Ivana Bacik

Order of Business

9th June 2011

Senator Ivana Bacik: The Minister for Social Protection will be in the House in two weeks time to discuss a major Bill. I join Senator O’Brien in expressing sympathy to the family of the man shot dead in Clondalkin. It is sad to see in one week two such murders being committed in Dublin.

I welcome very much the all party motion, initiated by Senator John Crown, on Bahrain. It is most appropriate that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade comes to the Seanad at some stage, perhaps before the end of the session to discuss what can be done from an Irish perspective about the situation in Bahrain. All Members are deeply concerned about the treatment of the doctors who are being prosecuted because they assisted in giving medical treatment to people.

I ask the Leader for a debate on the reports of the abuse in a south Dublin nursing home and the wider questions those reports raise. The Irish Times today carries a report from HIQA that residents of a south Dublin nursing home were subjected to abuse. There are wider issues, not only about treatment of the elderly in nursing homes, which is itself very serious but also about the treatment of whistleblowers. One of the commitments in the programme for Government was to introduce a Bill protecting whistleblowers and this report shows the necessity for that.

May I respond to a comment made by Senator Mullen yesterday? I would not normally respond to personal comments but he asked for a response on something I was reported in the newspapers as having said on male genital mutilation during the World Atheists Convention last weekend. Perhaps not surprisingly, Senator Mullen, was not present.

My paper was on another topic but I mentioned the Bill on female genital mutilation and somebody in the audience asked me what I thought about male genital mutilation, his words. I said I thought it was of a different scale and of a different order entirely to female genital mutilation but personally I do not believe that the cutting of a child’s genitals for anything other than medical reasons is ever justified. I stand over that and I have had a good deal of support from individual members of the public on that stance. As a person who can barely bear to watch my children being vaccinated for very good reasons -

An Cathaoirleach: Is the Senator looking for a debate?

Senator Ivana Bacik: I am not, I am simply giving an answer. I look forward to Senator Mullen’s support for any other measures that might be taken to ensure that we do not subscribe to views that are offensive to members of any other religion. For example, the fact that we have a Christian prayer at the start of business in the Seanad and in the Dáil could be seen as problematic for Members of other religions or for Members of no religion and that is something we might well seek to debate.

Senator Thomas Byrne: The deputy leader can propose a constitutional amendment.

Senator Ivana Bacik: That would not take a constitutional amendment, but I would certainly agree with a constitutional amendment on the offence of blasphemy, which is another matter that we have debated at length in the House.

Programme For Government: Motion

Senator Ivana Bacik: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the programme for Government. I compliment Senator O’Toole on initiating the motion by which we are convened today to debate it. We are debating it in the context of a new political atmosphere and in the presence of a new Minister, Deputy Shatter, whom I welcome to the House.

While the election of 25 February was a matter of personal disappointment for me, it was a resounding defeat for the outgoing Fianna Fáil-Green Party coalition Government. It has marked a noteworthy change in personnel and policies in the new Government, the government for national recovery. It is good to hear speakers on both sides of the House wishing the Government well in implementing the programme for national recovery and in bringing this country out of the current economic crisis.

It is odd to be debating the issue in the Seanad because we are in an interim state, given that the former Government parties still command a majority, and a significantly increased one at that since so many Fine Gael and Labour colleagues were elected to the Dáil. This is the first opportunity we have had to congratulate those who were elected. It is an odd time in the Seanad Chamber.

I wish to move to the content of the programme for Government and to examine the most important principles contained within it. Time does not permit any of us to go through the programme in detail but it is worth highlighting, as others have done, some of the key aspects. For all of us the most important aspect is the focus on the economy. The first section in the programme is on the plans for economic renewal and economic recovery. It contains much that is to be greatly welcomed. In particular, perhaps the item that is most newsworthy is the renegotiation of the IMF-EU programme of support and the commitment outlined in the programme to seek a reduced interest rate, which as we know has been in the news daily since the Government was formed.

It is also welcome to see that the Government is deferring further recapitalisation of the banks until the solvency stress tests are complete. What we hear is that the news on the banks will be critical in terms of how we build recovery from there. It is prudent that we have deferred recapitalisation until we know more about the actual state of the banks.

