Ivana Bacik

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.

Address by President of the European Parliament

Tuesday, 12 July 2011

Senator Ivana Bacik: I welcome President Buzek and thank him for the clear expression of solidarity with us. I have a two-part question. First of all, we welcome the reports that more flexibility is forthcoming from the EU and the IMF concerning the terms of the bailout for Ireland, but what interest rate cut is likely in President Buzek’s view? Second, the context for more flexibility seems to be a concern about the growing financial crisis in Italy. What is plan B for saving the euro and the eurozone if the current propping-up arrangements and bailouts for countries such as Greece, Portugal and ourselves, do not work? Is there a plan B?

Order of Business

16^th June 2011

Senator Ivana Bacik:     All of us join Senator O’Brien in expressing sympathy in regard to that latest appalling shooting. Last night there was a debate in this House on the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 with the Minister for Justice and Equality, and Members aired their concerns about the effectiveness of current legislative measures. The Minister helpfully indicated that he would conduct a review of the organised crime provisions in the Act, which I welcome as it is very important.

I refer to the announcement today that the Government plans to impose losses on senior bondholders in Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society, which we all very much welcome. Given that the anniversary of the first hundred days is being marked, we must note that this important issue needs to be addressed, as does that of interest rate cuts. I point out to Senator O’Brien that nothing has been finalised in that regard. It is a matter of great regret to all of us that more progress has not been made in achieving an interest rate cut but we hope negotiations are ongoing.

Today we will debate the Finance (No. 2) Bill which will bring about the jobs initiative and funding thereof, which is probably the most important achievement of the first 100 days.

I also welcome the announcement that the Government will respond today to the Council of Europe with an action plan on how it proposes to deal with the ABC case and its implications. As others did, I ask for a debate on this issue. It might be appropriate to have such a debate when the expert group, planned by the Government, has reported although I would be happy to have a debate before then to inform the work of the expert group. That debate may or may not happen but we will certainly need a debate when the expert group has reported. I very much hope that group will have a tight timeframe within which to prepare a report on the implications of the ABC case. For far too long this Legislature, the Oireachtas, has failed to grasp the nettle of the abortion issue and it is time we did so. The expert group is an important part of the strategy but we also need debates in the Seanad, preferably early ones, with others to follow when the expert group has reported.

Will the Leader arrange a debate on a case that has slipped somewhat under the radar? This case was taken by an Irish lawyer, Mr. Ciarán Toland, who on 7 June won a victory in the Court of the European Union, that is the general court, not the European Court of Human Rights. He sought access to a report known as the Galvin report, on the operation of the parliamentary assistants’ allowance in the European Parliament. This report was widely leaked on the Internet in 2009 but has been withheld by the Parliament. Mr. Toland achieved a victory, with the court stating that the Parliament could not objectively justify withholding the report. This is an important judgment that will have far-reaching consequences for improving accountability and transparency in the rights of EU citizens to access reports of European institutions. We might well consider the report in this House, especially given the debate we had yesterday on the usefulness of this House in dealing with EU matters. A final point of note is that a former Senator, Eugene Regan, represented Mr. Toland in the EU court.

EU Regulation on Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters: Motion

Senator Ivana Bacik: I welcome the Minister to the House. I am delighted with her appointment as she will be an excellent Minister with responsibility for children and it is a well-deserved appointment. I am sorry there are not more women in the Cabinet, but Deputies Burton and Fitzgerald will be really excellent in their respective briefs and I am delighted they are Ministers. I am sure the children’s rights referendum will be prioritised to a much greater extent under Deputy Fitzgerald’s stewardship than it was previously and this is crucial.

I also welcome the motion and the Minister has put the case for an early opt-in very well. It is clear there is a volume of activity in this area and that it is important to ensure greater certainty for litigants across the European Union. Of course, this is not about the harmonisation of legal procedures because as the Minister pointed out, it only applies to international or transnational cases with an international dimension. However, it will reduce the cost and time taken to do business and thus ensure the conduct of business benefits.

I welcome the commitment in the programme for Government to devote a full week each year to debating major EU issues of concern. I suggest the week commencing 9 May, Europe Day, would be appropriate, given the volume of EU directives and decisions coming before us. It is important that we take a step back once a year to consider the different themes and measures coming from the European Union.

