Viewpoint: The Seanad Debate 2

I've been listening to comment and reading about the Seanad and the referendum by which we will vote to abolish it or keep it, writes Brian Byrne. And my view that we should keep it remains solid. Even if, as it seems from the opinion polls of this weekend, my view is in the minority.

This is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater for a politically-driven ideology. And it is essentially driven by one man, An Taoiseach Enda Kenny. Which makes it all the more sad that he declined to take part in a TV debate on the matter. If he is so convinced that we don't need the second tier of the Oireachtas, he should at least be prepared to go before the public in debate outside the comfort of the Dail chamber.

Look, I make no case for the worth of the Seanad as it stands. It is quite toothless in terms of dealing with legislation as presented to it by the Dail. And how members are elected to it is a deeply flawed process. But it has shown a value on a number of occasions as a place where issues can be debated in a far less partisan manner than in the Dail. And in raising issues that don't always make it through the Dail.

That the current Government wants the Seanad 'taken out' isn't a surprise, of course. My sense is that its members want to close up the whole political 'club' so that it is only for professional career politicians. And their numbers are decreasing too. As are the third tier of governmental administration, the county councillors.

There was a time when the Dail was essentially a place for part-timers, business owners, farmers and others who for one reason or another were voted into being 'messengers to the Parliament'. There's an argument to say that it's better now that most TDs are professional pols. But there's an equally viable discussion that the Dail has lost a significant expertise which those previous businesspeople and farmers, and other professionals were able to bring to the forming of legislation.

The Seanad in its ideal did at least provide access to those non-political skills and knowledge, and could build public discussion on them which suggested practical amendments to legislative instruments that had been mostly formed by civil servants and a core of those professional TDs who were fortunate enough to reach Cabinet ministerial status.

If I vote to abolish the Seanad, I am helping to delete once and for all the possibility that we can provide a reformed upper house which could do even more to represent the views of the minority groups, the businesses, the children, the emigrated, and other elements of our society which need to have their voices heard.

This thought can be underlined by the fact that the current and previous Governments became past masters at the use of the guillotine in the Dail in order to stifle and stop debate, on a number of occasions and issues. If we don't have a Seanad, reformed, upgraded, and more representative of course, we're leaving ourselves even more open to legislation by big boys' dictat.

I don't subscribe to what is essentially a bullying tactic, and probably a 'stroke', to eliminate the further development of an alternative voice for all those outside the direct political process. So I'm voting 'No'.