Ivana Bacik

STATEMENT BY SENATOR IVANA BACIK

Labour Seanad Spokesperson for Justice, Equality & Law Reform
Tuesday 13th July 2010

SENATOR BACIK TO SPEAK AT LAUNCH OF THE INTEGRATION CENTRE

At the launch today of The Integration Centre at 1pm in the Mont Clare Hotel in Dublin, Senator Ivana Bacik will be Guest Speaker and will say

“This launch represents the merger of two dynamic organisations – Integrating Ireland the immigrant network - and the Refugee Information Service. By merging, I know that your new organisation will be just as dynamic in representing the interests of migrants, and in promoting the integration of people from immigrant backgrounds in Ireland. 

 “I fully support the work of The Integration Centre and its goals to promote an integrated, successful Ireland. Coming from an immigrant background myself, I understand the challenges faced by immigrants. Immigrants have huge potential to contribute to Irish society and its economy - as was the case of my own grandfather, Karel Bacik, who established Waterford Crystal when he brought his young family over to Ireland from the Czech Republic after World War II. I am sure that The Integration Centre will undoubtedly aid the process of moving to a more integrated, successful country.

“Unfortunately, despite our traditional friendly reputation, migrants here often perceive Ireland as unwelcoming. That is why initiatives like the Integration Centre are so welcome, as they present a different, more inclusive vision of Ireland – and a concept of ‘Irishness’ that seeks to integrate us all.”

ENDS

STATEMENT BY SENATOR IVANA BACIK

Labour Seanad Spokesperson for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
 
Wednesday 7th July  2010

BACIK WELCOMES CIVIL PARTNERSHIP BILL AS ‘STEPPING STONE’

7th July 2010

Speaking for the Labour Party today in the Seanad on the Second Stage debate on the Civil Partnership Bill 2009, Senator Ivana Bacik said:

“It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of this Bill on behalf of the Labour Party here in the Seanad. This is ground-breaking legislation, marking an historic moment in the development of our nation. For the first time, it will provide for legal recognition in statute for gay couples. It will allow those in same-sex relationships to obtain legal protection from legislative recognition of their status, in a way they could not previously have done.

I am proud to speak for the Labour Party, the first political party to introduce civil partnership legislation – in 2006 and again in 2007, Brendan Howlin TD introduced Labour’s Civil Unions bill in the Dail. Even before that of course, my colleague Senator David Norris, to whom great tribute must be paid for his pioneering work on gay rights over many years, had introduced a civil partnership bill in 2004 in the Seanad – a bill which I had helped him with drafting, and which went a great deal further than this bill we have before us today.

The bill before us today will undoubtedly provide for significantly enhanced legal protections and security for many couples, and we do welcome it. Seventeen years after the decriminalisation of homosexuality, we are finally moving towards greater recognition for gay rights in our law.

However, the bill does not go anywhere like far enough. It does represent progress – but it is limited progress. It is only a stepping stone – it does represent a step toward equality – but it is not equality. Until the rights of gay people to enter marriage are recognised in law, true equality will not be realised.

I want to emphasise that arguing for a more inclusive definition of marriage is NOT an attack on marriage. Indeed, it is far from it – by expanding the categories of those entitled to marry, it gives even greater support and protection to the institution of marriage.

In the past, of course there were different views of marriage; until 1995 in Ireland it was a permanent state, but the introduction of divorce did not destroy the institution despite the doomsday predictions of those against its introduction. Similarly in the US there were previously prohibitions on mixed-race marriage; these now seem abhorrent to us. One day – very soon I hope and believe – we will see an interpretation of marriage that restricts it to opposite-sex partners as being equally outdated.

Indeed, that day has already come in a host of other jurisdictions – Canada, in South Africa and in many other European countries notably Spain and most recently Portugal which just recognised marriage last month. Both countries have a strong Catholic tradition as we do, but they recognised that this was a matter of human rights – that the right to marry should be inherent in humanity, a recognition that each and every one of us whatever our sexuality is capable of entering committed loving relationships.

We should take a lead from Portugal and recognise in our legislation not only civil partnership but also marriage. We should do this for two key reasons.

First, this is not equality. It is not the same the same as marriage in law. It amounts to a second-class citizenship for gay couples.

Second, this matters in practice. It is not the same in reality. What we have is very different to the UK model – it is a far more restrictive version of civil partnership. In particular, the glaring omission is the failure to make any provision for the children of gay parents. There are already many such children living in Ireland and the lack of any legislative recognition for them means that they will continue to be discriminated against legally as they will not have any rights vis-à-vis their non-birth parent in the relationship.

