Madam, - Yet another review of the Seanad is taking place. And recently Fine Gael published what were termed radical proposals to reform it. But why not take the ultimate radical step and abolish the chamber altogether?
Some protest that the Seanad is necessary as a sort of "watchdog" to oversee the Dáil, but how do many other small countries, some bigger than Ireland, manage without a second chamber?
Examples are Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Portugal, Greece, New Zealand, Israel and the three Baltic republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
Norway is a special case. In a most efficient system, they elect a single assembly of 165 members, which on convening divides itself into an upper chamber of 42 and a lower chamber of 123 members. Thus they have two chambers for the price of one - the best of both worlds! As a compromise we could do worse than follow their example. - Yours, etc.,
KEN SHEEHAN, Mourne Road, Dublin 12.
Madam, - Once again we read of proposals to provide for formal representation in Seanad Éireann for representatives from Northern Ireland (The Irish Times, September 17th). Why?
The proposal seems to be based on the vague notion that the Seanad should accommodate an infinite variety of interests regardless of its constitutional functions.
Sentimentality and political correctness prevail.
We need to remind ourselves that the Upper House is primarily a legislative assembly, not a consultative one, and we cannot have a situation where parliamentary decisions may be taken on our behalf by members of another jurisdiction.
Incidentally, cynics might point to the irony of politicians from Northern Ireland, who cannot sustain an assembly in their own jurisdiction, seeking extra-territorial representation in the Seanad. - Yours, etc.,
T. O CONNOR, Churchtown, Dublin 14.