nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Campaign to save the Seanad launched

Sully

A NUMBER OF individuals from across Irish society have banded together in an attempt to save the Seanad.

Democracy Matters! is calling for a “radical reform” of the second house of the Oireachtas – not its abolition. A referendum on whether to keep or get rid of the parliamentary chamber is due to take place later this year.
The group, which launched its campaign this morning, argues for a strong Senate with new powers to “ensure we learn from the mistakes of a failed political system”.

...

Source: http://www.thejournal.ie/campaign-to-save-the-seanad-launched-926226-May2013/

I don't believe we should leave the power in the hands of the Dail. We need a house where its less about political football and point scoring and more about working together to ensure legislation is heavily scrutinized and keeps TDs / Ministers 'in check'. We don't need a house for politicians that have failed to get elected as a TD - which every party abuses - goes or where TDs who are retiring go. I'm in favour of a second house but it must be completely reformed and moves away from its current form.

My concern however is that people will look beyond the advantages of two houses and will seek to cut costs and throw out these Senators for they see them as offering nothing. Yes, it offer little. Yes, its largely a ground to build reputations or where you go after failing to get elected into the Dail. No, it shouldn't be. Yes, we need a second house. The solution isn't to abandon the idea but to reform and plan out a house that is effective and works.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ressem

dublinman1990 wrote: »

The point that struck me from that programme is that how can it add up that Sean Barrett got 55,000 votes to himself elected into the Seanad in which not one single vote was deemed democratic by the public.

He is a Trinity College Senator & I would suppose that he would have gotten Votes from probably some members of staff & some others who had other connections with him. To get that amount of votes & at that volume really is shocking. It is hard to believe that even today a TD who is elected into the Dail can only get a fraction of that vote from the public.

How can some people in this Society think that in can just allow this to go ahead. How could that could be logically possible to carry out such a large number of votes on one person?

Hope I don't cause unintentional offense again by misreading your question.
Is this question regarding Varadkar's 8 Seanad votes for various panels, or Barrett's numbers?

Barrett was elected without reaching the quota on the 18th count with 1051 first preferences out of 15,557 voters and a constituency of 53,583 current and past pupils of Trinity.
If apples to oranges comparisons are made, David Norris received a higher first preference vote in absolute numbers (5623) than Ruairi Quinn with a similar sized constituency.

ressem

These arguments and counter arguments have been researched before.
The 1997 report on Seanad reform vs abolition.

https://www.constitution.ie/Documents/Oireachtas%202nd-Report-Seanad%201997.pdf page 88 Section 5.1 wrote:

We feel that the case for abolition must obviously be taken seriously, but that
this should only be considered in the context of simultaneous reforms of Dáil
procedures that significantly increase the Dáil’s capacity to deliberate
carefully on new legislation. This is likely to require improvements to the
committee system, an extension of Dáil sittings, a relaxation of the guillotine
procedure and a general opening up of the business of the Dáil to constructive
input from backbenchers, currently Ireland’s most under-utilised legislative
resource.

The stuff that Dep. Kenny and the cabinet have been stating appear to be selective extracts from that document.

So the Dail reforms suggested are

http://www.merrionstreet.ie/index.php/2013/06/government-announces-its-proposals-for-the-thirty-second-amendment-of-the-constitution-abolition-of-seanad-eireann-bill-2013/?cat=12 wrote:

In this context, it is proposed that following reforms will be advanced by the Government Chief Whip, in consultation with the Opposition and the Ceann Comhairle, as appropriate:

1. As a general rule, major non-emergency legislation will first be submitted to the relevant Dáil committee in Heads of Bill format.
2. To allow for extra consideration and scrutiny, each Bill will be referred back to the committee which considered it at Pre-Legislative and Committee Stages for a final examination after Report Stage and before the Bill is passed by the House. This new stage will be known as Pre-Enactment Stage. It will be provided for in Dáil Standing Orders.
3. It is proposed that a Minister will revert to the relevant select committee within 12 months of the enactment of a Bill, to discuss and review the functioning of the law and to allow for a debate from members and stakeholders as to whether the legislation is fulfilling its intended purpose.
4. As part of a strengthened committee system, there will be 14 Dáil committees: four strategic committees on issues of major strategic and political importance (including PAC, Finance and EU scrutiny); seven sectoral committees to shadow Government Departments; and three thematic committees which will focus on specific issue (petitions, Good Friday Agreement, members’ interests). It is envisaged that each committee will have twelve members and will invite external experts to provide specialist input to its work.
5. When enacted, the Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Bill will enable Oireachtas committees to once again undertake parliamentary inquires into certain matters of major public importance. Since such inquires can involve unique and complex legal and policy issues a separate administrative system will ensure that they function smoothly. Once an inquiry is established, it will be undertaken by a sub-committee of the relevant select committee in order to ensure that the work of the select committee can continue uninterrupted.
6. A proposed new Dáil schedule will increase time spent on deliberating legislation.
7. The d’Hondt system will be introduced to distribute chairs of key committees on a proportional and equitable basis. This proposal, if agreed by the House, will go hand in hand with a revised Dáil schedule to allow committees to do as much work as possible when the House is not sitting.
8. A new ‘10 Minute Bills’ procedure will be introduced.