The Advice just published from the Ombudsman for Children makes this point very clearly, in stating:

‘the Bill does not adequately address the rights and needs of children. It is clear that the situation of children was considered at length in the drafting of the bill; it is unclear why that resulted in a bill that did not prioritise the rights and interests of children. Although the situation of same-sex couples will be improved considerably by the enactment of the Civil Partnership bill, the situation of children with same-sex parents will remain largely as it is at present. It should be borne in mind that this is not a hypothetical problem. The omission of robust protections for the children of civil partners will have real consequences for the young people concerned and it is in their interests that the law reflect and provide for the reality of their lives.’

We know that many children in Ireland are growing up with gay parents; that gay couples do foster children; and that gay people can adopt children  - although only as individuals not as couples. So it is long overdue that the children of gay families are given legal recognition.

There are other flaws in the bill – notably the area of immigration law, and the recognition of foreign marriages. Also we are still awaiting other legislation to put the principles into effect and we hope that won’t drag on too long.

But despite all these reservations, we do welcome the step forward that this bill represents, and we all look forward to seeing civil partnership ceremonies take place here before too long.”

ENDS

Order of Business

Senator Ivana Bacik: We all support Senator Mooney’s call for a cross-party motion condemning that decision in Iran. It is an appalling indictment of the Iranian regime to hear that anyone would be liable to that sort of grotesque and barbaric punishment in 2010.

I join with others in welcoming this historic day when we see civil partnership law coming before the House and likely to be voted in today or tomorrow. It will certainly make a welcome advance in the rights of gay couples. It does not go far enough for me, for the Labour Party or for Senator Norris, because it does not provide true equality as it does not provide for the recognition of gay marriage. It certainly is a welcome step, even though there is a major omission with the lack of recognition for the children of gay families. However, it marks an important advance in the rights of gay people and we welcome that.

I am surprised at the decision of Senator Ross to back the motion by Senator Mullen. It is an utterly inappropriate motion and is not a matter for the Cathaoirleach or the Seanad as to how people vote. As someone who has moved from the independent bench to a party bench, I know a little bit about this. It is a matter for the individual and his or her party—–

Senator Rónán Mullen: There is a lot of credibility in free voting.

Senator Ivana Bacik: —–as to how the individual votes on any motion or legislation. It is not a matter for the Seanad and this motion is utterly inappropriate.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: The decision is taken after democratic discussion in our own parties.

Senator Ivana Bacik:  I second what Senator Alex White said about it. It is not a motion that should be put to this House. The opportunity is there for anybody to vote against the party Whip. They can take it up with their party or they can join Senator Ross and others on the Independent benches if they feel very strongly.

I would like to ask the Leader for a debate on credit unions. A Bill was passed last night on reform of the Central Bank, but the credit union movement made some important representations to us about that. We might have a very useful debate in the next term on the particular role of the credit unions in extending credit in a prudent way to those who have not been able to obtain it. The credit unions played a vital role in the past and will continue to do so.

LABOUR CALLS FOR RETENTION OF ST LUKE’S HOSPITAL.

STATEMENT BY SENATORS PHIL PRENDERGAST and IVANA BACIK.         

Labour Party Seanad Spokespersons on Health and on Justice, Equality and Law .

During Seanad debates today on the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) bill
2010, Sen Prendergast and Sen Bacik proposed an amendment to the bill that
would have prevented the closure of St Luke’s hospital. However, despite
support from Fine Gael and the Independent Senators, the amendment was
defeated by 28 votes to 24 - a margin of only four. Following this defeat,
the Senators along with Fine Gael called a vote on the bill and voted
against it. Speaking on the bill, both Senators described St Luke’s as a
centre of excellence for cancer care and criticised the Minister’s failure
to accept their amendment.                                      

ENDS.

BACIK CALLS FOR CHANGE TO IRISH RAIL POLICY ON BICYCLES

Statement from Senator Ivana Bacik

Labour Party Seanad Spokesperson on Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Tuesday 6 July 2010

Speaking on the Seanad order of business Senator Ivana Bacik called for a change in policy by Irish Rail regarding the carriage of bicycles on trains.

