Sir, – The main difference between a constitutional Seanad, no matter what its “faults”, and non-constitutional (though legal) pre-legislative consultation groups, is that the constitutional Seanad may not safely be ignored by any Government.
Over the past 76 years, this quiet function of the Senate has ensured the taken-for-granted stability of the government of the Republic of Ireland. – Yours, etc,
NEIL HALLINAN
Maynooth,
Co Kildare.
Sir, – In the early part of the last century, the British Liberal leader Lloyd George described members of the House of Lords as “Five hundred men, accidentally chosen from among the ranks of the unemployed”. When the Conservatives defended the Lords as the “watchdog of the constitution”, Lloyd George said it was in fact the“Conservative leader’s poodle” .
Cannot the Seanad best be described as comprising an unrepresentative and privileged few, supplemented by failed and aspiring TDs and enough nominees to ensure it is the taoiseach’s lap dog?
CYRIL McNAMEE,
Greystones,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, – Minister of State Alex White’s article calling for the abolition of the Seanad is quite extraordinary when you consider that when he was a senator (2007 – 2011), he was an enthusiastic supporter of the Seanad and of radical reform of the second chamber (“No plausible case made for a second chamber”, Opinion & Analysis, September 13th). In November 2010, just four months before he left the Seanad and was elected to the Dáil, Mr White voted in favour of a motion put forward by Senator Joe O’Toole which proposed radical Seanad reforms roughly along the lines now being proposed by Senators John Crown and Katherine Zappone. Both of these sets of proposals are now being dismissed by Mr White as “unworkable”.
During the debate on the motion in 2010, Mr White made a number of additional proposals, including a more detailed committee-style scrutiny of Ministers by the Seanad and a system of petitions to the Seanad by members of the public. He was highly critical of the Fianna Fáil government of the day, saying that it was “principally a matter for the government to bring forward the proposals” for reform. And yet now Mr White is happy for his own Government to shirk this responsibility and to proceed to try to ram through abolition.
Having called for detailed reform less than three years ago, Mr White now tells us that “the State can do without a house of parliament that so few of its citizens know about, care about, or would miss” and that “the case for its abolition literally is that there is no case for its retention”. This is quite an extraordinary U-turn.
If Mr White wants anyone to take his stance seriously, he ought to clarify urgently what caused this radical change of heart. If you were a cynic, you might come to the conclusion that since Mr White has used the Seanad as a platform to be elected to the Dáil and ultimately ministerial office, he has done the same flip-flop routine which so many others have performed on the issue. – Yours, etc,
ERIC KEANE,
Ranelagh Avenue,
Dublin 6.
Sir, – In his press conference on September 10th, Taoiseach Enda Kenny brandished a copy of the Constitution in support of his proposal to abolish Seanad Éireann.
I remind the Taoiseach that Article 28(4)(1) of the same Constitution states “the Government shall be responsible to Dáil Éireann”.
The four-man Economic Management Council (EMC), comprising the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Ministers for Finance and Public Sector Reform, has met about 47 times. The results of their deliberations and decisions go to a largely acquiescent Cabinet. If a Dáil vote on these decisions is required, it is secured by a draconian use of the whip, not only threatening but actually expelling dissident members from the party and, to add insult to injury, local party organisations being warned that if they dare to exercise their right to nominate any of these expelled members for re-election, their nominations will be blocked by party headquarters.
Now Mr Kenny demands abolition of the Seanad using arguments such as the unsubstantiated and strongly contested assertion that the Seanad is costing the Irish taxpayer €20 million per year.
Nobody would deny the Seanad needs reform, but even in its present imperfect form it provides a forum to highlight the very real dangers inherent in a unicameral state with a Government controlled by a small group such as the EMC or its successor.
A No vote in the forthcoming referendum is a vote for democracy. – Yours, etc,
NOEL RICHARDS,
Doneraile Court,
Tramore,
Co Waterford.
Sir, – I agree with Sean Stewart (September 14th) that we are being offered a defective choice in relation to the Senate referendum – a Yes or No with nothing in between.The binary choice is not good enough.
Reform of the Seanad electoral system is needed but so too is reform of the total system of government. The Cabinet has been emasculated by the creation of the four-man economic management committee. Any move by Government towards further concentration of power, which the abolition of the Seanad would entail, should be rejected. This referendum is not the reform of politics promised by Fine Gael. It seems more like a proposal to remove any possible dissent from the neighbours in the Upper House.
If this referendum is rejected, the Government will then have to consider real reform. – Yours, etc,
COLUM MacDONNELL,
Gowrie Park,
Glenageary, Co Dublin.
Sir, – Fine Gael posters urge the electorate to abolish the Seanad, save €20 million and thereby reduce the number of politicians. Would it not be more cost-effective to abolish the Dáil, save much more money and thereby reduce the number of politicians much more drastically? Come to think of it, if cost is the only consideration, do we really need more than 160 legislators or 15 Ministers to run Ireland? I quite like the ramshackle Oireachtas, with its President, Dáil and Seanad. I also like the ancient and venerable titles of Taoiseach and Tánaiste, but I can’t help reflecting that a troika seemed to run Ireland quite effectively. – Yours, etc,
MAURICE BIGGAR,
Fairwood House,
Tinahely,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, – Is it because our Seanad is under threat that we now have constant radio ads for a fellow called Senator Windows who promises to protect our homes? – Yours, etc,
BERNARD FARRELL,
Redford Park,
Greystones,
Co Wicklow.