Ivana Bacik

Order of Business

Thursday, 26 January 2012

Senator Ivana Bacik:     I welcome the Government’s debt and bankruptcy relief plan and the publication of the draft general scheme of the personal insolvency Bill. I have the draft scheme here. It is a very lengthy scheme. It was circulated yesterday to the members of the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. We will be conducting public hearings on the Bill. To follow what Senator O’Brien said, the scheme is still in draft format.

…     It is subject to legal advice from the Office of the Attorney General, to a report by the joint committee and to submissions from anyone who has an interest in the area. The Minister has let that be known. Changes may still be made.

From my first reading it is not my understanding that it gives powers to the banks. Rather, it will assist the 30,000 home owners who are in arrears and provide, for the first time, a series of measures.

…     They include a State-run insolvency service, a system of debt release certificates for forgiveness of debt for those who have no assets and no income and are unable to meet qualifying debts totalling up to €20,000, a debt settlement arrangement scheme and a personal insolvency arrangement. A series of measures are set out in the scheme.

The joint committee has been told we have a tight timeframe to report to the Minister. We will be having meetings with the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, and with the Irish Society of Insolvency Practitioners on 15 February and we will be preparing and publishing a report on the heads of the Bill by the end of February. A meeting for that is scheduled for 22 February. Things are moving very swiftly. There is also a need for consultation on the Bill.

My own reaction to the report on trust in the banking system was amazement that as many as 9% of people still have trust in the banks. I thought it would have been closer to zero.

I welcome the news that the first sale of Irish bonds since 2010 was made yesterday by the National Treasury Management Agency, which sold just over €3.5 billion worth of three year debt.

…     This is the first time any of the three eurozone economies in bailout has succeeded in selling bonds of this maturity. That is an important point. It is welcome, particularly on the day when an unwelcome repayment was made. Those of us on the Government side are, of course, most unhappy at paying the Anglo Irish Bank bond.

…     We saw it as a necessary evil. That was clearly set out by the Tánaiste and by the Minister for Finance yesterday. It is very much an evil and we do not like to have to do it. However, it is a strategy that appears to be working and we are going to work with it in an attempt to ensure that we achieve growth. No real or practical alternative has been offered by those who have been shouting about repaying this bond.

Job Creation: Statements

Thursday, 19 January 2012

Senator Ivana Bacik:     I note the reaction of the children in the Visitors’ Gallery to Senator Crown’s suggestion that the study of science the whole way through school should be compulsory. It is certainly an innovative suggestion.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. It is a new departure for the Seanad to hold an idea-sharing or, as others have described it, a “think-tank” session in which we can generate ideas and new concepts on job creation which we will then share with the Minister and will feed into the policy process on job creation. I agree with those colleagues who pointed out how important and vital job creation is for the future of our economy and in terms of us pulling ourselves out of the current economic crisis we are experiencing. Some excellent ideas have been already put forward. This shows the strength of the Seanad and the wide range of different experiences and expertise which each Senator brings. I note, as I look around the Chamber, the number of people here who could be described as entrepreneurs, social or commercial or both.

Some of the ideas put forward, including the social innovation office and job supremo, are useful ideas that will help the Government in facilitating the creation of jobs. As Senator Gilroy stated, we must be mindful of Government’s role in this. I would like to address two points. My first is an idea not for job creation but for job support and retention of jobs. This was referred to in the Unite trade union’s submission of May last to the Government’s job initiative. It is a concept I came across with the German model — its car manufacturing industry in particular — and what happens when there is a downturn in consumption and the purchasing of cars, as happens from time to time internationally. One finds that in certain Lånder, or states, there is a very well developed subsidy scheme where employees are kept on, retaining the jobs in car manufacturing, but there is a subsidy from the state. It saves the state having to support the payment of redundancy and people from going on social welfare. The state ends up subsidising private industry to some extent. Unite has referred to this as the “exceptional short time working scheme” and points out that it has worked in other European countries, and as I mentioned, I am familiar with the German scheme. It allows employees reduce working hours without loss of job or income. Essentially, individuals employed in the car manufacturing industry go on shorter weeks of two to three days and are paid a reduced wage topped up by the state. This keeps people in work and the employer’s business going while saving the state in the long term by retaining jobs. We should consider it here for certain areas and sectors.

