Ivana Bacik

Order of Business

Senator Ivana Bacik: I support Senator Regan’s comments about rushing through the Intoxicating Liquor Bill. I agree entirely that it seems most inappropriate to give such a short time in the Seanad to such an important Bill. I do not see what the urgency is. Why can the Deputy Leader not arrange for more time to be given to the debate in the autumn?

 I support Senator Fitzgerald’s call for the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to come to the House for a debate on the economy. At a time when we are hearing from the Government about what it calls necessary savings or adjustments but what any sane person would call cutbacks, and in view of the fact that these cutbacks will hurt the most vulnerable, it is important that we have such a debate. I have spoken before in the House about the difficulties faced by staff, particularly HSE front-line staff, who have nobody to replace them when they go on maternity leave or annual leave and are therefore forced to offer reduced or scaled down services to patients and clients. It is appalling, and it is important that we ask the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to come to the House to deal with this issue.

I also ask the Deputy Leader for resumption of the debate on a Bill I introduced in the House in October, the Climate Protection Bill 2007. It is still on Second Stage and there is time left on this Stage. I have had correspondence from the Deputy Leader in which he made various points about how other things needed to fall into place, but I ask him to ensure that we resume debate on this Bill early in the next session. It is important, for all the reasons expressed when the Bill was first introduced, that rather than dealing with this issue through political promises, we introduce legislation geared at reducing carbon emissions and tackling climate change. This week Fianna Fáil Senators put down a back-slapping motion congratulating the Government on how much has been done to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. However, it would be far more practical if we were to pass legislation that sets binding targets, not just for this Government but for future Governments, in tackling climate change.

Order of Business

Senator Ivana Bacik: I support the comments of my colleague Senator Norris regarding civil partnership. In particular, like him, I was very disappointed to read of a small rump of Fianna Fáil Senators who are opposing the principle of civil partnership. I hope they will not have any influence on the Government in changing tack on this policy.

I also support those who have spoken about the Oireachtas family day, which I attended on Sunday. It was hugely encouraging to see so many people coming in, enjoying the sunshine and having the Houses of the Oireachtas open to them for the first time. It was a wonderful experience. I am sure I am not the only Member who agrees with what Miriam Lord wrote in yesterday’s The Irish Times, namely, that at a time when we are reading about appalling and horrific events in Zimbabwe and the dreadful distortion of democracy in that country, there is lesson for us all on how important it is that we make our Houses of Parliament accessible to all and that we make sure our democracy works in a transparent and open way. The events on Saturday and Sunday were part of that process.

I should point out that the hot air balloon was not working when I was here on Sunday and a few people commented to the effect that it was the first time there was a shortage of hot air in Leinster House, but we can take such quips on the chin.

I support Senator Fitzgerald’s call for a debate on the economy. I read that the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, has described himself as having to make “savings”, not cutbacks but one person’s savings are another person’s cutbacks. As others have said, when HSE frontline staff are being told that they cannot recruit people to replace colleagues on maternity or annual leave, it is time for an urgent debate on the economy.

I also support calls for a debate on human trafficking. I read of Ruhama’s recent figures on trafficking and one issue of particular importance is that the majority of the women that organisation is working with who were trafficked here for sexual purposes last year are living outside Dublin. Although we have legislation in place, we must also have supports in place, particularly for those women in isolated rural areas where organisations like Ruhama cannot provide a service.

Ivana being interviewed by Senator David Norris on Newstalk last Sunday can be accessed here.

Order of Business

Senator Ivana Bacik: Last night’s “Prime Time Investigates” programme investigated the so-called war on drugs and examined alternatives to the prohibitionist approach to drug misuse. The Leader previously facilitated a debate on this and I was one of the Senators who participated in formulating the motion. However, the debate lapsed into platitudes on what to do about drugs and we did not sufficiently address the question of alternatives to the current criminal justice or prohibitionist approach to drugs in our society. Last night’s programme clearly and coherently showed the case for a harm reduction model, as used in Amsterdam, Switzerland and other countries. Such alternatives should be examined rather than focusing on criminal justice and law and order. Too many platitudes and insufficient practicalities have characterised the debate on drugs to date. It is timely to have another debate not only in light of the “Prime Time Investigates” programme but also in light of the publication of a book next week by a colleague in Trinity College, Paul O’Mahony, entitled, The Irish war on drugs: the seductive folly of prohibition. He was quoted on the programme last night describing criticisms of the current approach to drug law in Ireland. It is timely, therefore, to have a debate on how best to progress harm reduction models to ensure addicts are treated as patients rather than as criminals.

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.