Why is simple reform not an option?

The Government is making mileage of having kept its election ‘promise’ to abolish the Seanad.

This is in the face of several broken promises and u-turns: for example, in education, healthcare, pay, social and child welfare, the banks, bondholders, emigration, FOI, and devolution of power. The Government promised also to reduce the number of TDs by 20.

Let’s see Seanad abolition for what it is: an easy, populist distraction in harsh times.

Why does the Dáil not reform the Seanad by introducing universal voting for Irish citizens, at home and abroad? The Seanad is anachronistic. Why did the Government exclude the Seanad from the brief of the Constitutional Reform Committee it established when it came to power?

The Government says abolition is a cost-saving.! The savings are spurious. In the absence of the Seanad, has anyone demonstrated how its functions would be fulfilled? With new quangos? With a plethora of additional boards and committees with well-paid executives, personal assistants, and secretaries, and all their expenses?

If the Seanad is abolished, power will be concentrated in central government and in a handful of senior ministers, without fear of scrutiny by a (reformed) Seanad.

The Dáil will have absolute power to introduce any legislation of the Government’s choosing.

Rather than playing games with Seanad abolition, the Government should reform, not only the Seanad, but the Dáil and local government. We are told that TDs are working flat-out on committees (which is why they don’t appear much for debates in the Dáil, apparently) and backbench TDs have little influence and minimal speaking time in the Dáil. Otherwise, already hard-pressed and overworked backbench TDs will be further pressurised to continue their ‘parish pump’ roles to feel they have some worth.

Richard Bruton has consistently argued that change is necessary. So, why is reform not an option?

Martin Krasa

Sunday’s Well Road

Cork