Sir, – I wish to take issue with the academics who wrote a letter in relation to the Seanad referendum (September 27th).
In very eloquent language they argue for “tackling major issues affecting our society” by “more executive accountability”, strengthening “the level of vocational expertise”, intensifying “political participation by citizens in deliberative democratic processes”, etc.
All of these grandiose objectives are to be achieved by “giving all citizens the right to elect our senators”.
Far from “bringing new expertise into the parliamentary system” as argued by these learned academics, all that is doing is electing another Dáil.
That would do one of two things. It would reinforce the present power structure, making for less executive accountability. Or it would set up another power structure with the capacity to gridlock decision-making and cause even further frustration to citizens already annoyed with the inability of the democratic processes to deal with everyday problems.
I, therefore, do not think that the proposals by the learned academics will do anything to tackle the major issues affecting our society in a bankrupt country. – Yours, etc,
ANTHONY LEAVY,
Shielmartin Drive,
Sutton, Dublin 13.
Sir, – We’ve too many politicians; “it” has no real power; and we’re spending money we don’t have as we face into a hard budget. That sums up the Yes side in the Seanad abolition campaign.
It’s worth noting more than 500 amendments to legislation suggested by the current Seanad were accepted by this Government to date. Who will suggest these amendments if the Seanad is abolished?
Eamon Ryan, as a Minister, regularly put Bills into the Seanad first, believing it was a good place to listen to different drafting suggestions. How often over the years has flawed legislation moved from the Dáil to Seanad Éireann where through discussion and debate substantially improved legislation was enacted?
Minister for Finance Michael Noonan is on record as saying in relation to the Credit Union and Co-operation with Overseas Regulators Act that “a wide range of issues were raised by members in both Houses in the course of the debate and many non-Government suggestions were taken on board which were ultimately made by way of Government amendments”. This was also the case in the property tax legislation where “the spirit” of a proposal by Senator Jillian van Turnhout was accepted.
As for savings, monies in reality will be diverted to the Dáil and its committees.
Over the decades our democracy has been enhanced through voices raised in Seanad Éireann and we are being asked to silence these voices, independent voices that have contributed to national issues and have not been subject to the parish pump politics that many of our Dáil representatives engage in.
I believe retention and reform of Seanad Éireann rather than abolishing the upper house to be in the best interests of the people. – Yours, etc,
RÓISIN LAWLESS,
Áth Buí, Co na Mí.
A chara, – A group of 27 university academics write to The Irish Times (September 27th) advocating a No vote in the Seanad referendum. That's the same Seanad which gives university graduates a vote. Now there's a shock. – Is mise,
EF FANNING,
Whitehall Road,
Churchtown, Dublin 14.
Sir, – On a visit to Ireland to stay with relatives I was able to read the Independent Guide to the Seanad and Court of Appeal Referendums published by the Referendum Commission.
On Page 6 it states: “The Constitution provides that Bills may be referred to the people for a referendum if a majority of members of the Seanad and not less than one third of the members of the Dáil ask the President not to sign a Bill because it contains a proposal of such national importance that the decision to have such a law should be made by the people. The President may agree or disagree with this request.”
It goes on to state that if the referendum is passed “this possibility of the reference of Bills to the people by the President will be removed from the Constitution”.
This seems to be a sufficiently good reason to vote against abolition of the Seanad. Its removal will increase the power of the Taoiseach over the legislature and further limit the power of the people to hold him or her to account. Ireland is in danger of becoming an “elected dictatorship”. – Yours, etc,
ED KELLY,
Keswick Road,
St Helens,
Merseyside, England.
Sir, – Rather than rushing into abolishing the Seanad, the Government could have kept its firm pledge to put a cap of €92,000 on the massive pay (up to €168,000) of the numerous unelected ministerial advisers it has appointed and retained. All these themselves earn far more than Senators and no doubt wield great power, particularly as many are plucked from the printed and spoken media and PR. Presumably, if the Seanad is abolished it will be an opportunity for the numbers of unelected and powerful advisers to multiply. There will be additional appointed unelected committees, boards, quangos, executives who will be highly paid. Where is the greater democracy, not even to mention the promised “savings” ?
How is it possible to treat the serious issue of Seanad abolition as anything but a populist measure after so much hypocrisy over election pledges in the past two years? We have yet to hear any convincing and reasoned argument for abolition. All we get are sound-bites and spin.
It is a power-grab by the Dáil which will serve the purposes of future governments to act without fear of further scrutiny by the Seanad, which, admittedly, needs to be reformed. This could be easily be done. But we are not being given that choice.
As far as this referendum is concerned there is an important maxim to be followed: “If in doubt, don’t do it.” – Yours, etc,
MARTIN KRASA,
Sunday’s Well Road,
Cork.
Sir, – I confess to admiring the considerable intellect and abilities of John Waters but his views (Opinion, September 27th) on the possible abolition of the Seanad are incorrect.
The proposal is not a “radical attempt to reduce permanently the democratic powers of citizens” as he suggests, but a long-awaited opportunity to cleanse our country of this political waiting room/knackers’ yard that with a few notable exceptions has been the resting place of the rejected, the dispossessed and the irrelevant. The Seanad is a costly and immaterial piece of political decoration that should be abolished. – Yours, etc,
GEOFF SCARGILL,
Loreto Grange,
Bray, Co Wicklow.
Sir, – So, we have learnt that the actual saving to be made by abolishing the Seanad might be only half the €20 million claimed by the Government. In the light of this, the total vote in favour of abolishing the Seanad could also be halved given the huge importance attributed by Government to their estimate of potential savings.
The realisable annual saving amounts to less than 10 per cent of the cost of running Leinster House and to an almost invisible 0.02 per cent of total annual State expenditure. Holding a referendum to secure these minor savings is hardly significant in the current scheme of things, so I assume that there are other more pressing reasons which may not have been fully disclosed to the electorate. – Yours, etc,
BRIAN FLANAGAN,
Ardmeen Park,
Blackrock, Co Dublin.
Sir, – If Fine Gael believes the dubious logic of one of its referendum posters, why doesn’t it take the next step and produce a new poster: Save €50 million; No politicians; Abolish Dáil Éireann; Vote Confused.com
– Yours, etc,
GARETH LL JONES,
Kennington Crescent,
Templeogue, Dublin 6W.