Ivana Bacik

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

21^st September 2011

Senator Ivana Bacik:     I join Senator O’Brien in expressing concern about the rumour, and it is only a rumour at this stage, of prospective job losses at Aviva. The trickle of rumour leaves the employees in Aviva in an appalling position of uncertainty. Coming on the heels of the TalkTalk announcement, it gives rise to grave concern. We in the Labour group will have private Members’ time next week when we will seek to address this issue of big companies pulling out and leaving our workers in the lurch, particularly at such short notice.

I wish to take up a point raised by Senator Darragh O’Brien on Palestinian statehood. There are no mixed messages here. What the Tánaiste is seeking to do is to change the EU position because the Irish position - the Labour Party and the Government position - has always been supportive of Palestinian demands. Senator O’Brien and his colleagues will see that the Government motion, No. 14, states that Seanad Éireann reaffirms the long-standing support of the Irish Government and people for the establishment of a Palestinian state. It is more nuanced because we are approaching such a—-

Senator Darragh O’Brien:     Motion No. 4 is much clearer.

Senator Ivana Bacik:     As the Senator is well aware, we are seeking to do the best we can to support the Palestinian people’s demands. Many of us individually signed the Sudaca advertisement in The Irish Times.

Senator Darragh O’Brien:     As we did.

Senator Ivana Bacik:     Many of the Labour Senators, myself included, and Deputies signed it. That is a long-standing position that I and my party hold and that the Tánaiste is seeking to promote in government.

Senator Darragh O’Brien:     We still do not know whether we are going to support the Palestinian call.

Senator Ivana Bacik:     We want to achieve an EU common position on that issue. That is a goal worth achieving.

Senator Thomas Byrne:     Why can we not take the lead on it?

An Cathaoirleach:     No interruptions please.

Senator Thomas Byrne:     Protect the Government.

Senator Ivana Bacik:     The Government is seeking to be careful about this, to promote the Palestinian cause in a way that is diplomatic and that tries to bring the other EU countries with us. If we cannot do that, then obviously we have to look at it again. The Tánaiste has been very fair about that.

Today is September blue day. I am not wearing blue myself - just to rub it in to my colleagues from Kerry - and although they may feel a bitter about it, I know some of them are wearing blue.

Senator Marie Moloney:     It sits very hard but I will do it.

Senator Ivana Bacik:     I am delighted that Senator Moloney is wearing blue today even though I am sure it goes against the grain. It is worthwhile that all of us support blue day, an initiative to promote men’s cancer awareness. There has been a great deal of positive outcomes from the pink day for breast cancer. Research shows that women generally tend to be much more proactive about looking after their health. This is a good opportunity to promote men’s cancer awareness, to support the Irish Cancer Society, which is having a briefing at 1 p.m. today, and to show our support by wearing blue. It is also an opportunity to show our support for the Dubs, if that was also necessary.

Order of Business

Wednesday, 6 July 2011

Senator Ivana Bacik: I welcome the announcement that Jerzy Buzek, the President of the European Parliament, will address the Seanad next Tuesday. That will be an auspicious occasion. Group leaders will have a chance to ask Mr. Buzek questions and there will be an interaction with him on the floor of the House. That is an important announcement.

In the context of what Senator O’Brien said, I call for a debate on the redress scheme and, in particular, on the shortfall identified by the Minister for Education and Skills. He has pointed out that the religious congregations are more than €300 million short of paying their fair share of the enormous cost of the scheme to the victims and survivors of abuse in industrial schools and other institutions. The scheme has cost €1.36 billion to date but the religious congregations have paid only one quarter of what is due. There were serious concerns about the indemnity deal done in the dying days of the outgoing Government in 2002 but it is clear now that what has been offered by the religious orders falls far short of what is needed by the State.

We will debate the funding for the national children’s hospital. For example, the religious congregations could clearly offer money or land toward paying their share of the indemnity deal in the context of this hospital. That has been signalled by the Minister. A number of congregations made good money from the sale of property some years ago.