On the other more positive aspects of the programme that will help build us towards recovery, some of the notable aspects are the establishment of the strategic investment bank, which was a core part of Labour’s economic policy going into the election and which will bring about a great deal of improvement in credit flow for small businesses by allowing small businesses access to credit from a new source. The jobs fund and jobs programme were key to the programmes of both Government parties. The commitment to establishing and resourcing a jobs fund within the first 100 days is vital to the success of the programme. One of the most important aspects of that, which arose time and again for all of us on doorsteps, was the need to offer work placement and internship programmes for young graduates and young apprentices who are currently facing the awful prospect of forced emigration owing to there being very few job prospects here. It is very welcome to see 60,000 places being provided on a work programme.

From the perspective of Trinity College and the higher education sector, it is good to see the focus on international education. Under the heading “Economy”, page 13 of the programme focuses on the need to ensure a higher number of international students. All of us in the third level sector are aware of the need to encourage and develop the status of Irish educational institutions abroad. Particular emphasis is placed on targeting students from India, China and the Middle East. The Minister will be aware that Trinity College certainly led the way with visits to India and China, which visits led to the active fostering of links. The law school in Trinity College, where I work, has links to Chinese institutions in particular. These links have been very worthwhile in terms of academic development and fostering interaction between the two countries, in addition to interaction between the two institutions. We are very conscious of that.

Let me examine some of the other commitments in the programme for Government. I take pleasure in seeing some of the items in respect of which I have been involved during my time as a Senator. Included is the commitment to introduce legislation to prohibit female genital mutilation, as referred to in page 47 of the programme. As the Minister may be aware, I introduced a Private Members’ Bill in this House with that aim. It was accepted by the then Minister for Health and Children, Ms Mary Harney. I believe her last act before leaving her Ministry was to publish her own Bill on foot of mine. Its intention was to prohibit female genital mutilation. Given that my Bill has been drafted and was subject to extensive checking by various Departments, including the Department of Justice and Law Reform and the Department of Health and Children, and the Office of the Attorney General, I ask the Minister, Deputy Shatter, to commit to introducing it early this term. It is uncontroversial and received cross-party support in this House when I introduced it some months ago.

I am glad to see a commitment to increasing the number of women in politics. I am very grateful that the Minister mentioned this in his opening speech as a priority of the Government. I have worked on this and many others in this House have debated it. The Minister will be aware of the report I authored for the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Women’s Rights on women’s participation in politics. The report received unanimous cross-party support and one of its recommendations was that legislation be introduced requiring that no more than two thirds of the candidates selected by a political party be of any one gender, essentially providing for a minimum proportion of female candidates.

It was a matter of disappointment to us all that so few women candidates stood in the recent general election – the proportion was only 15%—and that there was no increase in the number of women elected as a result. Clearly, we need to be proactive in this regard. I am delighted the programme for Government recognises this need. It requires that public funding for political parties be tied to the level of participation by women as candidates for their parties. I ask the Minister to consider how this can be achieved through legislation. It must require legislation. The outgoing Minister of State, Deputy Mary White, had convened meetings with the general secretaries of all the political parties and the equality spokespersons to examine whether this could be achieved voluntarily, and whether each political party might buy into the process given they all recognised the need for more women in politics. However, unless there is cross-party consensus – it did not seem to be emerging in the meetings – legislation appears to be the best way to ensure parties increase the number of female candidates they put before the electorate. While it is up to the electorate to make a decision, we know from outcomes elsewhere that where more women are put forward as candidates, more women are ultimately elected to public office. I am glad to see women’s participation is a priority.

I am glad to see there are many progressive commitments in the programme for Government on criminal justice. I welcome the first Bill published by the Minister, Deputy Shatter, the Criminal Justice (Community Service)(Amendment Bill) 2011. It goes a good way towards meeting the aims stated in the programme for Government under the heading, “Sentencing and Penal Reform”. The Minister will be aware that the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, and I had prepared a Labour Party paper on penal reform, some of the commitments of which are contained in the programme for Government and I am delighted to see this. I wish to highlight page 49 of the version of the programme I have, which contains an unqualified commitment to ending the practice of sending children to St. Patrick’s Institution. I know the Minister agrees with this. Ireland has been criticised for many years by international human rights bodies for the barbaric practice of still sending children to this institution, which is long past its sell by date and is not fit for purpose. It should be closed immediately and we should end this practice. I am delighted to see the commitment put in our internal party policy by the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, and it is also in the programme for Government.

