Sir, – Eoin O’Malley (“Abolition of Seanad makes Dáil reform a vital priority”) writes that committee chairs and the Ceann Comhairle should be elected by secret ballot. Anyone who is a follower of Irish politics would see this as a naive proposal. Political party members would still vote along party lines and in fact such an initiative, if adopted, would ensure full government control over parliamentary and committee chairmanship across the board. There would have to be some other degree of qualification added, such as a d’Hondt system of allocation for a “rotating” Ceann Comhairle position, whereby two or more fill the role over a given Dáil term. – Yours, etc,
JOHN KENNEDY,
Knocknashee,
Goatstown,
Dublin 14.
A chara, – Geraldine Kennedy (Opinion, May 25th) commented that the hearings at the Oireachtas Committee on Health on abortion make the case for the retention of a reformed Seanad. I fail to see the connection. Surely they make a much stronger case instead for strengthening the committee system as an avenue for drawing experts into the democratic process when relevant, as was done in this instance, rather than giving them a permanent place in a second house in the legislature. – Is mise,
WILLIAM QUILL,
Westfield Park,
Bray, Co Wicklow
Sir, – Your Editorial (May 16th) stated that “12 detailed reports on necessary reforms were allowed to gather dust”. Subsequently, Joe Stynes (May 18th) clarified that the only report which is both specific to the Seanad and unimplemented is the 2004 report of the Seanad Committee on Procedures and Privileges.
How then can Deputy Paschal Donohoe (Opinion, May 23rd) re-iterate that, after “10 reports”, “not a single reform has happened”? What ever happened to “facts are sacred”?
Which branch of the Oireachtas was responsible for implementing those reports anyway? – Yours, etc,
SEÁN Ó SIOCHRÚ,
Dalcassian Downs,
Glasnevin, Dublin 11.
Sir, – Paschal Donohoe asks why the Scandinavian countries, which he says are “the most accountable and effective political systems in the world”, have similar populations to Ireland but have an average of 60 fewer national politicians than we do (Opinion, May 23rd). He concludes that it is because they do not have a second chamber of parliament, like our Seanad. This is an extremely rash conclusion which was clearly reached without any examination of the political systems of those countries.
The simple reason for this is that the constitutional structures of the Nordic countries have devolved far more political responsibility to local level, removing the need for a larger national legislature. They each have huge and vastly more powerful systems of local government than we have in Ireland. Denmark has 98 local authorities and 2,500 local councillors. Finland has 304 local authorities and just under 10,000 local councillors. And Norway has 423 local authorities and 12,000 local councillors.
Ireland, in contrast, has 115 local councils and 1,600 councillors. Under proposals put forward by the Government, which Mr Donohoe lauds in his column, this will be reduced to 32 local councils and 950 councillors.
In Scandinavia, national parliaments were gradually reduced in size in line with increases in the size of local government. In Ireland, however, all levels of government are to be slashed simultaneously, leaving us as one of the most under-represented democracies in the western world.
Abolishing the Seanad, reducing the size of the Dáil, and culling a vast swathe of our local government can only result in more power being concentrated in the hands of a smaller number of people, namely the government of the day. If Mr Donohoe believes so strongly in democracy, then he should be applying some critical analysis to these proposals rather than tripping over himself to lavish praise on them. – Yours, etc,
THOMAS RYAN BL
Mount Tallant Avenue,
Harolds Cross, Dublin 6W.
Sir, – I depend very heavily on your op-eds to let me understand political issues. On January 29th, Michael McDowell made a persuasive case for retaining a reformed second chamber. On May 6th, Conor Brady produced an imaginative and attractive vision of a much more radically reformed Seanad. Any remaining doubt that reform was preferable to abolition has been eliminated by Paschal Donohoe (Opinion, May 23rd). If his article is the best that proponents of abolition can do, there is no rational case for it at all.
Mr Donohoe argues that since reform has been proposed several times in the past and not accepted, it is not worth discussing again. The last effort, however, was in 2004, when the country was both economically and politically in a very different state. On Mr Donohoe’s figures, the Seanad’s costs are less than one 5,000th of public expenditure – hardly a reason for major constitutional change. Senator Norris suggests the cost is much lower (Letters, May 25th).
It is extraordinary that the constitutional convention has been discussing alternative voting systems without knowing whether the elections are to a unicameral or bicameral parliament. If the latter, there is much to commend elections to the Dáil that combine a party list system with constituency representation. This could reduce the likelihood of coalitions that include several small parties with widely divergent ideologies or are concerned only with single issues.
A party list system, however, increases the power of the party leadership. The failure of parties to allow free votes on serious matters of conscience is already disturbing, as Derek McDowell pointed out (Opinion, May 2nd). In these circumstances there would be increased value in a Seanad with a different electoral cycle from the Dáil and a membership that was largely or wholly indifferent to party whips which could discuss legislative details and propose amendments in a non-partisan way.
Would it be possible to introduce a reform proposal into the forthcoming referendum as a third choice, using the familiar mechanism of a single-transferable vote? – Yours, etc,
TIMOTHY KING,
Shanganagh Terrace,
Killiney, Co Dublin.