Another idea comes from my background in legal training and education. To those who believe the public sector is bereft of entrepreneurial ability, I argue there are many examples of entrepreneurs created from the university sector. Some of our most successful indigenous companies have come from academia. I am currently on unpaid leave from the law school in Trinity and colleagues some years ago set up a very successful masters in law programme that has generated a significant amount of income for the university and the law school.

Having spoken to legal colleagues, I wanted to try to use that experience. A key idea would be to export legal services, particularly in legal education, in which we have a very good reputation. I trained at the bar in London and saw that at the Inns of Court School of Law, a large number of people — generally from the Commonwealth but also from other countries — came to London not just to study academic law but also to take a professional training course that would qualify them for the bar of England and their home countries. It occurs to me it would be very useful model for us to use as an English-speaking country steeped in the same common law tradition. We could consider such markets, many of which are emerging, and the universities are already targeting those student numbers. We could also consider this in light of professional legal training. Universities are already looking to build on that process.

We will have a debate on the Legal Services Regulation Bill, which envisages the opening up of professional legal training to the university sector beyond the current professional bodies. There are also opportunities for expanding the body of students we envisage teaching. There is a very sad fact of life in legal training currently in that we are educating many of our own students for export, and it is very hard for recent graduates in Ireland to get work in the legal professions. We must consider how to take a positive from the level of legal education we can offer by looking to offer it to people from other countries, in anticipation that such people would return to their countries with the benefit of legal training here. We could expand the legal education system in that way, not only creating jobs but a great deal of good will. It would strengthen our links with many countries.

Somebody mentioned earlier our trade links with Libya and there are immense opportunities for us in developing further links with countries in the Middle East, north Africa and in the Far East, where there are many emerging markets, as others have said.

Order of Business

Thursday, 12 January 2012

Senator Ivana Bacik:     As with Senator O’Brien and all other Senators, I am very concerned by the announcement of prospective job losses in Ulster Bank and by the news that there are likely to be other job losses in other banks. It is a matter of real concern and emphasises the importance of the jobs strategy the Government announced yesterday. It will be launching a more detailed plan in the coming week. We must feel sympathy for the staff who face potential job losses. This prospect obliges all of us to think more creatively about job creation and activation measures.

The Minister, Deputy Burton, has spoken persuasively about the need to ensure social protection strategies are geared towards retraining, activation and getting people back into the jobs market. I agree with Senator Darragh O’Brien that the Members of this House will have an opportunity to engage in some brainstorming on this matter next week. As part of a new method of debate, no Minister will be present for the discussion. I have been reflecting on the experience of my legal background to consider how the high level of legal knowledge and training in this House can be used to try to generate jobs and resources for society. We can all come up with interesting and creative ideas that are informed by our particular backgrounds. A particular strength of the Seanad might be as the forum for such a constructive debate.

I would like to call for a debate with the Minister for Education and Skills. I assure my colleagues that I have been trying to ensure the Minister, Deputy Quinn, comes to the House for a general debate. The Minister will be present for legislative debates, but Senators would like him to come here for a more general debate as well. We were all glad to hear the Minister announce last night that the impact of budgetary changes on DEIS schools will be reviewed. He said the Department of Education and Skills will report on the position of DEIS band 1 and band 2 schools within four weeks. I was particularly pleased to hear that the report will focus on how the loss of posts under the older schemes will affect such schools. I think we will see a renewed commitment to the maintenance of supports for students in DEIS schools. We need a bigger debate in light of the reports that have been commissioned by the Minister on the extent to which programmes like DEIS ensure greater educational opportunity for students. I understand the reports in question are being published today. We need to examine carefully the impact of DEIS and the other schemes. We should reflect on whether, in some ways, we are allowing for the segregation of economic classes within our schools. We have to be careful about the way our school system is run.