I seek a debate on the revelations that the tabloid newspaper, the News of the World, was in the business of hacking the telephones not only of celebrities but also of the teenage murder victim, Milly Dowler, and the families of the victims of the London bombings in July 2005. These are appalling and shocking revelations. I commend reports that Aer Lingus and other companies are pulling advertisements from the newspaper as a result. I call on those who read or buy the newspaper in Ireland to boycott it in light of these revelations.

Senator Denis O’Donovan: I am boycotting it.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: I have never bought it in my life.

Senator Ivana Bacik: It beggars belief that a newspaper could do this. It is the most disgusting thing I have read in some time. The News of the World boasts that it is one of Ireland’s biggest selling Sunday tabloids. It has a circulation of more than 130,000 copies and a readership in excess of 500,000 in Ireland. Those readers should vote with their feet and not buy this newspaper in light of these shocking revelations.

Order of Business

Tuesday, 5 July 2011

Senator Ivana Bacik: Like Senator O’Brien, I welcome the report from the independent body that looked at the sitting of the national children’s hospital. Many concerns have been expressed about the way in which the decision to locate the hospital on the Mater Hospital site was taken originally. I was among the many who had misgivings about the decision, validly, I believe. People were concerned the decision had been taken for the wrong reasons at that time. It is good now to see another report confirming this to be the right sitting.

…

As Senator O’Brien noted, we now need to know there will be commitment to open the hospital by 2015. This is very much contingent on funding, as we all know. The original plan had envisaged a substantial amount of funding would be sourced from private benefactors but there is a large question mark over that now, quite apart from the issue of Government funding.

In the context of the children’s hospital, I pay tribute to TG4 which broadcast a remarkable documentary about Dr. Kathleen Lynn some weeks ago. Much of the programme was devoted to the difficulty she had in establishing a children’s hospital according to enlightened and progressive principles many decades ago. It is unfortunate that we have had such a protracted debate over the siting of the new and much needed national children’s hospital.

I call for a debate on children’s rights. We have talked previously about the children’s rights referendum. It would be useful to have the Minister for Children in the House to hear more about the proposed timeframe for the referendum. We had national play day on Sunday and one of the rights recognised in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is the right of children to play. It is hugely important in every culture and is one of the things we should examine in the context of the wording of a children’s rights referendum.

I congratulate Senator Martin McAleese who has been appointed by the Government to chair the inquiry into the Magdalene laundries. That is a worthy appointment——

Senator Paul Coghlan: Hear, hear.

Senator Ivana Bacik:  ——and we all hope to see that bear fruit very soon.

Order of Business

29^th June 2011

Senator Ivana Bacik: I am grateful to the Cathaoirleach for the clarification. All of us have found that in practice the Bills Office can be more flexible than might be initially suggested, which is welcome.

This is an opportune day to call for a further debate on methods of bottom-up job creation. On the day the Government is launching the national internship scheme, with places for 5,000 jobs in training, we should congratulate the Minister, Deputy Joan Burton. We should also applaud the launch by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade this morning of a new creative quarter in the Liberties in Dublin 8. The Fumbally Exchange was set up by George Boyle, a former architect with Murray O’Laoire Architects. Along with a number of colleagues she has set up a new creative hub where start-up design businesses can be established for a very reasonable rent in a quarter that was left decimated by the closure of Murray O’Laoire Architects. Those people should be congratulated for their bottom-up approach to job creation. It is the sort of initiative we should support across the Houses of the Oireachtas and we must do our best to facilitate them.

I ask for a debate on the HSE report produced yesterday by the crisis pregnancy wing of the executive. It detailed the experience of mothers in the workplace and found that, alarmingly, a third of mothers in work during their pregnancy stated that they experienced unfair treatment. It is the first Irish study of its kind and it would be worthwhile considering how mothers are treated in the workplace. On the day we are congratulating Senator Cullinane, we might also consider how fathers are treated in the workplace and whether paid paternity leave can be introduced.