Things that appear to be missing or are unclear...
A) The '97 document suggests that there should be a cooling down period on legislation to restrict the executive from railroading bills through the Dail.
Point 1 suggests that they will still be able to put through panic written bills into law in the dead of night and guillotine debate.

What can be used to limit invited corporate lobbyists from being invited into and driving the committees focus?

C) After a TD has been allocated a major or sectoral committee by lucky dip, will they have any on-the-record facility to input into the workings of another, or will they have to do so using off-the-record external discussions or shouts from the visitors gallery?

4) "10 Minute Bills".

Ozymandius2011

At the moment I am inclined to vote yes, despite in the past having favoured reform.

If I actually believed the politicians who claimed to favour reform were serious in their pronouncements, I might yet vote no. After 76 yrs and repeated ignoring of Oireachtas reports (most recently Mary O'Rourke's 2004 report) on Seanad reform, I hope I will be forgiven for having no such confidence.

The primary reasons I wish to abolish Seanad Eireann are as follows:

- I don't believe a no vote will lead to reform. The politicians have still not used the power granted them in the 1979 constitutional amendment to expand the university franchise.

- Scandinavian countries of similar size to Ireland manage comparatively well with unicameral parliaments.

- Seanad Eireann has tended to be used as little more than a mechanism for raising the profile of up-and-coming party stars and a retirement home for politicians on the way out of frontline politics.

- It has failed to use its powers in such a manner as to truly constitute an effective check on the government. The power to petition for a referendum has never been used.

- The chamber is undemocratic and elitist, being elected by politicians and only a select segment of university graduates, and 20% appointed by An Taoiseach.

- Seanad Eireann's existence prolongs the passage of much needed legislation.

- The system of panels reflects outdated 1930's ideas of corporatism imported from Fascist Italy's "corporate state" at the time in vogue wiht the Catholic Church but out of place in 21st century Ireland. Indeed it could be argued that Social Partnership was a form of corporatism at work, with disasterous consequences for the economy in terms of inflating public sector pay to unsustainable levels and helping bankrupt the country. As such corporatism hardly recommends itself to post-Celtic Tiger Ireland.

Cody Pomeray

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

- I don't believe a no vote will lead to reform.

That's fine, but the Seanad still has two important roles
(i) professionals/ specialists who might otherwise fail to get elected amending and proposing legislation - giving this power solely to the Dáil means that only full time politicians legislate. Surely it's better that part-time politicians with their legs in the Seanad and their necks in the real world should also get an input
(ii) experts, like Prof John Crown, using their vocational expertise in shaming or embarrassing the Government. I am thinking specifically of his role in the Cystic Fibrosis beds scandal at St. Vincent's University Hospital.

- Scandinavian countries of similar size to Ireland manage comparatively well with unicameral parliaments.

Everyone mentions the similar size!

Nobody mentions to completely different parliamentary system.

I think it's Norway where they don't even sit in the Parliament on a party basis! They sit in accordance with regions. Here, we have rules that if you don't vote with your party just one time, you will lose the whip, you may be expelled from the Parliamentary Party,and you might never progress to Ministerial office in your political career.

In the absence of the Government reforming this (and they show no signs of doing so) we need all the little helps we can get, and that means retaining a sometimes inconvenient Upper House.

- It has failed to use its powers in such a manner as to truly constitute an effective check on the government. The power to petition for a referendum has never been used.

The Seanad is not constitutionally designed to act as a "check" on government and for it to do so would be wholly undemocratic, it being a house that is not open to universal adult suffrage.