I welcome the presence of officials from the Revenue Commissioners and other bodies at yesterday’s meeting of the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform. It was an important demonstration of the exercise of the investigative powers of Oireachtas committees. The ham-fisted attempts of the Revenue Commissioners to inform people of potential tax liabilities have been the subject of significant public concern. The failure of the Revenue Commissioners to stay on top of this matter on an ongoing basis clearly points to an inefficiency in the system. Many people felt shock and unnecessary fear when they considered their possible tax liabilities.

Order of Business

Thursday, 15 December 2011

Senator Ivana Bacik:     I agree with Senator O’Brien that we need a debate on the issues around the EU deal done last week and the question of whether we will have a referendum in the new year. I am delighted we will have the opportunity tomorrow, when the Minister of State, Deputy Creighton is here, to try to tease out the question of whether a referendum will be necessary and, if it is to be held, what it will be seen as. I did not hear the Minister for Finance’s initial comments, but I read the interview he gave to The Irish Times in which he says that the practical politics - the shorthand - will be whether we want to maintain Ireland’s position as a eurozone country. We need to tease out whether that is a correct interpretation of how it will be seen and that is a different question to the one as to the content of the referendum. We need more time to debate those issues.

I renew a call for a debate on an issue I raised earlier in the week, on Tuesday, on the ESRI-UCD report on changing family forms. This important report looks at the changing demographic in Ireland and the changing make-up of family and there are political consequences from this. One of these is the need for more flexible work practices and the case for paid paternity leave, even just for a short time, to enable fathers get greater recognition in the workplace. I seek a full debate on this in the new year. I noticed that during the debate on the Social Welfare Bill on Tuesday, the Minister, Deputy Burton, pointed out that the report has implications for social welfare policy and social protection and how payments will be made in the future. A debate on this would be very useful.

I also seek a debate on education. A report from the CSO today indicates that Ireland is joint first in the European Union for third level attainment among those aged between 25 and 34. Some 48% of these have a third level qualification, well above the EU average of one-third. This is interesting and a debate on the issue would be beneficial.

All of us will have huge concerns about the report from the historical inquiries team yesterday, on the Miami showband massacre in 1975, which showed the team found RUC special branch involvement. This is something we need to debate in the House.

STATEMENT BY SENATOR IVANA BACIK
 
Labour Party Seanad leader andSpokesperson on Justice

Wednesday 7th December2011

BACIK WELCOMES ANNOUNCEMENTON DISABILITY ALLOWANCE

Senator Ivana Bacik, leader of the Labour group in the Seanad, today welcomed the announcement that theMinister for Social Protection Joan Burton has suspended the proposed changesto disability allowances for younger applicants pending a review of entitlements. 

Senator Bacik said:

“I greatly welcome this announcement,which follows the expression of serious concerns by Labour Senators andTDs about the impact of the proposed changes. I am very pleased that areview has now been ordered and very grateful that the Minister has beenso responsive to the concerns raised.

“Overall, this budget has not been easy and was not put forward in circumstancesof our choosing or our making. In spite of the very difficult economicconstraints under which we are operating, it is however a budget in whichthe poorest 330,000 will be lifted out of the Universal Social Charge net;in which basic rates of jobseekers benefit and children’s allowance havebeen preserved; in which pupil-teacher ratios have been maintained; andin which taxes on the income of working people will not be increased. Ivery much welcome those key principles of fairness upon which the budgethas been based and particularly welcome the responsiveness shown by theMinister to the concerns raised.”

ENDS

Order of Business

Wednesday, 30 November 2011

Senator Ivana Bacik:     I am delighted Senator Mooney ended on a positive note. That was very welcome. We all agree and wish our very best to the Irish team and Giovanni Trapattoni.

