Ivana Bacik

Order of Business:

Senator Ivana Bacik:  We have heard much about U-turns. The difference between a U-turn and a climbdown is as clear cut as the difference between a statutory instrument and a ministerial order or the difference between a whip-round and a dig-out. All these terms are vaguely defined.

The decision on water charges for schools is a welcome U-turn by the Government. There has been another welcome U-turn for the funding of subvention for community child care schemes.

I am seeking a debate from the Leader on the need for another U-turn on the policy on children. There is a need for the removal of the habitual residence condition on child benefit. I have raised this before in the House and Senator McFadden has an amendment on it to the Social Welfare Bill. It is supposed to be a universal benefit but is denied to the children of asylum seekers in direct provision. A small number of children, the most disadvantaged in our society, are denied universal child benefit.

The Government needs to do another U-turn on this matter. For Senator Mary White’s information, the chair of the Irish Childcare Policy Network stated the new announcement by the Minister of State, Deputy Brendan Smith, does not go far enough to meet the needs of the community child care providers. Further U-turns are needed in this area.

Senator Ivana Bacik:  I am grateful to Senators Harris and O’Toole for raising the issue of yesterday’s debate. It is important that when we have a debate on drugs, mandatory testing and other issues, it would be conducted in a rational and civilised manner. I was very disappointed yesterday to be subjected to the sort of barracking that took place. It was a lazy response. I was delighted that last night’s “Prime Time” programme presented alternative and quite radical views, and did so fairly and calmly in what was a rational debate. I am delighted Senator Harris was listened to with great respect today when he expressed his views, which are more radical than my own. This is correct and I am delighted the debate can be conducted in this way.

I am grateful to the Leader and Deputy Leader for engaging with me in regard to seeking a further debate on the Climate Protection Bill 2007 which I introduced in the House in Private Members’ time on 3 October. At that stage, I was promised we could have a further debate on it in Government time before Christmas. I spoke at a rally organised by Stop Climate Chaos in Dublin on Saturday, which was attended by hundreds of people in the pouring rain. They were very concerned to hear what was happening with regard to climate protection legislation in the context of the Bali talks. There is a real groundswell of support for this type of measure and for putting into legislation the commitments to reduce carbon emissions, which we signed up to under the Kyoto Protocol and which we are likely to sign up to further in Bali.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I support calls by Senator O’Toole and other Members for the release of Íngrid Betancourt. I raised this as a matter on the Adjournment in this Seanad’s first week. The last official statement of Government policy was the answer given to me then by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on Ireland’s calls for the release of Ms Betancourt. There is a cross-party consensus for the Government to do more in supporting her release. A motion on this could be tabled which would have the support of all Members.

I attended an inspirational debate hosted by law students in Trinity College, Dublin, calling for prison abolition. A passionate speech was made by a leading British criminologist and former prison governor, Professor David Wilson. He made the case for decarceration and the closing down of prisons for all but the very hard-core and dangerous offenders in society.

Will the Leader ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform for a debate on prisons policy? It is generally overlooked as the cliche is that there are no votes in prisons.

People are locked up for long periods. Last night, three young mothers in Cork were locked up for long sentences. The question never asked is what purpose does this serve? While the Minister is proceeding on the prison building programme at Thornton Hall, left to him by his predecessor, it would be worthwhile for the House to have a debate on prisons policy and ask the Minister what purpose is served by building more prison places and detaining people for long periods. Real alternatives must be examined and locking up fine defaulters and those who are no harm to society must be stopped.

Senator Ivana Bacik: As the only Senator in the Chamber from the University of Dublin panel, it is certainly news to me that I represent people of any particular religious ethos. As somebody who was brought up a Catholic and is now firmly lapsed and an atheist, I am very proud to represent people of all religions and none. I hope all Senators here feel the same way. It is dangerous to start talking about anyone representing any particular religious ethos. On the debate on the reform of the Seanad last night, I strongly supported the calls to open up the university seats to graduates of all third level institutions as part of an overall package of comprehensive reform.

Senator O’Toole raised the issue of the Crisis Pregnancy Agency and abortion. I renew my call to the Leader for a debate on this topic. While it is welcome news that the numbers of abortions have fallen, we must still be very concerned that women in terribly tragic situations like that in which Miss D found herself earlier this year must still travel abroad for services which should be available to them in Ireland.

I have also called for a debate on gender issues in our society. I note a report today in the Irish Independent about a study produced by Frances Ruane from the Economic and Social Research Institute and Julie Sutherland from Trinity College which showed that women are far less highly represented in the manufacturing sector and entrepreneurship and that far smaller numbers of women own firms and are successful in business. It would be useful to have a debate on why this is so and to look at women’s representation across all sectors of society, including the Seanad and Dáil where our numbers are still very low.

Senator Ivana Bacik: What is clear from what has been said in the discussion about the health service and the current crisis in Portlaoise in cancer care is that, for the sake of the women and their families who are suffering terribly at this time, the key question that must be asked in this House and elsewhere is who is responsible.

If nobody will take responsibility, why not? It is clear the Minister bears ultimate responsibility for a system which she set up and which appears to be responsible for failures in communication, diagnosis and treatment. If not the Minister, why has somebody lower down the hierarchy not resigned?

In Britain, the head of Revenue and Customs took the responsibility and resigned following an error of which he was clearly unaware. Nobody in the HSE, the Department of Health and Children, Portlaoise Hospital or anywhere else in the health care system has yet taken responsibility for the terrible situation in which these women find themselves.