Mental Health (Involuntary Procedures) (Amendment) Bill 2008: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Remaining Stages

Senator Ivana Bacik: I welcome the Bill and I am very glad it has been given extra time today. I pay tribute to Senator Boyle and former Senator Déirdre de Búrca who were both responsible for promoting the Bill. I also pay tribute to the campaigners who have highlighted the abuse of human rights as a result of the existing wording of section 59 of the 2001 Act. We are all on the same side and I am delighted the Minister of State has committed to changing the wording. We are all agreed that section 59 denies the right of a competent patient to refuse ECT and we all want to change that position. I am grateful to Amnesty International for its briefings, proposing that this needed to be changed and expressing the view that a comprehensive package of reforms needed to be introduced. The Bill represents an opportunity for the Minister of State and the other House to consider what needs to be done to provide for proper safeguards in the administration of ECT in the very rare and exceptional cases in which it continues to be performed. I believe most such occasions take place on a voluntary basis.

I welcome the Minister of State and express my delight that she has been appointed to her role, in which she will be excellent.

We are all keen to ensure anyone who is able to refuse consent is not denied his or her right of refusal. It is a critical point which is addressed in the amendment. The deletion of the words “or unwilling” from section 59(1)(b) of the Mental Health Act 2001 is critical and will ensure competent patients will have the right to refuse ECT, as they should be able to do under international human rights law and the Constitution. However, their mere deletion is not enough. As Senator Boyle acknowledged, the provisions of the Bill are not enough to ensure adequate safeguards for mental health patients. The other human rights concerns raised by organisations such as Amnesty International about section 60 of the Act, the need for comprehensive capacity legislation, the right of appeal and the provision of a ban on the administration of ECT in the case of minors all need to be dealt with in more comprehensive legislation aimed at protecting the rights of patients and ensuring we will be in compliance with international standards and best practice.

All of these issues have to inform the debate. We are all trying to strike a better balance than that struck in the 2001 Act and all accept that there are flaws in the Bill we are debating. The best we can do today is to accept the amendment. Senator Boyle accepts that the wording of amendment No. 2 is flawed, but I am happy to accept amendment No. 3 and withdraw my opposition to section 2. I understand he is happy to accept amendment No. 4. In a spirit of co-operation, therefore, we can proceed to accept the Bill and I am very happy to support it. We all want to see more comprehensive legislation put in place to protect the human rights of psychiatric patients.

NEW SECTION

Senator Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

3.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 2011.

(2) This Act shall be included in the citation “the Mental Health Acts 2001 to 2011”, and this Act and those Acts shall be read together as one.”.

I understand Senator Boyle accepts this procedural amendment to the Short Title of the Bill. It is to correct it and there is no difficulty with it.

Senator Dan Boyle: I am happy to do so.

Senator Ivana Bacik: We are opposed to section 3. I apologise, but the wording is not correct. The amendment is uncontroversial as it refers to the Title of the Bill.

An Cathaoirleach: Is it agreed that amendment No. 4 will replace section 3?

Senator Paul Bradford: Please excuse my lack of knowledge, but I want to ensure that we will not be trying to repair problems next week. Amendment No. 4 reads: “In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section”. It will not replace section 3.

An Cathaoirleach: I ask Senator Bacik to explain her amendment. Will it replace section 3?

Senator Ivana Bacik: It should have been stated it would replace section 3 with a new section providing for a different Title. The explanation that should be offered to the House is that the words “involuntary procedures” in the current Title of the Bill do not actually appear in the Bill, so it is more correct that it simply be referred to as the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill, as part of the series of mental health Bills and, therefore, there would be a collective citation as well. We have included the more correct citation of the Bill. I think Senator Boyle accepts the different wording of the Title.

Senator Dan Boyle: I am happy with it.