To respond to what he said in terms of the gloomy news, certainly the ESRI report did make for gloomy news as it emphasised the serious nature of the difficulty at European level, beyond national boundaries. Senator Mooney sought greater clarity on Europe. What is lacking in today’s headlines was the result of the meeting of European finance Ministers last night which came up with what we all hope will offer a way forward through the crisis, namely, giving the IMF a more dominant role in terms of providing support to states in financial difficulty. Those reports offer a more optimistic prognosis for the future than we see in the ESRI report. Any debate we have must take account of that issue. Our Minister for Finance and other representatives were active in that regard. Senator Mooney referred to our similarity with Britain, but there is a significant difference in terms of our presence in the eurozone while Britain is outside it. Any agreement we reach on a way forward must be in conjunction with eurozone partners. That is very clear. That is plan A and it is also plan B.

I also wish to point out to Senator Mooney that yesterday’s Cabinet meeting agreed the establishment of a Cabinet sub-committee on European engagement - an interdepartmental committee on which the Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, will play a major role. A formal mechanism has now been established to ensure a more interdepartmental approach to European engagement.

…     I am delighted also that Senator Mooney is seeking a cross-party approach to the matter.

…     There will be great support for the Senator’s suggestion. It would be helpful to have a debate on the Croke Park agreement in the new year. Others have called for that. However, any debate on the agreement must take account of what is happening elsewhere. We see gloomy news today for those waking up in Britain with a day of action and a strike taking place. The bulk of those covered by the Croke Park agreement are low paid public sector workers on salaries of €30,000 to €40,000 per year who have taken immense cuts and pain in recent years and yet we have not had anything like the type of unrest evident in Britain. We have not had strikes. We must take account of that in any debate on the Croke Park agreement.

I welcome the announcement by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, of a further cut to public pensions of more than €100,000. Although only approximately 250 people are affected and the saving to the Exchequer is not great, it is important in the interests of fairness that the Government is doing this, as so many lower paid people are taking a lot of hits. I very much welcome it.

I also welcome the report from yesterday’s Cabinet meeting that an expert group is being established to implement the ABC judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on access to abortion, and that the group will report within six months. That is extremely important. It is a matter on which successive Governments have dragged their feet for many years but which the Government is committed to tackling.

Order of Business

Wednesday, 23 November 2011

Senator Ivana Bacik:     I join with Senator Darragh O’Brien in welcoming yesterday’s announcement by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, of an inquiry in the Fr. Reynolds case. It is good that all Members acknowledge that such an inquiry needed to be established.

Regarding Senator Darragh O’Brien’s call for a pre-budget debate, there was one yesterday with the Minister for Public Reform and Expenditure, Deputy Howlin, on the capital infrastructure programme. The Minister, however, was not treated with the greatest respect by the other side of the House with interruptions during his opening statement—–

Senator Darragh O’Brien:     I was here and did not interrupt him once.

Senator Ivana Bacik:     Of course, we all disagree across the floor of the House and we, when in opposition, had disagreements with Fianna Fáil Party Ministers. However, we do try to treat people with respect. In my time here, the Seanad has had a positive tradition of treating people with courtesy and respect when they are making points with which others may not agree.

Senator Terry Leyden:     The Minister is a sensitive soul.

Senator Ivana Bacik:     Here is another example of disagreeing respectfully.

Senator Darragh O’Brien:     I do not agree with Senator Bacik on this. The Minister was treated with respect yesterday.

An Cathaoirleach:     Senator Bacik, without interruption.

Senator Ivana Bacik:     While I believe we should have pre-budget debates, some of which have already been facilitated such as yesterday with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, and last week with the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, they must be conducted with a modicum of courtesy, even when there is disagreement as there should be.

Regarding this morning’s headline on a proposed charge on medical cards, I must point out to Senator Darragh O’Brien that no decision has yet been made in this regard. It was also somewhat premature of Members on the Fianna Fáil Party side to accuse Labour Party Members of U-turns on third level fees last week. The Labour Party made commitments on retaining the abolition of third level fees and holding a line on social welfare rate cuts. They remain Labour Party policy.