Noting the large numbers of people coming to Ireland from abroad for cycling holidays, and the increased popularity of cycling events like the Burren Cycle event on Sun 22nd August, Senator Bacik said:

“We need to do all we can to maximise jobs in the tourism industry and to encourage visitors to Ireland. Many people come to Ireland for cycling holidays. For instance, 2000 cyclists are expected to come to Co. Clare on 22nd August 2010 for the first Sky Ride Etape Hibernia, an event which will involve the closure of 80 kilometres of roads from Ennis all around the beautiful Clare coastline. Yet Irish Rail have adopted a policy of not allowing more than a handful of bicycles to be transported on each of their trains – a change from previous policy where bikes were carried in the guards’ van.”

“This policy is very short-sighted and misguided of Irish Rail. It will seriously disadvantage the many visitors from abroad who wish to take part in cycling events like the Sky Ride, or who just want to have a cycling holiday. It will also discourage many Irish people from taking weekends away with their bicycles; and it will mean an unnecessary increased reliance on the car as a form of transport. As a cyclist myself, I call upon Irish Rail to accommodate bicycles on their trains as a matter of course without the restrictions they are currently imposing.”

ENDS

Order of Business

6^th July 2010

Senator Ivana Bacik: I support what previous speakers stated in respect of the ordering of Seanad business. I request that the Leader arrange a debate on how we order our business. In the brief time during which I have been a Member, each summer it appears we are affected by a chronic condition I term “Julyitis”, which results in a large number of Bills being rushed through the House. A number of important amendments relating to credit unions have been tabled in respect of the Central Bank Reform Bill, all Stages of which are due to be taken tonight. I agree that there is a need to impose a more orderly structure on debates in the House.

Another example in this regard is the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010, which is due to be taken later today and which was only passed by the Dáil last week. Again, there appears to be unseemly haste in the context of having the Bill, which contains an unfortunate provision relating to the closure of St. Luke’s Hospital - a noted centre of excellence for the treatment of cancer patients which is located in Rathgar in Dublin - passed. My party and Fine Gael have each tabled an amendment to this Bill, which should not be rushed through the House because it is worthy of much more detailed consideration.

I request that the Leader make time available for a debate on job creation, in light of extremely worrying reports at the weekend with regard to projected job losses in the banks. This is a matter of real concern, particularly in light of the fact the banks are guaranteed by the State. There is a need to maximise the number of jobs that can be created and sustained. There is one key area in this regard in which the Green Party, in particular, should be interested. We must maximise the number of jobs in all sectors. One such sector is tourism. Cycling tourism has grown exponentially in recent years. The inaugural Sky Ride Etape Hibernia is due to take place in the Burren and throughout County Clare on 22 August next and thousands of cyclists from abroad are due to travel to Ireland to take part. However, there has been no joined-up thinking in respect of it because Irish Rail will not transport bicycles on trains. This may seem to be a small issue but it is one of enormous importance to cyclists who wish to travel here to participate in cycle races, experience Ireland’s culture, contribute to the economy and assist job creation. These individuals experience enormous difficulties when trying to transport their bicycles throughout the country.

Will the Leader ask the Minister for Transport to discover why Irish Rail no longer transports bicycles on its trains? The company used to transport bicycles in the past but it has stopped this practice. That is a real shame because, as a cyclist, I am aware how difficult it is to get from one end of the country to the other in order to take part in a cycle race.

I fully support the campaign to save St Luke’s Hospital. I will be supporting the Labour amendment tomorrow at the Committee stage debate in the Seanad.

As you may know, during the Dail debates both Jan O’Sullivan and Ruairi Quinn argued for this amendment with the Minister. I have attached the text of their speeches on this issue below, which they made at Report stage before the Select Committee on Health on Wed 30^th June last. You will see from the dates of the debates in the Dail, and the fact that it is due to conclude in the Seanad tomorrow, that this Bill is in fact being rushed through with unseemly haste by the Government – a point that I hope to emphasise during the debate.

Ivana

For Report Stage Speeches, click here.

Order of Business

1^st July 2010

Senator Ivana Bacik: I support the calls by others for a debate on waste management. It would be useful to have such a debate in the House. There are conflicting views on the best approach to waste management. I agree with Senators Ó Brolcháin and Dearey who spoke against relying on mass incineration as a policy. That has now been shown to be outdated. Instead, we should put more reliance on renewables and increasing our recycling rate, which is not impressive at the moment. Senator Regan is right in saying that the Minister, Deputy Gormley, is conflicted on this. People in Dublin south-east will be most unhappy that the incinerator still appears to be going ahead, despite the many stalling tactics the Minister has adopted. Certainly, the prospect of this mass incinerator on an ill-conceived site in a densely populated area is of great concern to many.