I renew my call for a debate on the restoration of universal child benefit to children of asylum seekers who are in receipt of direct provision. When I called for such a debate on the Adjournment last week, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs responded by stating asylum seekers were receiving direct provision in lieu of child benefit. Direct provision is only €9.60 per week per child for the approximately 2,000 children of asylum seekers. By contrast, child benefit is €160 per month, or approximately €40 per week. Yesterday I spoke at an Irish Refugee Council launch to call for an increase in the amounts payable under direct provision in order that they would be at least equivalent to the amount paid in child benefit and close to the sum of €40 per week.

I again ask the Leader to convene a debate on the terrible situation of children of asylum seekers in particular, who are in real poverty and to whom we are simply not paying adequate social welfare.

Senator Ivana Bacik: On 25 October I called for a debate on cockle fishing in the Waterford estuary and marine conservation. The Government parties rejected that call and voted against it but I was delighted that the Deputy Leader of the House, Senator Boyle, subsequently said the order I had criticised that allowed for cockle dredging in the estuary, thereby causing a great deal of damage to the marine environment, was being rescinded by the Government. I give Senator Boyle credit that today we see a new statutory instrument being laid before the Seanad, SI 753 of 2007, which will prohibit dredging for cockles in the Waterford estuary.

I am delighted this is being done following my intervention and I hope for a similar result in the matter I raised on the Order of Business two days ago, when I called for a debate on the denial of universal child benefit to approximately 2,000 to 3,000 children because of the habitual residence condition. I am raising the matter on the Adjournment but I also call for a debate on the matter.

Senator Ivana Bacik: On this auspicious day for children’s rights Senator Fitzgerald referred to the issue. On a related matter I ask that the Minister for Health and Children attend the House for a debate on the fact that the Government does not have child benefit as a universal benefit. The habitual residence condition deprives up to 3,000 of the most disadvantaged children in the State, and these are largely the children of asylum seekers or persons to whom leave to remain in the State has been refused. This has a detrimental effect on their schooling, nutrition and general upbringing.

While the numbers are small, a campaign has been in place for the past year, which I had the honour of launching, run by the Free Legal Advice Centres and supported by the Children’s Rights Alliance, Barnardos, the Vincentian Refugee Centre and others. All argue the Government should restore child benefit as a universal benefit, given that Ireland has ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We have an obligation to ensure social welfare policies are applied in the best interests of the child and without regard to the status of the parents. This is a small matter but has a big impact on a relatively small number of children to whom we are clearly neglecting in our duties.

 Senator Ivana Bacik:  I ask for a debate on public transport and alternatives to the use of private cars. This is timely on a day when thousands of commuters are stranded without bus services. I am sure we all hope the matter will be resolved at the Labour Court. However, it begs the question of broader issues about Government support for public transport and for forms of transport other than the private car.

Last week Senator Ross called for the restoration of Leinster House lawn and that Members would lead by example. I fully support his call but I take issue with him when he says that most of us drive. Some of us cycle in every day and we see at first hand the lack of support for cyclists from both the Government and Dublin City Council. There is a very poor network of cycling lanes and cyclists face extreme danger every day.

The fact that the Government has not seen fit to support cycling as an alternative form of transport to private cars is hugely problematic but there is also a lack of support for public transport which is evident in a report last week that integrated ticketing for bus, rail, DART and Luas services across Dublin will now not be introduced until 2010, which is appalling. It was nearly ten years ago when the prospect of integrated ticketing was first raised. The then Minister, Deputy Mary O’Rourke, said it would definitely be introduced by 2002, the Railway Procurement Agency promised it by 2005 and now we are told it will not be introduced until 2010. Is it really that difficult to develop an integrated ticket system for all public transport services across Dublin? We need to debate this issue.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I propose an amendment to the Order of Business to enable the House to debate Private Members’ motion No. 30 on the Order Paper. The motion, which is proposed by me and seconded by my colleague, Senator Norris, is to annul the Cockle (Fisheries Management and Conservation Regulations) (Waterford Estuary) 2007. To give a little background, the regulations were signed by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, in the summer and have been laid before the House. However, a provision in the enabling legislation allows either House of the Oireachtas to annul any regulations made under the relevant legislation provided the annulment is done within 21 sitting days. By my calculation, this is the 11th sitting day since the regulations were signed.

It relates to the Suir Estuary at Passage East, a special conservation area in County Waterford which many Senators will know. The regulation in question allows dredging for cockles within certain insufficiently restricted time periods. The national co-ordinator of Coastwatch Ireland, Karen Dubsky, has briefed me on the matter. Coastwatch Ireland has monitored the area and has found that enormous damage is being done to the seabed in the Waterford Estuary as a result of dredgers moving into the area on foot of this regulation and dredging up not only cockles but also other seabed life and matter. The practice is seriously damaging seabed life in the region and may be in breach of the Habitats Directive. If the Seanad agrees to annul the regulation, a more restrictive regulation could be introduced which, in keeping with European Union law, would prevent dredging for cockles in this manner.

I understand Ireland is out of line with other countries where dredging for cockles has been banned and cockle fishing is only allowed by hand. This does much less damage to the seabed, although it has resulted in cockles becoming very expensive. Virtually all cockles from Ireland are exported. The practice of dredging for cockles should not continue and the relevant regulation is too broad. I would be grateful if time were made available to debate the issue.

I have introduced a Private Members bill, the climate protection bill 2007 – which if passed would commit this and future governments to make specified annual reductions in carbon emissions. The Bill was debated on 3rd October 2007, debate was adjourned and it will be debated further. The Bill is supported by Friends of the Earth (Ireland) and the stop climate chaos coalition. For more information on these and other issues in which I have been involved, see the Oireachtas website, www.oireachtas.ie. For more information on the Climate Protection Bill, see the Friends of the Earth website, www.foe.ie