…     As the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, said last week, it is important to acknowledge that other areas need to be examined. When she suggested creative reforms that will save the Exchequer money, such as the reform of sick pay arrangements which many employers may welcome because it will give them more control over absence due to sickness, it is important both sides of the House listen with courtesy and respect. Reforms such as this must be dealt with in a creative manner. It is not good enough, especially for the Fianna Fáil Party, to oppose every single measure the Government proposes.

(Interruptions)

An Cathaoirleach:     Senator Bacik, without interruption. Has Senator Bacik a question for the Leader, by the way?

Senator Ivana Bacik:     Will the Leader organise a debate on foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East? I welcome the release last week of Dr. Rafah Nached in Syria. I had called for it in this House and circulated a cross-party motion on it. I will circulate an updated motion to take account of her release and the ongoing appalling oppression in Syria.

Order of Business.

Tuesday, 11 October 2011

Senator Ivana Bacik:     I compliment the Leader and everyone else involved in organising last Thursday’s excellent and wide-ranging debate on the economy with the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan. Some of the information the Minister provided in response to a query from Senator Tom Sheahan on credit unions became the lead headline on all news programmes that evening. It is worth noting that as a result of the more meaningful format now in use during debates in this House, whereby Members can interact directly with Ministers on a question and answer basis, valuable and newsworthy information of the sort to which I refer is being obtained. I commend the Leader on the format and I hope we see more of it.

I know we will see more of that today with a Minister of State, Deputy Seán Sherlock, in the House and when we come to the health debate with the Minister for Health, Deputy James Reilly, on 27 October.

I ask for a similar question and answer session and debate on housing. I have already made contact with the Minister of State, Deputy Willie Penrose, on the issue. In particular, we should discuss the report due to go to the Cabinet this week on how best to protect people in mortgage difficulties. Anybody who saw Richard Curran’s excellent programme last night on RTE will have felt very concerned about the position of many people, even those who are not directly distressed mortgagees. These people are able to make their repayments but like a couple we saw in Clonee, they could be stuck in an apartment that is far too small for a growing family. Those people did not wish to stay in the apartment. There is a significant number of people in negative equity and their position should be addressed by the Government.

The Government is taking steps to address the issue but in the Seanad we should follow up the publication of the report with a debate on its proposals, particularly if there is a proposal for a new independent group to negotiate with lenders on behalf of borrowers and redress the balance as Deputy Ciarán Lynch has argued. We must consider how best such a group can work to ensure that people in distress with their mortgages, who are struggling with repayments or who are in negative equity can have their needs addressed.

Statements on Finance

Thursday, 6 October 2011

Senator Ivana Bacik:     I welcome the Minister to the House and thank him for his comprehensive response to the questions and statements of spokespersons. They covered a wide range of topics. I also thank the Minister for clarifying that information on the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, will be made available to Members. I do not know whether all colleagues were aware that there would be a hotline, as it were, to NAMA.

The report of the new fiscal council is due in October. Will it be available for Senators to debate in the House? The Minister might have stated it would be, but I am seeking clarification. It is important that information be made available before budget day so that people are not taken by surprise.

I have spoken with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, about a Tobin tax on international financial transactions. What is the State’s view on such a tax? It has always appeared to be a commendable idea, but it is difficult in practice, particularly where there is a large financial services industry. There have been moves at EU level to progress the concept of an international tax. What is the Minister’s opinion and what view will Ireland take if this matter arises at EU level?

Company Closures: Motion

Wednesday, 28 September 2011

Senator Ivana Bacik:     I welcome the Minister, Deputy Bruton, to the House and thank him for attending personally to deal with this important motion on the part of the Labour Party Senators. I am grateful to my colleague, Senator Landy, for proposing the motion, particularly given the area from which he comes and his local knowledge. I also acknowledge the presence in the Visitors’ Gallery of Deputy Ann Phelan, who with Deputy Ciara Conway, also of the Labour Party, has been very active on this issue.