Rather it must act as an embarrassment and advisory service.

- Seanad Eireann's existence prolongs the passage of much needed legislation.

Not any emergency legislation I can think of.

Pete_Cavan

Some seem to think that abolishing the Seanad and removal of the whip system will sort out most (if not all) of the problems with our parliamentary system. Removing the whip will only allow TDs to act in a more self-serving, short term, locally focused manner in order to ensure re-election. Being forced to vote with the party forces them, through the party, to look beyond their own constituencies. Without it every piece of legislation would be reduced down to its effect on the locally with TDs being blackmailed to vote against it. Every TD would use the party to get elected and then work independently to get hospitals/schools/roads/swimming pools/whatever built or upgraded in their locality. At least the party is forced to look to gain/retain seats in all constituencies.

The problem is the electorate generally seems to value local prosperity over national development and this is reflected in the TDs we elect. This is unlikely to change any time soon and is why the Dail on its own is not enough and why we need a second house. The problem with the Seanad is that it is mainly selected by the government which makes it a toothless puppet and is the main element of the Seanad that must change for it to become effective. I like the Vocational Panels system but would like to see these extended and the electing procedure changed. Senators for each Vocational Panel should be elected by those directly involved in that area, eg. Industrial and Commercial Panel elected by members of IBEC, ISME, SFA, Chambers Ireland, etc; Labour Panel elected by union members, etc. Additional Panels such as Finance & Economic Panel (elected by The Irish Economic Association, CPA, etc.), Infrastructure & Planning (elected by members of RIAI, Engineers Ireland, SCSI and Irish Planning Institute) and so on. This would give us an upper house consisting of industry leaders and experts instead of career politicians and would not be tied to any geographical location so interested in the performance of the country as a whole. It would ensure legislation is scrutinised by qualified professionals before being passed.

I would like to see the number of Senators reduced to around 30 with most elected through Vocational Panels as explained above, some elected by all university graduates and possibly some elected nationally (no constituencies) by the general population. Certain standards would have to be set out for Senators (wrt previous convictions, financial irregularities, etc.) and maximum two terms.

Ozymandius2011

In 1979 93% of the voting public passed the 7th Amendment to the Constitution, which allowed the government to expand the university franchise beyond the existing NUI and TCD panels. 34 yrs later they still have not done so. Yet some naively expect a sudden surge of reformist seal if we vote no.

PRAF

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Some seem to think that abolishing the Seanad and removal of the whip system will sort out most (if not all) of the problems with our parliamentary system. Removing the whip will only allow TDs to act in a more self-serving, short term, locally focused manner in order to ensure re-election. Being forced to vote with the party forces them, through the party, to look beyond their own constituencies. Without it every piece of legislation would be reduced down to its effect on the locally with TDs being blackmailed to vote against it. Every TD would use the party to get elected and then work independently to get hospitals/schools/roads/swimming pools/whatever built or upgraded in their locality. At least the party is forced to look to gain/retain seats in all constituencies.

The problem is the electorate generally seems to value local prosperity over national development and this is reflected in the TDs we elect. This is unlikely to change any time soon and is why the Dail on its own is not enough and why we need a second house. The problem with the Seanad is that it is mainly selected by the government which makes it a toothless puppet and is the main element of the Seanad that must change for it to become effective. I like the Vocational Panels system but would like to see these extended and the electing procedure changed. Senators for each Vocational Panel should be elected by those directly involved in that area, eg. Industrial and Commercial Panel elected by members of IBEC, ISME, SFA, Chambers Ireland, etc; Labour Panel elected by union members, etc. Additional Panels such as Finance & Economic Panel (elected by The Irish Economic Association, CPA, etc.), Infrastructure & Planning (elected by members of RIAI, Engineers Ireland, SCSI and Irish Planning Institute) and so on. This would give us an upper house consisting of industry leaders and experts instead of career politicians and would not be tied to any geographical location so interested in the performance of the country as a whole. It would ensure legislation is scrutinised by qualified professionals before being passed.

I would like to see the number of Senators reduced to around 30 with most elected through Vocational Panels as explained above, some elected by all university graduates and possibly some elected nationally (no constituencies) by the general population. Certain standards would have to be set out for Senators (wrt previous convictions, financial irregularities, etc.) and maximum two terms.

Interesting point about the whip system. Perhaps the system would descend into chaos if it were totally abandoned. However, on balance I think it has a negative effect on politics in this country.