In response to some of the contributions on civil partnership, I welcome the fact that this is an historic day for same sex couples in Ireland, who for the first time will see the prospect of legal recognition for their relationships being put on the Statute Book. As a member of the Labour Party I must say we are very unhappy with aspects of the Bill and we do not believe it goes far enough in terms of achieving full equality for same sex couples. Nonetheless, it is a step in the right direction, and that has to be welcomed by all who are concerned about human rights of others.

Wildlife (Amendment) Bill 2010: Second Stage

Wednesday 30^th June 2010

Ivana Bacik: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Mary White, to the House. I also welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. It has become obligatory to say at the outset that one did not grow up in a city. I grew up in rural Cork where many people in the village followed the fox hunt on foot. I hope when I speak it is not perceived to be from a position of urban sentimentality or an attractivist-type of argument, as outlined by Senator O’Toole who suggested that some of those who support the ban are coming from that perspective.

This is not an urban-rural issue. Many people from rural backgrounds are very much against the idea of stag hunting. I am very much against it. Like Senator Ó Brolcháin, I believe we should not treat animals with cruelty. I am not a vegetarian. I accept that animals must be killed for all sorts of reasons but where necessary we should kill them in a humane manner that is not purely for sport without regard to the effect on animals, particularly domesticated or farmed animals. A strong issue of animal welfare arises but it goes beyond that. As a criminologist, I am conscious of a great deal of research on the treatment of animals as a measure of the way in which people treat other people. For example, children who carry out cruel practices on animals are more likely, in certain cases, to be cruel to humans later in life. How we treat animals and other humans is a measure of human decency.

Other issues are involved in any debate on hunting, be it fox hunting or stag hunting. There are class issues, which are perhaps more relevant in England than here where that has really been a dominant focus of debate. There are public safety issues, to which the Minister, in introducing the Bill in both Houses, referred. I have friends and colleagues from the Meath area who have had their lands trampled upon and their livestock scared by the Ward Union Hunt. I accept that is an issue but perhaps a lesser one. I do not like the tactics of RISE and find them scare-mongering. The organisation has whipped up a certain reaction to the Bill that is unwarranted and suggests it goes beyond its actual scope.

I have worked for some years with groups and individuals opposed to stag hunting. I have provided assistance for them and have a long record on this issue. For that reason, I cannot vote against the Bill. The arguments made against the ban suggest there is only one hunt involved. Perhaps that is all the more reason to be supportive in tackling the issue. There is a clear distinction to be made between the Ward Union Hunt and the much more widespread practice of fox hunting. The fox is a wild animal and very different issues are at stake.

I have read much of the background information on the legislation, including the report of veterinary inspector Kane in 1997. He described domesticated red deer as being completely unfit for a prolonged chase by hounds. He also described the handling of the stag as terrifying and stressful to the animal. He stated the stag became distressed and was exhausted towards the end of hunts and described various aspects of hunts as inhumane. At the same time, he pointed out in a balanced way that there was no intention to engage in cruelty and that most people involved in hunting did not have such a conception. He outlined fairly the issue of disturbance to farmers and others tended to be exaggerated. The report is fair. I accept that since 1997 some of the criticisms of the hunt have been addressed.

I am conscious that my good friend and colleague from the law school in Trinity College, Professor William Binchy, has taken a public stance on this issue. He stated recently the hunting of carted stags was a gratuitous act causing unnecessary suffering. He and a colleague have written on the interpretation of the Wildlife Acts and whether the deer is a wild animal. That issue is being addressed in the Bill. For these reasons, I will not be voting against the Bill. Having said that, I will not take lectures from the Green Party which is taking the moral high ground over the Labour Party on this matter because the Labour Party has a strong record on animal welfare.

Dan Boyle: The Senator should be consistent. Her party is behaving shamefully.

Ivana Bacik: The Kane report of 1997 was produced on behalf of the then Minister, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, who introduced the licensing regime that controlled the Ward Union Hunt for many years and which the current Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, has been operating. The Green Party is the party which has been propping up Fianna Fáil for the past three years. Fianna Fáil is the party whose unholy alliance with builders, speculators and developers brought the country to its knees.

Dan Boyle: The Senator was doing so well. That is sad.

Ivana Bacik: The Green Party needs to be asked about the political context of this legislation, which I find troubling. It was not included in the original programme for Government but the revised one. It is clear to one who examines the political context that the Bill, perhaps together with the one on dog breeding, represents the price we are paying for NAMA. It is the price of Green Party support for the NAMA legislation.