I am also glad to see that mandatory sentencing laws will be reviewed because there is limited evidence as to their effectiveness. We should look at alternative means of developing a drugs policy. I welcome the commitment to switch from prison sentences and towards less costly noncustodial options for non-violent and less serious offenders. This is a very worthwhile aim in our penal system and sentencing regime. I very much hope it will be implemented.

I am very disappointed with some aspects of the programme. I am disappointed there is not a more serious commitment to implementing the judgment in the ABC case on abortion. It is a bit of a fudge in the sense that it is to be sent to an expert group. However, I am glad to see that legislation will be introduced on regulating stem cell research and on assisted human reproduction. These are issues on which previous Governments have kicked to touch for too long. However, previous Governments have also kicked to touch on the abortion issue for far too long and we now have a European Court of Human Rights judgment which we need to implement. I do not think it would require any more expert groups.

I wish the Minister the best in his role and in implementing the programme for Government. It is an ambitious programme in a very constrained and difficult economic time yet it contains much that is positive, and the aim that the new Government will be guided by the needs of the many rather than the greed of the few as stated in the statement of purpose at the beginning is an excellent guiding principle. I very much hope it will continue to guide the policies of the new Government throughout its full term in office.

Order of Business

Senator Ivana Bacik: I seek a debate on planning guidelines and, in particular, on planning for urban centres. The Dublin city development plan is open for consultation and submissions are due to be in by tomorrow. An interesting issue arose yesterday during the debate on the Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009 about the right to dry and whether people living in apartments should be able to air dry their laundry. This is a quality of life issue and it has environmental implications for those living in apartments. It would be useful in the context of the Dublin city development plan if we were to have a debate on the need to ensure a better quality of life for those living in urban centres, particularly in apartment blocks, and to ensure we move towards a model of urban development which is more contained within city centres and which is less about sprawling development and one-off housing.

At 5pm today in the Seanad, Senator Ivana Bacik will propose the Labour Private Members’ Motion which notes with concern the rise in joblessness in Ireland, in particular the rise in youth unemployment, and which calls on the Government to implement a Jobs Strategy, including retraining and back to education support, to tackle this crisis. 

Warning that the consequences of this sharp rise in youth unemployment will be felt for many years to come, Senator Bacik said: 

“We know that over 74,000 people in Ireland under 25 are unemployed – and the CSO Quarterly Household Survey of July 2009 reported that a shocking 36.4% of those aged 15-19, and 23% of those aged 20-24 are in neither full-time education or in employment.” 

“The key issue when we debate the recent rise in joblessness is therefore the generational impact that the current economic crisis is having. We are facing the reality of another ‘lost generation’ in Ireland, as more and more young people are forced to emigrate for work.” 

“The measures that we adopt to tackle unemployment must be targeted at supporting school-leavers and college leavers in re-training, improving their educational and skills levels, and assisting them in getting work. If we speak about unemployment in too general a way, we miss the point – this crisis is disproportionately affecting our 20-something generation. The Labour Youth document ‘Tackling Youth Unemployment’ (Dec 2009) recognises this fact and puts forward innovative proposals to address this serious crisis.” 

ENDS 

Second Stage.

Senator Ivana Bacik: Everyone acknowledges that we are facing into an unprecedented economic crisis. The ESRI published a report earlier today which states that we are set for the sharpest fall in economic growth experienced by any industrialised country since the Great Depression. In light of this extraordinary and deeply depressing prognosis, we all acknowledge the need to make savings. I wish to be fair-minded in assessing the Bill. In that context, there are some aspects of it which I welcome, particularly the move that will herald the introduction of a new provision in respect of child care. The latter is overdue. However, there are many aspects of the Bill which are deeply regrettable. In that regard, there are certain savings that could be made elsewhere and I am sure that imaginative solutions could have been found to deal with particular matters.

The Minister stated that there will be an increase of 8.7% on the amount originally provided in respect of welfare services for this year. However, she proceeded to state that this additional expenditure arises mainly as a result of increases in unemployment and indicated that the expected average live register figure for 2009 will be adjusted upwards. From what the ESRI is predicting and from what we know from members of our families and our friends who are receiving news of redundancies on a daily basis, we are aware that the figure for unemployment will increase by even more than the Minister is projecting. As a result, spending on social welfare will increase accordingly. We must, therefore, consider the introduction of more radical adjustments to the social welfare system.

