
In conclusion, it is to be hoped that the debate on the proposal to abolish the Seanad will address the issues of substance involved, rather than engage in endless accusations of U-turns and flip-flops (on either side). If not, there will be a great number of individuals and parties disqualified on the basis suggested by Mr Keane.
ALEX WHITE, TD
Director of Elections,
The Labour Party,
17 Ely Place,
Dublin 2.