Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

This was by a Taoiseach who you would swear did not set out the terms of reference. You would swear he did not even write them. I have the transcript of the debate on 13 February 2019, in which Deputy Varadkar answered questions tabled by Deputies Mary Lou McDonald and Brendan Howlin. Most jarring of all is the then Taoiseach's response.He starts outlining constitutional problems with the group's report. Even though he has set out terms of reference to explore how we can legislatively change and reform the Chamber, he starts muddying the waters with constitutional issues. I quote the transcript of his contribution in the Dáil:

A further problem relates to the panels themselves, which, I understand, derive from a papal encyclical in the 1930s and which do not represent the 21st century. There is no panel dealing with science and technology, for example, but there is one which ... [relates to] administration.

Then he says it is open to any party that wishes to do so to bring forward the legislation, as if he has had no involvement at all in this whole process. This is from a man who signed off on the terms of reference.

We should be dealing with the Seanad Bill 2020. That Bill would radically reform elections to the Seanad. It includes the very proposal we are discussing, to have a single six-seat university constituency of all graduates from across the island. It would also provide that 43 seats would be filled by election across five vocational panels and that 28 seats would be filled by election by the people of Ireland, including Irish citizens from the North, who would be able to register on their vocational panel of interest. The Bill to achieve what we are discussing, therefore, is that which was developed by an all-party group set up by the Taoiseach. That is the Bill we should be discussing.

I also regret that Irish citizens who are graduates of Queen's University, St. Mary's University, Ulster University, Stranmillis University College and the regional colleges across the North are not included in this Bill. I would like to see the Bill amended in that regard.

I have nothing further to say other than to express my disappointment. This Bill is a bit of a cop-out from a Government that has always been unwilling, and a previous Government that was unwilling, to deal with reform. The current Government has been dragged kicking and screaming into this proposal by a Supreme Court case, and I commend Tomás Heneghan on taking the case. I believe he wrote to all of us. He urges us to oppose this Bill. He says the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case urges us to oppose the Bill. He asks if we want to send a message that there is something uniquely qualifying about a college degree that makes some people more worthy of holding a right to vote in Seanad elections than others across the island. He concludes that this is the moment when Seanad voting rights must be extended to all and that there will be no better opportunity than the one that faces us today. The Government seems to have missed the opportunity to genuinely reform the Seanad. It reminds us, if we were in any doubt, that this Government has no interest in Seanad reform. To be truly honest, this Bill should be scrapped and we should be discussing the Seanad Bill 2020. That is the Bill that would ensure that the majority of seats in this House are filled by election by the public, and that is what should happen.