Let me briefly remark that Senator Callely behaved outrageously this morning. Lest the silence of any Member be—–

An Leas-Chathaoirleach:That has nothing to do with the motion. I ask the Senator to refer to it.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I do not believe any Member of the House should be allowed to disrupt its proceedings in the way it was done this morning.

Order of Business

Senator Ivana Bacik: I join my colleagues in congratulating Senator Cummins on his new role as Leader of the House. I wish the best of luck both to those who are contesting the election as well as to those who are going on to other careers. I am told there is a life after politics.

Given that the economy is uppermost in our minds, I hope the renegotiation of the IMF-EU deal will bear fruit. I am sure all of us were concerned to learn that the Taoiseach will not seek an immediate deal on the interest rate but is parking the issue pending the outcome of the stress tests on the banks. This underlines the critical nature of these tests for our economy and, in light of what is happening in Portugal, everyone is understandably nervous about what will happen. I hope and believe the renegotiations will enable our economy to recover.

Other speakers have referred to the appalling human catastrophes unfolding in Libya and Japan. As Senator Dearey noted, the natural disaster in Japan, compounded by the crisis in the nuclear reactor, points to the need to debate the issue of nuclear power and the potential of renewable energy as a safer alternative.

The abolition of the Seanad is on the agenda of the new Government but this alone will not bring about the fundamental political reform which people clearly demanded in the recent election. If we are to abolish the Seanad, this should be done only as part of a comprehensive reform of the Oireachtas that ensures the scrutiny we bring to Committee Stage of Bills such as the one introduced by Senator Boyle is incorporated into the business of the Dáil by, for example, electing a number of Deputies on a national list system. This would allow for closer attention to the national interest and the sort of debates we have held in the Seanad. It is important that we consider overall reform of the Oireachtas in the context of debate on the future of the Seanad.

STATEMENT BY SENATOR IVANA BACIK

Labour Senator for Dublin University
Thursday, 16th December, 2010

SENATOR BACIK WELCOMES EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS JUDGMENT IN ABC CASE

Senator Ivana Bacik has today welcomed the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the ABC case, upholding the application of Applicant C and finding that her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights were violated by the Irish State’s failure to specify the conditions under which she could obtain a lawful abortion.

Senator Bacik said:

“This judgment does not change the substance of Irish law, since Applicant C sought an abortion because she was suffering from cancer and the continuance of her pregnancy could have endangered her life. Under the X case test, she should have been entitled to an abortion here; but she could not get clarification from any doctor as to the conditions under which she could have had the lawful abortion here. The European Court has therefore ruled that we must have greater clarity in our law, through passing legislation which will ensure that the right to a life-saving abortion is put into effect. I very much welcome the ruling and urge the Government to introduce legislation now, as Labour has already recommended, to provide clarity about the conditions under which the X case judgment may be implemented by doctors. ”

ENDS

Why vote yes to Lisbon? Over the past few weeks, we have been bombarded with arguments from both sides on the great referendum debate. These have often descended into point-scoring, name-calling and manipulation of the Treaty itself. Leaving aside all that, I believe that there are four simple reasons to vote yes on 2^nd October. These are: stronger human rights protection; greater democracy in EU decision-making; more efficiency in an enlarged Union; and finally, increased financial security.

I am most passionate about the first reason. If passed, the Lisbon Treaty would make the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding. This Charter sets out a wide range of human rights, including the right to liberty, to privacy, and to freedom of thought. Article 21 of the Charter bans discrimination on a range of grounds, specifically including sexual orientation. As a lawyer who works with the fundamental rights provisions of the Irish Constitution in our own courts, I am very excited about the prospect of using this Charter to increase the human rights protections of our citizens. I believe that it could be used to enhance the rights of women, of gay people, of ethnic minorities, of people with disabilities and of other disadvantaged groups. It goes further than our own Constitution in guaranteeing rights of workers, such as the right to engage in collective bargaining and the right to fair working conditions. It even includes socio-economic guarantees like the right to social security, and to healthcare. Not all the rights it guarantees can be exercised yet, and many sections are still only aspirational; but there is a great deal of scope for future development. Not only that, but the Lisbon Treaty also allows the EU to sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights. The Convention has already been very effective in protecting human rights in specific cases, like that taken to the European Court of Human Rights against Ireland by David Norris in the 1980s, which led to the decriminalisation of homosexuality here.