The decision not to pay the Christmas bonus is deeply regrettable, particularly as those who need this money will be most affected. There will also be a severe knock-on effect on the retail sector in that people’s spending power will be reduced at a time of the year when a large number of businesses rely on increased spending. This decision will have an unwelcome effect in that it will ensure that the market for consumer goods will contract even further. We will see evidence of this when people make adjustments to their spending in the run-up to Christmas.

Imaginative approaches have been taken in other jurisdictions in respect of social welfare. I refer, in particular, to Germany, where the system has been adjusted to take account of the needs of people who live in regions that have a major reliance on the automobile industry. In light of the decline in consumer demand for new cars, that industry has taken a huge hit. With the change to the social welfare system in Germany — I am sure the Minister is aware of this — the state now pays automobile companies to top up the wages of workers who would otherwise be made redundant. Effectively, those workers have been placed on short-term work. Something similar is happening in the private sector in this country. Rather than making two out of ten employees redundant, employers are placing all ten on short-term work. This is being done in a low-key way and it is an extremely creative solution. Most people take the hit on their wages so that their colleagues can remain in work.

In Germany, however, the state is stepping in on a larger scale and is topping up the pay that employees receive from their private sector employers. This means that businesses can remain solvent and that they will still have highly skilled labour available to them when the upturn occurs, which one hopes will happen quickly. The idea is that people can be kept off the live register. While the state essentially subsidises the private sector under this model, there is potential for it to make great savings. A mechanism of that imaginative nature would have been of great assistance in a Bill such as the one we are discussing. Instead, we have been presented with a slash-and-burn approach.

During the debate in the Dail, Deputy Burton pointed out that people who need to make savings in the context of their household incomes do not merely cut everything, they target their cuts. Those of us in opposition want the Government to take a more targeted approach in respect of cutting public spending. The consequences of such an approach must be thought through. We must ensure that what we do does not have an extremely negative impact on the entire economy.

With regard to pensions, I welcome any changes that make people more secure in their retirement. In that context, the fact that there will be some protection for workers who are members of pension schemes is a good development. However, the Bill does not go far enough in the context of providing sufficient protection. The future for workers at Waterford Glass is dreadfully uncertain because their pension schemes are insolvent and they do not know whether they will receive the payments they are due upon retirement. This has a knock-on effect on the economy because it stops people from spending. People who are five or ten years from retirement are looking to the future with uncertainty and, as a result, are less likely to spend.

We require further information on what will replace child care supplement. The supplement, which involves the payment of €1,000 per year, was always a blunt instrument. I have a personal interest in this regard because I am in receipt of the payment. As stated, it is a blunt instrument which comes nowhere near offsetting the real cost of paying for private crèche care. To remind those who are not aware, out of one’s net income it costs at least €1,000 per month per child to secure such crèche care or to place one’s child in a pre-school group.

I welcome the idea that there will be a better targeted and more thoughtful way of providing child care support to parents. However, I am alarmed that payment will be made in the form of a capitation grant to child care providers who will then be expected to pass on the discount to parents. The Minister must provide more information in respect of this matter. To whom will the grant be paid? Will it be paid to every child care provider or to a select few? If the latter is the case, how will those providers be selected? Will it apply in respect of the parents of all children and will we be obliged to move our children out of existing facilities to avail of the grant? Further information is required, but I broadly welcome this move.

I thank Focus Ireland for providing many Members with a useful briefing on its concerns about the changes to jobseeker’s allowance, supplementary welfare allowance and rent and mortgage supplement. Focus Ireland made a number of points that are worth reiterating and asked that the Minister for Social and Family Affairs provide a public assurance that no person will become homeless as a result of the changes that will be made to these allowances. Will the Minister provide such an assurance? She appeared to suggest that landlords should pass on reduced rents because the rent and mortgage supplement is being reduced. Where is the prescriptive element in that regard? We must ensure that rents are reduced. If we do not do so, tenants will be made homeless.

Order of Business.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I support the amendment put forward by Senator O’Toole and seconded by Senator Alex White that we would have a debate on the economy today and, if necessary, defer some of the Stages of the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill until tomorrow. That is an important motion that we all should support in light of the very depressing and concerning news of the report from the ESRI. I ask those who say that this is an international problem and it is no worse here to look at what the ESRI is saying. The ESRI is saying Ireland is set for the sharpest fall in economic growth experienced by any industrial country since the great depression. Ireland is worse than anywhere else. I do not know how often we on the Opposition side must say it for the Government to understand that but it is certainly something of which everyone in the country is aware as the reality bites and unemployment rises. We are looking at a return to the 1980s as there are projected unemployment figures of 17%. When I graduated in 1989 it was 18% and we were told by the late Brian Lenihan that this island would be too small for all of us. We are facing a return to those grim economic days of the 1980s.

