Ivana Bacik

Order of Business

Senator Ivana Bacik: I support the calls on this side for a debate on education. I ask the Leader to guarantee that there will be a debate on education next week, given the levels of concern.

We had a debate on a specific aspect of education cutbacks on children with disabilities. This is an important aspect but we need a fuller debate on education.

I fully support what Senator Alex White has said with regard to those on the Government side speaking on both sides. After Senator White made the point this morning, we heard a number of Senators making this point. It undermines people’s trust and confidence in politicians. To hear Senator Leyden express a permanent state of indignation at what his Government is doing is extraordinary and it beggars belief.

Perhaps it is time we had a debate on cynicism in politics and on speaking the truth in politics, speaking in support of policies and votingthe way they have spoken and in accordance with principle. Senator Boyle expressed his support for a debate on education yet voted against the amendment to the Order of Business tabled by Fine Gael, not once but twice, this week and last week.

That beggars belief. Those who have been in this House a long time become utterly cynical about it and it is no wonder people outside these Houses are utterly cynical about politicians if they hear people saying one thing and then voting another way. This happens all the time. I ask the Leader for a debate on people voting the way they say they will vote and on people voting against their principles.

Order of Business

Senator Ivana Bacik: I welcome the distinguished members of the Ugandan judiciary who are guests of my colleague, Professor William Binchy from Trinity College Law School.

I would welcome a debate on embryonic stem cell research, but I would like it to be conducted from a position of education and in an informed manner, not in a spirit of ignorance which, unfortunately, we have heard informing the debate today. I have heard suggestions that UCC has taken some pre-emptive step in allowing stem cell research, but the reality is that until now any researcher at UCC could import embryonic stem cells.

What has happened is that in the absence of legislation, UCC has had to move and it has introduced a more restrictive regime and has done so in a responsible and measured fashion. I am not an expert on medical research, nor are the other speakers here, but I am very much persuaded by the fact that the academics on the board of UCC, the persons engaged in the research on the medical side, are supporting the policy. People from an ideological position, particularly the religious side, such as the Archbishop of Cashel and Emily, opposed it.

Today, there is a more pressing issue. I support calls for a debate not on stem cell research but on education cuts. There will be people outside these Houses tonight, parents and teachers alike, who are extremely angered and distressed by the proposed cutbacks in education, which will have a severe impact on our children in primary education. We should have a debate not only on the impact of the cutbacks, but also on the role of the Government’s junior partner in this, because the Green Party appear to lack backbone on education cutbacks. As one of their own councillors has said, there no longer seems to be a bottom line. They will tolerate any cutback that has a draconian effect on children.

We have heard of Nero fiddling while Rome burned, and it seems the Green Party will sit idly in Government while class sizes increase, children with special needs and language needs have their services cut. Children in general will suffer badly as a result of the cutbacks and, therefore, we urgently need this debate.

Order of Business

Senator Ivana Bacik: If we accept that education is a right, not a privilege, as the 15,000 students argued yesterday, we must accept that it should be free at the point of access. Of course the rich should pay more but they should do so through a fair and progressive taxation system. Let us have a debate on taxation. I suggested in the House that we should not stop with 2% for people earning over €100,000 per year. Let us debate increasing the rate to 3% for people earning more than €150,000. There are people in this country earning that amount of money and they should be taxed more. I call for a debate on fair taxation, which would allow us to continue with the proud tradition of universal social benefits such as health and education. We should have more universality, particularly in the health system.

Will the Leader clarify his response yesterday regarding the civil partnership Bill? When is it proposed to introduce it? He suggested that it would be in the next session but it was promised before the end of this year. Among many other U-turns, there has been a U-turn on that Bill by the Government.

Order of Business

Senator Ivana Bacik:  I ask the Leader for a debate on universal access to public services. There has been much talk on universality in the wake of last week’s budget because the Government is clearly set on attacking the principle of universal access to public services and introducing a means test for a range of benefits. In saying this, I include the signal by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, last week that he would be reviewing the universal payment of child benefit. There is immense fear and confusion, particularly among the elderly but also among other sectors, who fear all kinds of other benefits could well be subject to a means test and no longer granted on a universal basis.

There was another way to ensure the rich would pay more and that was simply to tax them more. However, the Government did not do so and instead took the dishonest step of imposing a levy, which is a very crude instrument. A simple levy of 1% applies to those earning up to €100,000 and a levy of 2% applies to those earning over that amount. This does not tax the rich sufficiently. Doing so would be a fairer way to raise revenue rather than withdrawing public benefits. We need a debate on universality to determine the Government’s true ideology and what it really believes about universal access to public services.

We have seen U-turns in respect of various measures in the budget. There appears to be one in respect of the Civil Partnership Bill. We saw the heads and were promised the Bill itself would be published this September. What has happened to it? Are we to see yet another U-turn by the Government?

