Vote 'No' To The Abolition Of The Seanad

On October 4th, the country goes to the polls in a referendum to decide on whether the Seanad should or should not be abolished. It is one of those moments when we have an opportunity to make a statement about how we want to define ourselves as a society. And the answer, my friends, is to Vote No. The first question you have to ask is: why is this referendum taking place? And from that, a number of further questions arise. What is the motivation behind it? Who stands to benefit? Will the quality of government, and of legislation, be improved by a decision to abolish the second house of parliament? Or is there another, preferable path towards reform that has not been properly explored? There is undoubtedly a need to make the institutions of State more accountable. Since the beginning of 2013, Hot Press has been carrying out an investigation into the policy of mandatory fluoridation of the water supply in the 26 counties. What has become increasingly clear throughout the course of that investigation is the extent to which the mandarins of the Department of Health, and the quangos appointed under their influence, have been enforcing a policy which is contrary to the mounting international scientific evidence on the issue of fluoridation; and which is also contrary to the interests of the citizens of Ireland.
The authorities have been able to ram fluoride down our throats by running rings around the elected representatives in the Dáil – and by presenting an utterly selective version of the science on the issue to the various Ministers who have passed through the department.
There is no question but that our elected representatives have failed – and continue to fail – the Irish people miserably on this issue. They have allowed themselves to be completely hoodwinked about the facts on fluoride. But there is more to it than that.
Under the Health (Fluoridation of Water Supplies) Act 1960, there was a specific requirement to monitor the impact of putting fluoride in the water. Has it happened? No. In what amounts to an act of criminal negligence, during the intervening 50 years, no effort whatsoever has been made by the Department of Health to carry out the research which was required under the act to monitor the effects of what is a policy of mass medication. In this issue of Hot Press, the chief whip of the Labour Party, Emmet Stagg, pleads with the current Minister with responsibility for fluoridation, Alex White, to stop listening to his advisers within the Department and to look independently at the evidence. The shocking truth, however, is that the politicians have stood idly by while those with responsibility within the Department neglected to carry out the actions which were required of them under the Act.
I don’t intend to bang on about this much longer here, but what is clear is that, together and separately, three arms of the Irish State – the TDs elected to the Dáil, successive Governments including the current one and the permanent government of the Civil Service – have failed to perform even once what are simple and straightforward functions set out in an Act that was introduced over 50 years ago.
It is my belief that there is a need for an additional body with the power to call those institutions of State to account. A reformed Seanad has the potential to become that body. Could it possibly be right to demolish a forum that – functioning properly – might help to ensure that those with power and responsibility properly carry out the statutory functions entrusted to them? The answer has to be ‘no’.
Have we any reason to believe that the Dáil will go about the work of serving the people any more effectively if a potential mechanism for holding it to account is abolished? The answer has to be ‘no’. Is there any basis for believing this initiative has been taken in a genuine spirit of trying to make the machinery of State more accountable? The answer has to be ‘no’. Can we say that the attempt to abolish the Seanad has been properly and deeply considered? No.
Has the alternative solution of reform been properly addressed? No. Has the Government allowed the time for full and proper debate, so that people might come to the best possible conclusion in relation to the desirability of shredding the second legislative tier? No. Are the figures being presented by the sponsors of the Referendum about the cost of the Seanad accurate? No (they include ‘indirect costs’ that simply cannot be substantiated). Now turn the questions around. What does the Seanad contribute to the legislative and political process? For a start, it has provided a platform for a number of Ireland’s finest ever politicians, including current President Michael D Higgins. Indeed, it is safe to say that Mary Robinson would never have become President of Ireland if the Seanad had not provided a route into politics for her.
On more mundane matters, with successive Governments determined to force legislation through the Dáil without adequate debate, by the constant use of the guillotine, the Seanad has become vital to the process of subjecting legislation to the kind of scrutiny which is essential to making it safe. Can we afford to do without that essential safeguard? No. A government that was serious about reform would first set about changing the way in which the Dáil does its business. Instead we are being told: abolish the Seanad and we promise we’ll be good boys and go ahead with reform of the Dáil. Honest (wink). As Michael Noonan might say, it’s like being asked to pay €300 for a three week old calf at Kilmallock Cattle Fair
on the basis of looking at the bull that begat it. Only a mug would say yes.
The attempt to abolish the Seanad is politics by market research. It is a cheap exercise in the kind of populism that appeals to the meanness in people. The campaign slogan says it all: Save 50 Million! But the campaign slogan is a lie. The truth is that we are being asked to abolish an institution that has been in existence for almost a hundred years on a whim. What’s really needed is a complete reform of how people are elected to the Seanad. We also need to give the Seanad greater powers, including that of a watchdog, that can intervene where the other arms of State are clearly failing in their duties of care. The answer then is to Vote No to the crude proposal to abolish the Seanad. And afterwards to insist that the Government gets on with the business of reform, so that what has happened in relation to fluoride – as with so many other issues on which this State has failed its citizens – can never happen in the same way again.