I also thought we were returning to the 1980s when I saw reports in The Irish Times today that we are to see a return of the crime of blasphemous libel proposed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The last thing we need is to see blasphemous libel being placed on the Statute Books. I would be very concerned about that. We have seen enough religious domination in this country.

I ask for an answer from the Leader on what is happening with the Adoption Bill and whether we will have it back next week in this House for Report Stage. I received a disturbing report that the processing of inter-country adoptions in Ireland effectively has been frozen because Vietnam has not agreed the draft agreement we were to have signed with it to allow inter-country adoptions continue. I also heard that the processing of adoptions from Russia has been frozen as a result of dissatisfaction of the Russian authorities with the Health Service Executive, HSE, on post-adoption reports. This is of great concern. There are many prospective adoptive parents in Ireland who are very concerned about this. We need the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, back in this House to answer questions on that from the Opposition, to debate the Adoption Bill and to try to resolve this problem for parents in Ireland.

Order of Business

Senator Ivana Bacik: I echo the calls for further debate on Seanad reform following the successful debate last night that was prompted by Senator O’Toole’s motion. It would be useful for Members to debate Fine Gael’s proposals on Seanad reform. I also made some modest proposals for internal reforms to Seanad procedures to make its sittings somewhat more accessible and more relevant. The Leader should take on board these proposals, if possible.

I also welcome the call for a debate on the role of the universities. It would be important in the light of the welcome announcement regarding the merger of research between UCD and Trinity and its potential to create a large number of businesses as well as up to 30,000 jobs. Moreover, there have been some important initiatives from universities and institutes of technology in recent years. I refer in particular to the campus company initiatives in Trinity and the recently announced cross-Border initiative between Dundalk Institute of Technology and a college in the North. This is highly useful and should be debated further.

I also seek a debate on the equality infrastructure and on the announcement at the weekend by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, that the decentralisation of the Equality Authority would be reversed and that additional funding would be provided. I understand that nothing has been done yet to implement that announcement. It would be important to debate what the Government has done thus far to weaken the equality infrastructure and to ascertain whether it can be reversed, as the Minister announced. The Leader should clarify this point.

I ask the Leader for the timing of the civil partnership Bill, which was supposed to come to this House in March. Given that we are nearing the end of March, will this Bill be with Members before Easter?

I welcome the news from the United States that President Barack Obama has announced a lifting of the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research. I read President Obama’s speech given last Monday, 9 March in which he put things so eloquently. The President’s words should provide the context in which Members debate embryonic stem cell research. He speaks of the need not to make a false choice between sound science and moral values.

Order of Business

Senator Ivana Bacik: It is a bit rich to hear those on the Government side of the House lecturing those on this side on the need for bipartisanship, unity and solidarity. My understanding is there have been many offers from this side of co-operation but those have not been taken up by the Government. It is most inappropriate of the Government not to try to achieve with the main Opposition parties a common understanding of what is needed to build an economic recovery. The real problem is that we are in the dark on this side with regard to the Government’s plans. Most of those on the Government side are also in the dark as to its plans.

 The one in ten figure demonstrates that the country as a whole is waiting to hear the Government’s plans for economic recovery. We have not been given a package of measures. The reason we saw more than 100,000 people protest last weekend is because the Government’s measures are piecemeal. All we are getting is a little tinkering at the edges but no real change.

I ask the Leader for a debate on taxation. Senators Norris and Alex White are right about the need for a rolling debate on the economy. In effect, the Order of Business has become the rolling debate on the economy. However, what we really need is a debate on taxation. The former Taoiseach, Garret FitzGerald, has said that in the past Governments used to make changes in the taxation area. Our Government appears to be afraid of speaking the word “taxation”. It has been ingrained and influenced by the Progressive Democrats for so long on the need for a low tax culture that it is afraid to say “taxes”. Therefore, it will impose levies.