Apart from the increased human rights protection the Treaty would provide, it would also create greater democracy in EU decision-making. Lisbon gives the European Parliament a stronger role in making European legislation; it provides for greater scrutiny of draft EU laws by national parliaments; and for the first time it allows citizens to invite the Commission to take up particular issues, through the right to petition in the new citizens’ initiative, which can be activated by one million EU citizens. More exciting possibilities there.

A third critical factor is that Lisbon would make the Union work more efficiently, by making key structural changes to enable more states to join in future. Personally, I would love to see the Union expand to include countries like Croatia, the Balkan states, and former Soviet republics like Georgia and Ukraine. This would present extraordinary opportunities for greater peace, progress and prosperity for many deeply disadvantaged peoples living in poverty just beyond the European borders.

Finally, it is in our own self-interest to vote yes. We face a massive financial crisis, with soaring unemployment and a horrifying level of national debt - which will be worsened if NAMA is passed. The joke going around among international bankers was that Ireland and Iceland were only different by one letter and a few months. But, critically for us, there was another major difference. Ireland is within the EU Euro zone, and thus we have much greater financial security than any isolated state, with the backing of the European Central Bank. To put it bluntly, the EU cannot afford to have a member of the Eurozone go bankrupt; the ECB would bail us out before the IMF ever got called in. But we need the continued goodwill of our fellow Member States to ensure our own economic security; and we risk losing that with a ‘No’ vote.

Many of those opposing the Treaty have argued that the EU favours the free market too strongly. Yet in each member state, including Ireland, the excesses of the free market have been significantly curbed over many decades by EU laws; on the environment, on gender equality, and on workers’ rights, for example. Adoption of the Lisbon Treaty and the Charter would enable development of greater social and human rights protections for citizens – and would move us towards the left-wing vision of a ‘social Europe’. For that reason alone, I believe that it’s worth voting yes.

Order of Business

Senator Ivana Bacik: Since everyone has been mentioning the Lisbon treaty this morning, with Senators on the Independent benches coming out of the closet to indicate the way they shall be voting, I declare that I shall be voting “Yes” . I note with concern, however, that a commentator remarked in the newspapers last week how few prominent women were coming out on the “Yes” side. This is yet another indictment of the very poor pro-treaty campaign being run by the Government. The strongest arguments in favour of the “Yes” position have come from the Opposition. The Government needs to be doing much more in the last few days of the campaign, in particular, putting women forward to argue for the “Yes” side, because they comprise a large group of undecided voters at this point.

Senator de Búrca commented on the odds in favour of the “No” side. I notice one punter placed a bet of €10,000 on the “No” side to win, so let us just hope he or she got it wrong. We do not know whether it was a sterling bet, of course.

The arguments in favour of the Lisbon treaty are very strong, from a feminist perspective, particularly because of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and also because of what the European Union has done to date in terms of promoting gender equality. That is very important and needs to be put on the record. However, it is also important to stress that the treaty will facilitate further expansion of the EU eastwards. That is something all of us should very much support and be in favour of. It is another reason for supporting the treaty, although I was slightly hesitant in declaring all this because I backed Hilary Clinton and it has been proven this week to be the wrong course, so perhaps I shall not be putting any bets.

On a more serious note I want to ask the Leader for a debate on No. 21 on the Order Paper, a motion which I have table dealing with the issue of genital mutilation. A report has been published by the Women’s Health Council of Ireland calling for legislation. It is a literature review which is examining this issue and which is particularly serious for women in developing countries. It is becoming increasingly serious in Europe for women who come here from other countries. Female genital mutilation, or cutting, is a brutal practice, which needs to be outlawed and specifically criminalised, even in European countries. I have been active on a campaign to do that. I have a motion on it before the House and the women’s health council is again saying that specific legislation is a necessary, although insufficient element, to counter this barbaric practice in this country.