Cody Pomeray

Yes I agree on the abolition of the whip in itself being inadequate. It should be part of an overall process.

To overcome what would otherwise merely displace the power in parliament, the Oireachtas should be headed by a political President, who appoints a Cabinet, sitting in the Seanad and forming Cabinet Committees. The President, his (or her) Cabinet, and the Seanad would propose legislation, and this would be subject to Dáil ratification.

The Dáil would itself be made up of committees with representatives from the main parties, who would meet in congress with Seanad sub-committees on specific days. The Dáil sub-committees would recommend or reject Seanad proposals to Dáil Eireann, who would also have to hear an address from the President. This would allow for more effective cross-party decision-making, and less clientelism in the legislative process.

Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

In 1979 93% of the voting public passed the 7th Amendment to the Constitution, which allowed the government to expand the university franchise beyond the existing NUI and TCD panels. 34 yrs later they still have not done so. Yet some naively expect a sudden surge of reformist seal if we vote no.

The way I think I'd look at that is that either the government is responding to public pressure in offering to abolish the Seanad, or it isn't. If it isn't, then I would vote No.

If it is responding to public pressure, then I will vote No and expect the public pressure to produce some reform.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Pete_Cavan

PRAF wrote: »

Interesting point about the whip system. Perhaps the system would descend into chaos if it were totally abandoned. However, on balance I think it has a negative effect on politics in this country.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Yes I agree on the abolition of the whip in itself being inadequate. It should be part of an overall process.

Yes the Dail should be reformed, along with local government, to allow the Dail to focus on national issues which would allow the removal of the whip system. However, I dont believe there is any desire amongst the general public, nevermind TDs, to reform the Dail in this way. Most people like to be able to turn to their local TD when they have a problem and I dont think there will be much support among the great unwashed for those calling for this to change. This is why we need a second chamber which is not appointed by the government and is not elected by a general popularity contest. Nobody wants the Seanad to remain as it is and there is a lot of support for reforming it. The first step in this is to tell the government that we want to keep (as reform is not an option in the referendum), then we can have a debate on what shape this reform takes. As has been said before, abolishing the Seanad does not solve the problem we need solved.

geeksauce

To me it seems the proposed abolition of the Seanad is nothing more than a vote winning exercise by Fine Gael, they seem to decide on policies that are more populist than practical. I do understand the Seanad in its current form is not working but surely reform is better.

Enda himself said they did nothing to object to the harmful policies of the past government, so his solution is just to abolish it, meaning there will be no second house to object to the harmful policies of his government or any future government. Clearly if this was the actual reason for the calling of the referendum then reform would be on the table.

He sees that the public are unhappy with the cost of the Seanad so by abolishing it he thinks his party will gain some votes.

Harry Angstrom

Marc MacSharry's hissy-fit outburst in The Seanad today should hopefully put another nail in the coffin for the Senate. Absolutely pathetic.

Judgement Day

A pity that this thread isn't in AH where we could rant about it properly instead of all the posting about the nuts and bolts of the Seanad's operation, and possible reforms.

spank_inferno

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Marc MacSharry's hissy-fit outburst in The Seanad today should hopefully put another nail in the coffin for the Senate. Absolutely pathetic.

Exactly.... roll on referendum day.

dublinman1990

I do agree with some posters that the whip system in the Dail should be abolished as the type of Politicians who do get voted out are trying to reform it with out the consequence of being kicked out in the process.

The names that come up in my head are Denis Naughten (Roscommon Hospital) and Tommy Broughan (Former Spokesperson) & Roisin Shortall (Former Junior Minister).

However it should be part of reform of the Irish Political system. Reform of the Seanad is the first part of the process.

One reform that I believe if the Seanad was satisfactorily reformed with the most recent Local Government Act; it should be voted through via every member of the voting public during the Local & European Elections.

Harry Angstrom

Why on earth would the Government want to reform the Seanad? Are they really going to down a road where, if the government party/parties don't have a majority in the Seanad, there would be a considerable risk of legislation being stymied, blocked or nit-picked to a ridiculous degree?

It's time to wake up and smell the coffee. Anybody who votes in favour of retaining The Seanad (for the quixotic ideals of wishing to see reform instead of abolition) will only be unwittingly prolonging the life of this doss-house for has-beens, never-have-beens, wannabes and sycophantic arse-lickers. If the referendum is defeated, the Government will leave it as it as. Simple as that.

spank_inferno

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

the Government will leave it as it as. Simple as that.