Senator Ivana Bacik: It makes no difference whatsoever to the substance of the Bill. It simply refers to it as being part of the series of mental health legislation and it is a more correct Title.

An Cathaoirleach: The House agrees that amendment No. 4 involves the deletion of the existing section 3 of the Bill.

Senator Dan Boyle: That is agreed.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 3 deleted.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments and received for final consideration.

Question proposed: “That the Bill do now pass.”

Senator Dan Boyle: As the mover of the Bill I thank the House and Members for their co-operation. As this is probably our last business in the Seanad before the new election, it is important that we have passed a Private Members’ Bill and the House has been seen to act independently because questions about the future of the House will form the debate that centres around it. I am especially pleased that the House has co-operated on this important area on which their is valid public concern. It is the second such Private Members’ Bill that I have had the opportunity of having passed in the House and I take some pride in that. There have been three such Bills in this Seanad. When measured against the normal parliamentary output of any chamber in any developed democracy that is something in which we can take collective pride. As we move forward in the future I thank those who have contributed not only to this Bill but to the life of the Seanad, the staff, the Cathaoirleach, representatives of the Government and successive Governments in this House. I hope when a Seanad reconvenes it will take value from the experience of not only this Seanad but the previous 22.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I welcome the passage of this Bill which is important legislation. I commend Senator Boyle and former Senator Déirdre de Búrca for promoting it. Like Senator Boyle I have two Private Members’ Bills before the House, one on FGM and the other on climate chance. I very much hope that versions of those Bills will be passed by the Government. It is a strength of the Seanad that we have the capacity to debate and pass this type of legislation in an environment that is conducive to the type of co-operation we have seen today where we have all agreed on the need to pass the legislation in a conciliatory and co-operative way. I thank the Minister of State and her staff for their work on this Bill. I thank also the staff of the Seanad and you, a Chathaoirligh, for your courtesy in dealing with us on the Bill.

Senator Ivana Bacik today welcomed the publication of the Criminal Justice (Female Genital Mutilation) Bill 2011. This bill, which is a Seanad bill introduced by the Minister for Health, was promised by the Minister during a private members debate initiated by Senator Bacik on 21st April 2010. 

On 21st April 2010, Senator Ivana Bacik introduced the first Female Genital Mutilation Bill 2010 on behalf of the Labour Party during private members time. 

At that debate, the Minister for Health made a firm commitment to publish a similar bill with the aim of criminalising any person resident in Ireland who performs an act of FGM upon a girl or woman, or who takes a girl abroad to have the procedure performed there. 

Senator Bacik said in the Seanad today 

“The publication of this long-overdue bill criminalising a barbaric practice may well be Minister Harney’s last act as Health Minister. Although we have many criticisms of her tenure in Health and the many failures of the health system under her Ministry, we welcome this bill and look forward to its adoption by a future Government.” 

ENDS

Order of Business

Senator Ivana Bacik:  I echo Senator Fitzgerald’s call for a debate today on the Ombudsman’s report published yesterday. The Ombudsman, Ms Emily O’Reilly, has raised serious issues about the potential exposure of the taxpayer given that compensation is sought in approximately 300 legal actions on the costs of private nursing home care. Those cases are being settled routinely. It is worrying that the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, has simply rejected the findings of the Ombudsman’s report. We need to hear from the Minister on the matter. I second Senator Fitzgerald’s amendment. I saw the “Prime Time” programme last night. It was an excellent investigation of the issues raised in the report. We need to debate the report in this House as a matter of urgency, especially given the economic circumstances, the great hardship for many families of elderly people in nursing homes and the great worry this report will have caused them.