I want an early debate on taxation. I want the Minister of Finance, not a Minister of State, to come to the House to explain to Members why the Commission on Taxation will not report until September. The commission has said it is bringing its report forward by a number of weeks, but that is not good enough. We need a decision from the Government on taxation and to hear when the Minister proposes to make changes in taxes. He said yesterday that he will not make changes this year, but he told a committee he might do so. People are in the dark. We will see even more of a crisis in confidence unless people are given some certainty and indication of what is proposed to get us out of economic depression.

It is always amusing to hear self-confessed experts on embryology speak about the need for a debate on stem cell research. I am very happy to have a debate on this issue. When we had a debate on this issue previously, I brought in a recognised international expert to speak to us and enlighten us on the science behind stem cell research and the reason so many scientists want to explore embryonic stem cell research. We need such well-informed debate and I fully support it.

Order of Business

Senator Ivana Bacik: I echo the calls by Senator O’Toole and others for a debate today on the Government’s economic package. I take issue with those on the other side of the House who suggest we are not being constructive. We need to take issue constructively with the elements of the package that has been proposed by the Government. We have heard the mantra from Senator Boyle, the Minister, Deputy Harney, and others on this morning’s radio that it is unpopular and therefore it is right. Just because something is unpopular does not mean it is right.

We all accept the need for the public service to pay its share and to make sacrifices at this difficult time. However, what seems profoundly unfair, and the reason some elements of this package are profoundly unpopular, is the profoundly inequitable way in which this is being done. To insist that the lowest paid in the public service, the nurses and teachers we have been hearing about, would bear such a disproportionate burden of the pension levy is most unfair. Those of us in the public service who earn more should be asked to pay more.

 We had this debate last year when the Government proposed a 1% levy, which they were to impose equally on all up to a certain level, and it had to revise that. It saw it was profoundly inequitable to charge the same percentage levy on the lowest paid. It must do the same U-turn on the pension levy. It would be most unfair to charge people on €15,000 and €20,000 a 3% levy to pay for pensions. We need to revise this.

There is real concern among public sector workers that they are being scapegoated while they have done nothing wrong and done nothing to contribute to the dreadful state of the economy. They have not seen bankers’ pay being cut. President Obama has proposed a cap on bankers’ pay in the US and we need to debate a cap on bankers’ earnings here in Ireland also.

That would make it appear more equitable and would make it easier to bear the pain of these unpopular measures. We need to engage constructively and we need to do so today.

I also ask that the Leader would take on board the wording I proposed to him last week of a cross-party motion from this House calling on the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to grant Pamela Izevbekhai and her daughters leave to stay here on humanitarian grounds. I e-mailed the motion to the Leader and some other Senators who had expressed support. I believe there is cross-party support. The motion I have drafted refers to “notwithstanding any legal proceedings” and it simply asks the Minister to grant the family leave to stay here on humanitarian grounds. I ask the Leader to take up that and put it to the House tomorrow.

I welcome Senator Mullen’s expression of support for the separation of church and State. I am delighted to hear it.

Many of us have long called for a true separation of church and State in Ireland, particularly in the education and health care systems, and I am delighted to hear Senator Mullen support that.

I take objection to the way he lectures anyone who dares to criticise the Pope’s decision or the Vatican State’s decision on Bishop Richard Williamson, who clearly denied the Holocaust on Swedish television, which is appalling. Chancellor Angela Merkel is correct to make a diplomatic issue of this with the Vatican State.

Order of Business

Senator Ivana Bacik: Will the Leader arrange a debate on equality in health care provision? I note from reports yesterday that the Minister for Health and Children will intervene to ensure that older people will not have to pay massive premiums on foot of the Supreme Court decision on risk equalisation. It would be timely in that context to discuss equality and universality in the provision of health care. Clearly, the most equitable way to provide for health care would be to provide for a universal health insurance system. We should all be concerned about the Government announcement that it will introduce measures to penalise those who take out health insurance late. We need to debate universality of health care provision.

I support Senator Fitzgerald’s call for a debate on women’s representation in politics, which is another aspect of equality about which we should all be concerned. The percentage of women representatives in the Dáil and Seanad is very low and Ireland ranks very low by international standards in this regard. I am organising an event to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the election of the first woman, Countess Constance Markievicz, and the first occasion when women were entitled to vote, which was the 1918 general election held 90 years ago this December. On 9 December I will host an event for former and current women Members of the Oireachtas to celebrate the achievement of women in politics.

The event will also illustrate to all of us how low the proportion of women in political life remains. It would be very useful for us to have a debate in December on how best we can achieve a greater number of women in the Oireachtas.