Exactly.

Though there has been a plethora of reform bills, this government (or any previous) have shown no interest in reform.

Why do some people thing a "No" vote will change that all of a sudden?

Today on the Radio I heard Sen Healy-Eames claiming a no vote was a vote for reform..... well Senator, of course you would say that.

Javan

spank_inferno wrote: »

Exactly.

Though there has been a plethora of reform bills, this government (or any previous) have shown no interest in reform.

Why do some people thing a "No" vote will change that all of a sudden?

Today on the Radio I heard Sen Healy-Eames claiming a no vote was a vote for reform..... well Senator, of course you would say that.

Political self-serving aside, I don't think many people are really of the opinion that a 'No' is a guarantee of reform (or even a vote in favour of reform). It is a vote against making the system worse.

Imagine you are in a car and the steering is not working. Someone comes along and suggests the best thing for you to do is destroy the brakes. Would you consider that a good idea?

A major problem with our oireachtas at the moment is that there is far too much power concentrated in the party leadership and cabinet. Individual members have sweet f.a. influence in either house. Abolishing the Seanad can only make that problem worse.

Even as broken as the system is; the Seanad has still made some important contributions to legislation in this term, with over 500 amendments to 14 bills according to Noel Whelan (Irish Times)

So from what I can see a vote on Seanad abolition is a choice between a broken system and a more broken system. I don't hold out any hope for real reform, but I'm not willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Harry Angstrom

spank_inferno wrote: »

Exactly.

Though there has been a plethora of reform bills, this government (or any previous) have shown no interest in reform.

Why do some people thing a "No" vote will change that all of a sudden?

Today on the Radio I heard Sen Healy-Eames claiming a no vote was a vote for reform..... well Senator, of course you would say that.

Turkeys will never vote for Christmas

Harry Angstrom

Javan wrote: »

Political self-serving aside, I don't think many people are really of the opinion that a 'No' is a guarantee of reform (or even a vote in favour of reform). It is a vote against making the system worse.

Imagine you are in a car and the steering is not working. Someone comes along and suggests the best thing for you to do is destroy the brakes. Would you consider that a good idea?

A major problem with our oireachtas at the moment is that there is far too much power concentrated in the party leadership and cabinet. Individual members have sweet f.a. influence in either house. Abolishing the Seanad can only make that problem worse.

Even as broken as the system is; the Seanad has still made some important contributions to legislation in this term, with over 500 amendments to 14 bills according to Noel Whelan (Irish Times)

So from what I can see a vote on Seanad abolition is a choice between a broken system and a more broken system. I don't hold out any hope for real reform, but I'm not willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

At least the Dail is made up of democratically elected people - for good or ill. The Seanad is, for the most part, made up of people who could/will never get themselves elected. Why should we take a blind bit of notice of these people? What gives them the right to decide what's best for us?

Ivana Bacik is a perfect case in point. She has failed at every general election she's run for. She couldn't even get elected on the coat-tails of Eamon Gilmore last time. What gives her the right to pontificate to us - apart from getting a "mandate" from the NUI elites??

Javan

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

At least the Dail is made up of democratically elected people - for good or ill. The Seanad is, for the most part, made up of people who could/will never get themselves elected. Why should we take a blind bit of notice of these people? What gives them the right to decide what's best for us?

Ivana Bacik is a perfect case in point. She has failed at every general election she's run for. She couldn't even get elected on the coat-tails of Eamon Gilmore last time. What gives her the right to pontificate to us - apart from getting a "mandate" from the NUI elites??

You are making a great argument for reform, and I agree that reform is needed. Reform is not an option. Can you argue that abolishing the Seanad will lead to better government? Having no-one to review the (often sloppy) work of the Dail cannot be better than having the Seanad.

Harry Angstrom

Abolishing the Seanad may not lead to a better government, but retaining it will not lead to a better government either. As I said, it will never be reformed, and it galls me to see the likes of Ivana Bacik, Marie Louise O'Donnell and Eamon Coghlan propping up the place, and if that isn't bad enough, remember Eoghan Harris and his reward for defending Bertie Ahern?? I say close the place and be done with it.

