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.

Order of Business:

Senator Ivana Bacik:  I join with other colleagues in congratulating Senator Norris on the launch of his archive. I attended the event yesterday, which was a great occasion.

I wish to raise two issues on which we have held debates before and which I hope may be debated this week. The first is a motion seeking the release of Íngrid Betancourt, which I believe has all-party agreement in the House. If it could be laid before the House this week we could agree it before Christmas. Íngrid Betancourt has been detained by FARC guerrillas in Colombia for some years and is facing into another long time in detention unless strenuous international efforts are made to secure her release. It is vital for us to play our part in that by putting this motion together and resolving it before Christmas.

I regret that the Climate Protection Bill I introduced in Private Members’ time on 3 October has not been given time for debate this week. I have had communications with the Deputy Leader and the Leader of the House about the matter. It is very disappointing especially for groups such as Friends of the Earth and the Stop Climate Chaos coalition which have been campaigning so hard for legislation on the issue. It is most disappointing, especially in the wake of the Bali talks, that the Bill cannot be given Government time this week as we were promised. When will we get Government time to debate that Bill? Colleagues will remember that 20,000 e-mails supporting the Bill were sent to us by individual members of non-governmental organisations.

I do not want to precipitate such a flood of e-mails again. However, there will be real concern among the groups supporting the Bill. We can blame the Leader and not me if that is the case.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I wanted to raise an issue that the House has already debated. On a day that we are due to debate integration, it is appropriate to ask the Leader to convene a debate in the new year on the Government’s child care policy, in particular the changes proposed to subventions to the community child care scheme. I and other colleagues from both Houses attended a very helpful briefing yesterday organised by the Irish Childcare Policy Network, which is a national group of child care providers from all over the country. We were briefed on the clear consequences of the changes that will come about if such changes are implemented next June as proposed. The group is concerned that community child care providers all around the country will be forced to close as a result. Even if they do not close, there will be serious implications for integration in communities, as it will mean effectively the segregation of children of persons on social welfare.

It is important that we return to this issue in the new year and debate it again. The ICPN made a very specific request that this decision be deferred until the end of next year to enable further negotiations and consultations to take place with the Minister and other interest groups. We could help that process in this House by debating it.

I would also like the Leader to respond to the motion that was agreed on Ingrid Betancourt. I know the deputy Leader of the House had emailed Members about it and I wanted to know what had happened to that motion and whether we could bring it before the House to ensure consensus on it.

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 the calls made by Senators Norris and Hannigan for a debate on extraordinary rendition. The report of the Irish Human Rights Commission makes serious claims which should be debated in the House as a matter of urgency. It is important we ensure Ireland does not breach human rights obligations in this regard.

In response to the calls for a debate on the drugs issue, while all Senators are deeply sympathetic to the families of the young people who have died, calls for mandatory drug testing in all sorts of fora, including schools, universities, hospitals and even the Oireachtas, cannot be taken seriously because they would be much too great an encroachment on the civil liberties of us all.

A strong case can be made for roadside drug testing as we already have roadside alcohol testing. The knee-jerk hysteria we hear whenever the issue of drugs is discussed is not the way to tackle the problem or help the real victims.

Accusing people of being soft on drugs is typical of the kind of hysteria that accompanies this debate and does not help anybody, especially the real victims such as the unfortunate couriers and others shown on the streets in the “Prime Time Investigates” programme last night.

Our concerns should be with the real victims. The Simon Community has produced a report showing that many people are homeless on the streets as a result of drink, drugs and psychiatric problems. Homelessness is linked to the issue of prison. If the House debates homelessness, and I called for such a debate last week, it should also debate prison policy because many of those who leave prison re-offend and return to prison in a terrible cycle because no provision is made to shelter or accommodate them. The Simon Community report makes chilling reading for us all.

Senator Ivana Bacik: There appears to be cross-party support for a motion calling for the release of Íngrid Betancourt. I am delighted Senator Fitzgerald and others have raised the issue again. Yesterday, I asked the Leader to invite the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to the House for a debate on prison reform. A sum of €14 million has been allocated in the budget for the expansion of the prison building programme, a mere €5 million is allocated for social inclusion measures under the remit of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and there is no increase in funding for the probation service, which is already hopelessly under-funded as everybody working in the criminal courts knows. It would be useful to have a debate on the purpose served by the prison building programme and additional prison places.

The Leader said yesterday, in the context of the drugs debate, that there is unanimity about the need for tougher measures and mandatory sentences. I do not believe there is. I do not believe mandatory sentences for drug and other offences serve a purpose in terms of rehabilitation. The three young mothers, whose cases were reported yesterday, were sentenced two days ago to long terms of five, four and three years respectively. Had mandatory sentences been imposed they would have been sentenced to ten years each. What purpose does this serve? These are mere couriers; they are low down in the chain. The people at the top of the chain, the drug barons, are not being caught.

We must take a rational approach in any debate on crime, prisons and drugs. Knee-jerk reactions and measures simply do not work. It is not enough to say to people that they must say “No” to drugs. It is similar to asking people to abstain from sex to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS. We should look to harm reduction programmes and more measured and rational responses. Senator Boyle said yesterday that the war on drugs in the US is not working. We must have a rational debate on the issue here, particularly in the context of this huge increase in funding for prisons, which is most regrettable.

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.