In any discussion of a motion such as this, the first matter is to offer our sympathy to the workers at the TalkTalk call centre in Waterford. The devastating loss of 575 jobs was a tragedy for the south east and the Waterford area, in particular. I have a personal interest in jobs in the south east region. My grandfather, Charles Bacik, who came to Ireland from the Czech Republic in 1946, set up Waterford Glass after World War II. At one time that company was the biggest employer in the Waterford area and it was with great sadness we saw its closure. However, a positive story is emerging from Waterford Glass with the new Waterford Crystal showroom which is a great draw to the city. I visited it last year. It is a very impressive facility and there is much manufacturing taking place. I hope this will continue.

There has been very bad news on the jobs front in the south east. As the Minister will be aware, the unemployment rate in the region has consistently been above the national average, being at 18.2% currently, compared with 14.3% nationally. The closure of TalkTalk came in a context where there was already a serious issue in regard to job retention in the south east. As our motion notes, when the job losses were announced, only 30 days’ notice of the closure of the call centre was given to the employees, with no extra notice given to the Government. That was in spite of the fact that the State had provided significant financial incentives to TalkTalk, as we do to multinational companies which establish in the State. When the closure was announced the response of the Government was commendable. As Senator Landy observed, the Minister and other senior members of the Government, including the Tánaiste, visited Waterford and met with the workers from TalkTalk, which was very welcome.

However, as our motion points out, there are reports suggesting that further collective job losses at other companies in the forseeable future may be likely. What we are seeking, therefore, is twofold. First, we propose that greater protections be put in place by this Government to assist employees in any company, including TalkTalk, who face collective redundancy situations. In particular, as Senator Landy stated, we propose that existing legislation be reviewed in order to provide for a longer notice period than 30 days, especially in cases where a large company is proposing to make collective redundancies. We are conscious that an extension of the 30-day period could be made within the terms of the EU directive.

The motion also looks at the bigger picture and commends the Government for the introduction of job creation initiatives. It seeks to explore what else might be done for job creation. We all hope to hear constructive suggestions today in the Seanad as to how job creation strategies could be developed.

We acknowledge the work in job creation already done by this Government in the short time it has been in office. We have put jobs at the top of the agenda, as promised in the programme for Government. We have carried out a number of measures which are already having an impact on job creation and retention, such as the restoration of the national minimum wage, the cutting of PRSI and VAT rates and the introduction of the JobBridge, Springboard and other programmes for job creation and internship schemes, as are noted in the motion.

I turn to the issue of protection of workers in collective redundancy situations. The notice period is a key issue for my party. I emphasise a further issue that was noted by Senator Landy, namely, support from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and whether further funding can be sought for the TalkTalk workers from that fund. As we heard, funding has already been sought for other mass redundancy situations in companies such as Waterford Crystal, Dell and SR Technics.

There are other issues in regard to redundancy and job losses which are rather different. One point was raised with me on a number of occasions during the general election campaign and I have no doubt it was raised also on doorsteps with many other Members. It concerns self-employed people, entrepreneurs whose businesses collapsed, and who, in many cases, had employed several people. The persons involved have very little protection in this situation which does not fit the definition of redundancy under EU or national law. I raise that point with the Minister, as I have done with the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, under whose remit it comes.

On job creation, the third anniversary of the bank guarantee falls this week, as Senator Barrett pointed out. It is a significant anniversary. It sticks in the throats of all of us to have to see a further recapitalisation of banks and additional billions of euro going to Anglo Irish Bank, which is the subject of the related amendment. However, as the Government has consistently maintained, the restructuring and recapitalisation of banks is necessary in order to ensure that we have economic growth and to get us out of the economic crisis created by the failed policies of the previous Fianna Fáil-led Government. It is not appropriate that we, as proposers of the motion, would accept the amendment, which misses the point of our argument. It is two-fold point which we hope the Minister will address. First, there should be greater protection in collective redundancy cases, particularly with regard to lengthening of the notice period and, second, we should consider how best to ensure job creation and retention policies that work. There were some very positive announcements in the recent past and Senator Landy referred to some in his area. There are also plenty in Dublin taking in development of jobs and creation of further employment backed by the IDA. We hope to see more of it in future.