Javan

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Abolishing the Seanad may not lead to a better government, but retaining it will not lead to a better government either. As I said, it will never be reformed, and it galls me to see the likes of Ivana Bacik, Marie Louise O'Donnell and Eamon Coghlan propping up the place, and if that isn't bad enough, remember Eoghan Harris and his reward for defending Bertie Ahern?? I say close the place and be done with it.

Actually I think there is clear evidence that having the current Seanad, broken as it is, gives us better law than having no Seanad.

One case in point: The personal insolvency legislation. The Seanad has contributed to the delay in getting this legislation passed, but they used that time to close loopholes and remove ambiguity that would most likely have caused even longer delays in court. Is your dislike of Ivana Bacik so strong that you would prefer to see insolvent people forced into more court battles?

A vote no will not make things better, but a vote yes will make things worse.

oscarBravo

Javan wrote: »

Imagine you are in a car and the steering is not working. Someone comes along and suggests the best thing for you to do is destroy the brakes.

Unfortunately, the analogy is made slightly more accurate by them suggesting you destroy the fuzzy dice hanging from your mirror rather than your brakes.

Javan

oscarBravo wrote: »

Unfortunately, the analogy is made slightly more accurate by them suggesting you destroy the fuzzy dice hanging from your mirror rather than your brakes.

The furry dice are not responsible for reducing the likely court challenges to the personal insolvency bill or reducing the likely administrative cost of the animal welfare bill.

The Seanad as-is is not entirely useless. It is not as good as it could or should be, but it is better than nothing. In a choice between the existing Seanad and nothing, the Seanad is clearly the better option.

PRAF

I'm still undecided about the Seanad. I started out with a positive view of it mainly because of the good work done by various high profile senators over the years such as Shane Ross and David Norris.

In theory, it should have a positive effect on our system of government and at worst it should have a benign effect. Having a second house in place to scrutinise the work of the first house is a good idea. Unfortunately, we have never really had a proper second house in place. By design, it has never been able to properly hold the second house to account. That is because:

1. The Govt dominates the Dail via the whip system. The Constitution states that the Oireachtas makes laws and that the Government must answer to Dáil Éireann. We all know that this is not how it works in practice.

2. The Govt also dominates the Seanad via the Taoiseachs ability to nominate his own senators in order to have the balance of power. While the Seanad can propose amendments to various bills, in reality, it is unable to make any substantial changes to anything.

In theory, a flawed Seanad is better than no Seanad. However, in practice the Seanad has proved to be close to useless. Moreover, certain senators have disgraced the house over the years. I'm 50/50 on it right now

Pete_Cavan

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Abolishing the Seanad may not lead to a better government, but retaining it will not lead to a better government either. As I said, it will never be reformed, and it galls me to see the likes of Ivana Bacik, Marie Louise O'Donnell and Eamon Coghlan propping up the place, and if that isn't bad enough, remember Eoghan Harris and his reward for defending Bertie Ahern?? I say close the place and be done with it.

And do you believe the Dail will be reformed? Because in the absence of Dail reformation, abolishing the Seanad only gives more power to our seriously flawed lower house. What positives are there to abolishing the Seanad (apart from saving a few million a year and your personal dislike of individual senators). Everyone supporting retention of the Seanad is also calling for reform, saving the Seanad also gives a mandate for reform, whether the government acts on this is another question but it is better than giving additional powers to a woefully inadequate lower house. The main problem here, which the government is doing a good job of distracting us from, is the Dail, removing the Seanad solves a lesser problem but increases the main problem (lack of scrutiny of the Dail).

Judgement Day

Pete_Cavan you sound like that twit ex.FF Minister Noel Dempsey who dismissed the wasting of €30m on some project back in the Celtic Tiger days as insignificant. The €20m that would be saved annually by the abolition of the Senate could be spent on far worthier things - of course it won't be but that's a matter for a separate thread.

Sierra Oscar

Judgement Day wrote: »

Pete_Cavan you sound like that twit ex.FF Minister Noel Dempsey who dismissed the wasting of €30m on some project back in the Celtic Tiger days as insignificant. The €20m that would be saved annually by the abolition of the Senate could be spent on far worthier things - of course it won't be but that's a matter for a separate thread.

Important to note that the savings figure is disputed, the Oireachtas have indicated that the figure is closer to €10 million if even.

Judgement Day

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Important to note that the savings figure is disputed, the Oireachtas have indicated that the figure is closer to €10 million if even.

I suspect the reverse and that the savings would be substantially greater that €20 million. Can you believe anything that comes out of the Oireachtas?