If Scandinavians can get along with one parliament why do we need two?

Barry Walsh backs up his support for retention and ‘reform’ of the Seanad by quoting the situation in Scandinavian countries [Letters, March 24].

He ignores the fact that the Scandinavian countries and Finland have just one house of parliament and do not have the equivalent of our Seanad.

Despite having just one house of parliament none of the Scandinavian countries has gone bankrupt nor had to have a bailout. Also pressure on public services and level of government borrowings in Scandinavia are much less than they are in this country.

Reforming the Seanad by having it directly elected and giving it more power, as seems to be advocated by a group of our politicians, is just creating another Dail. We already have one of those.

Giving power to passport-holding emigrants and Northern Ireland citizens to elect this ‘reformed’ Seanad would give power to those who do not pay taxes in this country to advocate spending they would not have to pay for.

Barry Walsh complains about deficiencies in Irish local government giving more power to ‘the government of the day’. If local government needs reform then lets do it. Electing the Seanad by direct election, however, is just extending the power of the government of the day to another directly elected equivalent of the Dail.

If the much lauded Scandinavian countries can get along very well with just one house of parliament, why do we need a second one?

A. Leavy

1 Shielmartin Drive

Sutton Dublin 13