Sir, – The Government’s poster campaign panders to the worst kind of bargain basement flippancy.
Posters shriek, “Save €20 million”. Well, it’s a “saving” only if you put no value on checks and balances to mitigate the worst excesses of political centralisation.
“Fewer politicians”, the posters proclaim. This is rank populism. Note that it is not fewer Dáil politicians, which would make a lot more sense, it’s those pesky Senators who are that bit further from the control of the party whips.
The most recent one is a classic poster-rant against “Elitism”. They seem unable to see that “elitism” is not an argument against a second chamber; it’s an argument in favour of a reform of its membership.
In any event, think of the names of some of this supposed “elite” – Prof John Crown, Dr Sean Barrett, Fergal Quinn. One doesn’t have to agree with any or all of them, but they do bring expertise and commitment and independence to the governance of this country. Does anyone seriously think that most of these people would be seen dead around the kind of nonsense committees that the Government is proposing ?
There is a whiff of panic about the Government’s campaign. It deserves to be rebuffed for, once again, patronising voters with glib and facile posters. – Yours, etc,
Prof RAY KINSELLA,
Ashford,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, – The Taoiseach has persisted in peddling a false historical narrative throughout the referendum campaign to abolish the Seanad. He repeated it yet again in his Irish Times piece yesterday: "I came to the conclusion that the Seanad was unreformable – 10 attempts at reform in its 75 years all failed" ("Chance for new politics to embrace real change", Opinion & Analysis, September 20th).
The premise of this political argument is that the Upper House is incapable of ever being reformed because it has never been reformed and therefore the only logical response is to get rid of it. This is a persuasive position when stacked against the plethora of unimplemented proposals over the years.
But it is simply not true.
Seán MacEntee, Dr James Ryan, Erskine H Childers, James Dillon, Patrick McGilligan and William Norton published a cross-party report on Seanad reform in 1947. As a consequence, the then taoiseach, Eamon de Valera, exercised his political will and introduced the Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Act, 1947.
The Act forms the basis for elections to the Seanad today. It defined what constituted a nominating body. The franchise was extended. The electoral college was tripled. The corruption that had notoriously plagued Seanad elections was stopped with separate election and ballot papers for each panel. The composition of each of the five vocational panels and procedures for the election of 43 members are laid down by the Act, as were the division of each panel into two sub-panels – the nominating bodies sub-panel and the Oireachtas sub-panel.
The only reason these reforms came about was because de Valera decided to implement them. There may well be legitimate arguments to terminate Ireland’s second house of parliament but it is an utter fallacy to suggest that it is unreformable. History shows that the power of the executive is such that only the taoiseach of the day can ultimately introduce reform. It is not the fault of unimplemented reports but the failure of leadership.
My paper on how and why the 1947 Seanad reform came about can be accessed from the historyhub.ie special series on the Seanad referendum. – Yours, etc,
Dr ELAINE BYRNE,
Global Irish Studies Centre,
University of New South
Wales,
Sydney,
Australia.
Sir, – Enda Kenny tells your readers that he instigated “a root and branch examination of the political system” before embarking on his cost-cutting crusade to abolish the Seanad. Mr Kenny will, I am sure, be good enough in due course to remind interested citizens of the process which this root and branch examination followed. No doubt there was broad consultation with members of the public, with respected political theorists and scientists both in Ireland and abroad as well as, of course, detailed discussions with the membership of all of the political parties and other stakeholders.
Doubtless too, hours, perhaps even days, were spent by Mr Kenny and his advisers conducting a careful, detailed and methodologically sound comparison of the political and parliamentary systems of Denmark, Finland, Norway, Croatia, New Zealand and all other countries to which Mr Kenny refers.
And naturally, the conclusions of, and the reasoning underpinning this “root and branch examination” will have been recorded in a lengthy, well written, rigorously referenced report which the Taoiseach will be delighted to publish in order fully to inform public debate on the forthcoming referendum. After all, in matters of such importance as constitutional design, one could expect nothing less than the highest standards of evidence-based policy formulation.
Or did Mr Kenny perhaps, as one of his distinguished predecessors is reputed to have done, simply look into his own heart? – Yours, etc,
NOEL McGRATH,
Kimmage Road West,
Dublin 12.
A chara, – We are overcomplicating this debate on the future of the Seanad. Is the Seanad value for money? No. Will abolishing the Seanad save money? Yes. Do the citizens of Ireland realise any benefits from the existence of the Seanad? No. What has reform got to do with this referendum? Nothing. What should we do? Abolish the Seanad. – Is mise,
JASON POWER,
Maxwell Road,
Rathgar,
Dublin 6.
Sir, – Under the Constitution, Senators have the right to challenge the Government and the Dáil about the lack of accountability and transparency in the affairs of our public service. Currently we pay fortunes to lawyers to prove that there is insufficient information to find anyone accountable for failures years after they happen.
A lack of transparency about who is responsible for what, or who has authority over anything, has led to a dysfunctional culture, with unnecessary semi-State bodies, “systems failures”, and poor relationships throughout the public service, especially within and between the Department of Health, the HSE, HIQA and hospital managements.
If we abolish the Seanad, no institution will have the right to seek accountability and transparency in the affairs of the public service between one general election and the next. If we save the Seanad, then we can work out how to use it to give a genuine role to experts and get government to listen to what they have been saying for years. For example, you don’t guarantee unsecured bond holders. You improve management systems first, get the software right, and then implement, whether it be payroll software (PPARS) or buying voting machines. You don’t spend 10 years planning a children’s hospital without checking first that its height is acceptable.
The list is endless. We could save hundreds of millions. But this requires a two-stage process. First we should vote against the Government proposal to abolish our Seanad. – Is mise,
Prof CATHAL M BRUGHA,
School of Business
University College Dublin,
Belfield,
Dublin 4.
Sir, – A possible new poster for the Government – Abolish the Seanad; Save €20 million; Give it to the banks. – Yours, etc,
LIAM BRADLEY,
Edenvale Road,
Ranelagh,
Dublin 6.