Niall Ó Brolcháin: That is not true.

Ivana Bacik: To anyone observing from the outside, it looks very much like Green Party Members signed up to NAMA on the promise of legislation on animal welfare.

Dan Boyle: Is the Senator going to back up NAMA?

Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Coghlan): We are discussing the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill 2010 and must listen to Senator Bacik.

Ivana Bacik: The Labour Party is the only party which took a stance against the bank guarantee scheme.

Dan Boyle: The Senator was very wrong.

(Interruptions).

Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Coghlan): Order, please, Senator Boyle.

Ivana Bacik: It has been proved that the wrong decision was introducing the unconditional guarantee of the dodgy transactions engaged in by persons such as Mr. Seán FitzPatrick.

Niall Ó Brolcháin: Such as the Bailey brothers.

Ivana Bacik: Yes, the Bailey brothers.

Dan Boyle: I hope the Senator holds onto the Whip after this.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Coghlan): There are to be no interruptions.

Ivana Bacik: If this Bill is the price to be paid for supporting NAMA, it is extremely high—–

Dan Boyle: The Senator knows it is not.

Ivana Bacik: —–considering the billions of euro our children and their children will most likely have to pay for NAMA and propping up zombie banks such as Anglo Irish Bank.

Dan Boyle: All the NAMA money will be put back, as the Senator knows.

Ivana Bacik: That is wishful thinking. One should think of the thousands who are unemployed, including the many thousands of young people who have just gone on the live register. People are in negative equity and having trouble paying mortgages and debts.

Niall Ó Brolcháin: This is the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill.

Ivana Bacik: For all those people in debt and affected by NAMA, this legislation will be regarded as a price that is too high.

There is a parallel to be drawn, perhaps flippantly, in that Fianna Fáil is like the Ward Union Hunt in this matter, while Green Party Members are like the domesticated deer, the farmed animals that have been very much brought along by Fianna Fáil. They have bought into economic policies that are deeply damaging and destructive to the economy and society.

Environmental Protection: Motion

23^rd June 2010

Senator Ivana Bacik: I welcome the Minister. It gives me great pleasure to second the motion. As Senator Hannigan stated, it addresses a number of environmental protection issues on which the Government has failed to deliver. This is a source of grave disappointment, particularly as the Green Party is in government. I note Senator Boyle is making a rueful face.

Senator Dan Boyle: It is all very amusing. I am sure the Senator is disappointed.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I have always considered myself to be close to the Green Party. I am a red-green in the great tradition of many of the Green Party members in Germany, for example. The idea of a socialist-green alliance is a good one which makes sense on an ideological basis. It is very disappointing that the Green Party in government has failed to deliver in many areas of environmental protection. It is appropriate, therefore, that the Labour Party is holding the Government to account on this issue.

The Labour Party would like the Minister to provide answers beyond the somewhat cursory response provided in the amendment. We would like him to indicate what he intends to do on the specific issues we have identified and on which the Government has failed to deliver. These include the early enactment of climate change legislation, the quality of our rivers and water supply, the state of public beaches and hazardous waste sites.

The issue on which I will focus is climate change legislation. When will we see a climate change Bill? I note the amendment again promises — this is becoming tedious — that the heads of a Bill will shortly be published. Senator Hannigan referred to the timeline in this matter. When one examines the history of the promises made on climate change legislation, one sees just how poorly the Government is delivering on this commitment. There is political consensus across all parties and among the Independents on the need for climate change legislation which sets binding targets for carbon emission reductions for this and future Governments. There is clear agreement on this matter. As long ago as 2004, when Friends of the Earth launched in this country, we set the introduction of such legislation as a major priority. I declare my interest as a board member of Friends of the Earth Ireland.

In 2007 Friends of the Earth, with a range of other non-governmental organisations, launched the “Stop Climate Chaos” coalition which had, as its primary focus, the need for legislation on climate change. In October 2007 in this House I introduced the Climate Protection Bill 2007, the first climate legislation to be introduced in either House. The aim of the Bill was to set targets for reductions in emissions and it set a target of achieving a 3% reduction in each year from 2010 to 2050. At the time 2010 appeared sufficiently distant to enable us to introduce preparatory steps in advance. The aim was to have a 60% reduction on 1990 baseline levels by 2050, a target that was in line with Kyoto Protocol targets. The Bill place duties on the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to produce an annual report to ensure these reduction targets were met and provided for a vote of no confidence in the Minister where he or she failed to deliver. At that point, the Bill was not voted down and has remained on the Order Paper for nearly three years on the basis that we will see the heads of a Government Bill which will do more or less the same as my Bill proposes.