I call on the Leader to provide not a debate on Seanad reform but a response and clarification on what will be the consequence of the loss by the Government of the votes last week on the Independent Senators’ motion on Seanad reform. Senator O’Toole raised the matter yesterday. He is correct to say there must be a consequence for the loss of those votes. In the High Court judgment last week on Senator Doherty’s action, legal shape was put on the abstract notion of democracy. The High Court said that it is not enough for the Government to pay lip service to the concept of democracy and to keep promising a by-election and that adequate representation would be provided for the people in Donegal, Waterford and Dublin South. The Government must go ahead and call the by-election. One can draw an analogy or comparison with the vote on Seanad reform. Where the Government loses a vote on a motion on Seanad reform, especially when it has been promising action in that regard since it was elected, and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, made it a key promise of his when he became Minister, we need clarification from the Government on what it is going to do in response to the loss of the vote and the passing of the motion on Seanad reform. Those of us in this House who have supported Seanad reform are anxious to see real action being taken by the Government on the matter.

I join others who called for a debate yesterday on the Magdalen laundries, survivors of those laundries and the need for redress. In the wake of yesterday’s Irish Human Rights Commission report, there is a real imperative that we would debate the issue today or very soon given that the survivors have been pressing for many months for redress and recognition by the State of the real injustice that was caused to them.

Diabetes Treatment and Management: Motion

Wednesday 27^th October 2010

Senator Ivana Bacik: I welcome the Minister of State, and I welcome the opportunity to debate the issue of diabetes. There is, as the motion states, a great deal of public health concern about diabetes and it is a major issue for the health service. As others on this side of the House have pointed out, the motion is flawed. It is a rather bland motion with little of substance to say about the need for health education and awareness campaigns about diabetes. It simply acknowledges public health concerns, recognises work already being done, without saying what it is, and endorses efforts being made to highlight the benefits of a healthy lifestyle, while encouraging the HSE to continue to develop models for ongoing treatment and management of diabetes, without saying what these should involve.

We all know somebody who has diabetes. The condition has various types, each with a different prevalence, as the Minister of State is aware, from insulin-dependent diabetes, in which people must inject themselves with insulin every day, to a much less intrusive version. In recent weeks we have been receiving many e-mails about a particular aspect of diabetes, namely, the cost of diabetic foot disease. We have all received letters from the Diabetes Federation of Ireland, which I thank for bringing this to my attention. It was not an aspect of diabetes treatment about which I was knowledgeable.

We all acknowledge that, as Senator Mooney said, there are significant issues with regard to the prevention and treatment of diabetes and particularly the promotion of healthier lifestyles. However, on the issue of diabetic foot disease, which we are here to discuss, the particular problem that was brought to my attention by the campaign run by people with diabetes is the inadequacy of podiatry services available to diabetics. I hope I am pronouncing “podiatry” correctly.

Senator David Norris: Yes.

Senator Ivana Bacik: There have been a number of different pronunciations in the House. Podiatry is the branch of medicine which deals with lower legs and feet. About 50% to 60% of the work of HSE podiatrists is connected with diabetes. We know that adults with diabetes are prone to nerve damage in their feet and legs, and that infections in those with diabetes can easily become leg or foot ulcers. We have done some research on this within the Labour Party, and I am staggered by the cost to the health service of the treatment of such ulcers. This is an issue that is perhaps not uppermost in people’s minds when they talk about diabetes treatment, but it is a major issue for people with diabetes. Six thousand cases of foot or leg ulcers were recorded by the HSE between 2005 and 2009. Each of them cost €30,000 to treat, with patients staying in hospital for an average of 35 days, and a staggering 1,500 of these ulcerations led directly to lower limb amputation. Thus, inadequate podiatry services have real consequences for people with diabetes, and that is why this campaign is being run.

As my colleague Senator Prendergast, the Labour Party health spokesperson in the House, pointed out, last month’s HSE report on diabetes showed a decrease in the prevalence of foot ulcers for patients with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes which represents considerable progress and can be attributed to the implementation of an evidence-based foot care protocol and a limited increase in the number of patients undergoing regular foot assessment and review by a podiatrist. However, although there have been developments in the treatment and management of diabetes, including this particular consequence of diabetes, Ireland still lacks a comprehensive foot screening programme. The Diabetes Federation of Ireland has called for such a screening programme, which it says will reduce the number of foot ulcers and resulting lower limb amputations caused by poorly managed and in many cases undiagnosed diabetes.

