Sir, – Every suggestion at Seanad reform seems to rely on some undemocratic mechanism suggested out of genuinely good motives.
An Irish resident who doesn’t pay tax here but attended a particular university can vote. A person, in particular an elderly person, who didn’t have the financial means to attend university yet has worked, lived and paid taxes in Ireland is denied a vote. More bizarrely, an Irish person who attended a prestigious non- Irish university such as MIT is denied a basic democratic right. And all of those who are enfranchised with university votes have their votes watered down by the complex and undemocratic way that other senators are picked.
There are many fine people in the Seanad, some of whom have made great contributions to debates. But because of the undemocratic nature of the institution, these debates rank alongside bar-stool debates. The best reason for allowing a referendum on Seanad existence is that it will be the Seanad’s only brush with true democracy. Financial savings are a bonus. – Yours, etc,
TOM NEVILLE,
Leopardstown Avenue,
Blackrock, Co Dublin.
Sir, – We reject the characterisation by Paschal Donohue TD (Opinion, May 23rd) of those who are opposed to the abolition of Seanad Éireann as “political insiders” and “establishment” figures. We are a non-political group of barristers, solicitors, academics and law students who are opposed to abolition on the grounds that reform of the second chamber would create more democracy not less.
We note that Deputy Donohue justifies abolition on the grounds of cost. We wish to point out that the total annual cost of Senators’ salaries is €4.1 million. This compares to €3.4 million for Ministerial advisers. This comparison shows just how trite the cost argument is. Deputy Donohue should consider the detailed proposals for halving Senators’ salaries in the Seanad Bill 2013.
Deputy Donohue also justifies abolition on the grounds that the existing Seanad has failed to block government action. We wish to point out that the value of a second chamber is shown every time the government adopts an amendment proposed in the Seanad. Deputy Donohue showed the value of this when as an opposition Senator he proposed amendments to legislation, for example the Dublin Transport Authority Bill 2008, which were accepted by the government.
It is unfortunate that Deputy Donohue did not address the proposed reforms of the Seanad in any way in his article, particularly when the Government did not oppose the Seanad Bill 2013 last week. – Yours, etc,
DARREN LEHANE BL &
SUZANNE EGAN,
Lecturer in Law,
Co-chairs of Lawyers
for Seanad Reform,
Law Library,
Church Street,
Dublin 7.