In 2009 Deputy McManus introduced in the other House a climate change Bill on behalf of the Labour Party. That legislation would set somewhat more ambitious targets of 80% reductions in carbon emissions by 2050 and 30% by 2020. It would place firm duties on the Taoiseach to deliver the required reductions and report regularly to the Oireachtas and proposes the establishment of an independent climate change commission. Activity increased subsequent to the introduction of Deputy McManus’s Bill. In October last year the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security published a comprehensive report on the case for climate change law and again produced the heads of a draft Bill which draws on best practice in other jurisdictions and would provide for binding targets over a number of years, as well as the establishment of an independent commission.

The environmental pillar of the social partners called for the introduction of climate change legislation and made a strong case in a document it published this week which I am sure the Minister has read and which argues that Irish legislation should follow the Scottish example of inscribing an ambitious reductions target for national emissions of at least 40% by 2020 using 1990 as the baseline level. The pillar has given us a clear framework for the legislation which it argues is essential. It states the 3% annual reduction target until 2020 is dangerously weak, that the legislation must have a binding 2020 target and that Ireland is responsible for an extremely high level of emissions. It also highlights our obligations to developing countries, an issue to which I will return.

Despite the consensus achieved, the high level of activity in this area and the various drafts of climate change legislation produced, we have still not seen the promised heads of a Bill from the Government. Not only is there agreement on the need for legislation but consensus has also been achieved on its content. The legislation must set targets, including targets for 2020 and 2050. Two weeks ago the Stop Climate Chaos coalition argued for a 95% reductions target for 2050 and a 40% reductions target by 2020. While there are some differences in the various drafts of a Bill as to what should be the targets, there is a clear consensus on the need to set targets for 2020 and 2050. There is also consensus on the need for an independent commission on climate change which would monitor and assess our progress in addressing climate change and provide advice for the Government and public bodies on how best to achieve the targets set.

The need for political accountability is another aspect on which there is agreement. Perhaps my suggestion two and a half years ago for a vote of no confidence was a somewhat radical one, but there is certainly other ways in which political accountability can be ensured, for example, through placing the duty to meet targets firmly on the shoulders of the Taoiseach as our 2009 Bill does and as the Oireachtas committee has argued.

There is consensus that this is not just a matter of domestic concern because Ireland’s excessive emissions have a direct and ongoing effect most strongly on developing countries, much more strongly than on developed countries. Again that is widely recognised. Stop Climate Chaos has called for the Government to ensure it provides finance for developing countries to deal with climate change. This funding should not be taken from the overseas development aid commitment to reach 0.7% of national income. We must recognise our obligations on a global level as well as our national obligations to reduce our emissions. There is widespread consensus on the content of the Bill and the need for a Bill. There is growing international pressure and we know we have obligations not only to our fellow developed countries but also to developing countries. The European Union is pressing us to do this; it has been done in other countries.

Why has such consensus emerged? Legislation is seen as vital because this is a matter that is too important for political promises. Statutory commitments must be enshrined in law in order to bind not only the current Government but also future Governments. Legislation expresses all-party agreement in the best way. Nobody is opposed to the principles of the Bill. There may be some disagreement as to how ambitious the targets should be, but there is public consensus that targets must be set. Based on the Kyoto agreement we are obliged to meet our targets. The political commitments we gave in the Kyoto Protocol were simply not met and political promises on matters such as hospital waiting lists and school building are broken all too often. We know that political commitments alone are not enough. Other countries have already passed climate change legislation, notably our nearest neighbour, Britain, which passed legislation containing binding targets. The sky has not fallen in, but the sky may well fall in if we do not meet these targets because we all know the terrible consequences of global warming if we allow it to continue at its current rate.

In 2005 Fianna Fáil was described by a certain Deputy as “a huddle of gangsters spending taxpayers’ money in a carbon casino, plotting the most conniving scams to dodge even the woefully inadequate Kyoto targets”. The speaker, of course, was the Minister’s colleague, Deputy Sargent, speaking in the Dáil. Judging by what has happened since, relationships between Fianna Fáil and the Green Party have improved, of course. However, we need to ensure the Green Party and Fianna Fáil are held to account and that we are not simply spending money in a carbon casino by offsetting and not meeting targets. The best way to ensure we meet our targets is through binding legislation.