The introduction of such a programme would bring massive benefits to all involved, particularly those unlucky enough to be diagnosed with diabetes or whose conditions go undiagnosed until they manifest in the sort of foot conditions about which we are speaking. An investment in podiatry services would reduce the number of avoidable complications, which in many cases lead to prolonged hospital stays, long periods of immobility or amputation. In many areas, patients are being subjected to undue suffering that could be avoided if we had adequate podiatry services and better provision of such services across the country. The focus of some e-mails I received has been on particular areas such as north Dublin city and county, but we need to ensure there is a consistent level of treatment available across the country.

Adult-onset or maturity-onset diabetes, known as type 2 diabetes, usually develops slowly in adulthood. With an average of seven years between onset and diagnosis, the earlier the condition is detected, the easier it is to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Even with our focus on ulcers and infections of the feet, it is important not to lose sight of other serious consequences of diabetes, such as heart attack, stroke, kidney failure and eye disease — the latter a consequence of diabetes with which I am more familiar. Not only does the lack of an extensive treatment programme cause undue suffering for patients, but it has a serious impact on ongoing costs due to the necessity of intervening later when conditions such as eye disease have become much more serious. We spent €239 million treating preventable diabetic foot complications between 2005 and 2009. The Diabetes Federation of Ireland has estimated that we could reduce the inpatient cost of treating diabetic foot disease by between 50% and 70% after five years by investing more at an earlier stage on an adequate treatment programme on foot complications from diabetes. It would make sense to reduce the amount of money we spend on treatment by preventing the onset of diabetic foot complications and by ensuring we have a decent screening programme and follow up service. A modest investment of just €1.56 million per year could provide a nationwide screening service leading to less suffering for people diagnosed with diabetes and a lesser ongoing cost for the HSE. Not investing in podiatry services represents a mismanagement of available resources when the consequences to the individual patients and their families, and the health service generally are so severe. We have a chance to improve our health service at a relatively low cost which will represent a long-term saving to the Government. It is of utmost importance that the Government acts on the issue rather than just paying it lip service.

In 2012 I understand Ireland’s first podiatry students will graduate from NUI Galway and we hope they will not need to follow other graduates who will be forced to emigrate when we could do so much with their expertise at home.

STATEMENT BY SENATOR IVANA BACIK

Labour Party Seanad Spokesperson on Justice, Equality and Law Reform
21st April 2010

BACIK WELCOMES MINISTER’S ACCEPTANCE OF BILL CRIMINALISING FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION

Today, Wednesday 21st April, Senator Ivana Bacik will be introducing a Bill to prohibit Female Genital Mutilation in the Seanad during the Labour Party’s private members’ time.

In her response to the Labour bill, last night the Minister for Health and Children indicated that she is working on the development of a legal framework for the explicit prohibition of the practice of Female Genital Mutilation, and has indicated that the Labour bill may be read a second time in 12 months time.

Senator Bacik today welcomed the response from the Minister for Health and Children, but said she could not accept the delay of the bill for another year, saying:

“Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is a practice which violates the human rights of girls and women, and causes long term physiological, sexual and psychological effects. It can cause death and has serious and permanent health implications.

“The Women’s Health Council, the HSE, and a whole range of NGOs have been involved on a Steering Group already to develop a national plan of action for Ireland to address FGM. Legislation to ban FGM was first passed in the UK in 1985.

“In the Dáil, Liz McManus TD introduced a bill to prohibit FGM in 2001, and last year Jan O’Sullivan TD also published similar legislation. We urgently need a law specifically criminalising this barbaric practice which has destroyed the lives of so many girls and women world-wide. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to address this issue, but there has already been a great deal of work done on developing a legal framework, and delaying the introduction of this legislation by another year is unacceptable.”

ENDS.