Order of Business

Senator Ivana Bacik: In years to come this will be know as Brian’s botched budget.

 It is the first time ever that anyone can remember a budget that was open to negotiation after it was announced in the House. The people on the Government side should hear themselves this week, as they are saying something very different now.

 Will the Leader call the relevant Minister to the House to answer valid questions, which are being asked by everyone in the country, about what exactly will happen with medical cards for the over 70s? We should defend the principle of universality of access. Senator Harris claims it is indefensible, but what about universality of access to primary schooling and waste services?

We need a debate on universality as the Government has clearly placed the principle under attack. The Minister for Finance declared last week that he was reviewing the universality of child benefit payment. He has already tried to change the universal provision of medical cards for the over 70s in a botched and haphazard way. The European principle is that we supply public services to people on the basis of their ability to pay, through income tax, and we then supply these services on the basis of universal access. People pay higher taxes and this funds national primary schooling which is accessible to all, in the same way that medical cards should be accessible to all and child benefit should be payable to all children, irrespective of their parents’ income. This important principle should be defended. It is disgraceful that the Minister for Finance has placed it under attack. 

The principle of equity of taxation is important and should be examined. If the Government asks for our suggestion, why not take those on the minimum wage out of the 1% levy and instead place a higher levy on those earning more than €150,000 or €200,000.

Click on the following link to see Ivana’s speech on the bank guarantee:

http://www.ivanabacik.com/legislation/credit-institutions-financial-support-act-2008-motion

Click on the link below to read Ivana’s full response to the budget:

http://www.ivanabacik.com/legislation/budget-statement-2008-statements

Order of Business

Senator Ivana Bacik:  It is interesting to hear Members on the other side being so critical of the budget. It confirms Senator Fitzgerald’s comments on the reigning confusion. The more that Government spokespersons speaking on radio concede that there are anomalies and the more that Senator Boyle and others state that the budget may not have been well handled, the more confusion and anger there will be about its effects on the vulnerable, the elderly and those on low incomes.

It is evident that the budget has been poorly handled. There is a lack of clarity on all sorts of measure. Why are the figures on funding for arts institutions on the Department of Finance’s website different from those outlined in the document given to us? This is a small example of the types of anomaly in the budget.

Why was a radical approach not taken to carbon tax, particularly given the inclusion of the Green Party in the Government? A Green Party Minister more than hinted at the introduction of a carbon tax next year, but the Minister for Finance did not commit to it in the budget. He only hinted at its introduction. This could have raised revenue on more radical and imaginative basis yet it has not been done. There is a question of why it has not been done now.

As we debate increased rates of carbon emissions and the poor record of Ireland in meeting its Kyoto target, it is important to note that the carbon budget has been criticised by Friends of the Earth as too patchy, piecemeal and slow. I ask the Leader why a stronger carbon budget was not introduced in this year of all years when people are willing to make sacrifices to meet environmental targets.

I support Senator Fitzgerald’s call for the Minister for Health and Children to answer questions about the medical card scheme, which has not been thought through and lacks clarity. I do not often agree with Senator Leyden but he is right. It seems completely wrong to remove medical cards from people who have been given them and who have made plans on the basis of being granted medical cards by this Government in a previous term of office. It is extraordinary that they are proposing to take them away and introduce an unclear form of means testing. We have seen great injustice in means testing in the past and will see it in the future.

I reiterate my invitation to Members and colleagues to the seminar on youth justice. It has been somewhat overtaken by events but is due to be held at 11.30 a.m. in the audio visual room and will be addressed by the Irish Penal Reform Trust.

Order of Business

Senator Ivana Bacik: The budget is most regrettable and regressive, as other speakers on this side have said. There is an immense amount of hardship and pain to be suffered, much of it hidden in small print and in back door measures. There will be a slow burn of anger as people realise the true impact of the budget on them, their incomes and their family and household incomes. We will see a long-term impact, unfortunately.

One element has not been highlighted although some speakers have touched upon it. It deserved to be highlighted and we should debate it because it appears to be a new and especially regressive policy of the Minister and of this Government. That policy is to do away with universal social benefits and instead to introduce means testing. The Minister has introduced means testing for those over 70 years of age in respect of health benefits and has effectively introduced means testing for other social benefits and separate elements. He abolished the child care supplements for children over 5 and a half years of age and child benefit payments for students over 18 and has introduced a vastly increased student registration charge.

I have a question and it is of particular concern. The Minister has asked the Commission on Taxation to examine more generally the payment of universal child benefit. Does this mean he will extend this apparent attack on universal benefit provision in a most regrettable way to child benefit payments? As legislators we deserve to know this and if it is the Minister’s intention we should have a debate on the matter. If that is the case, it should be a matter of grave concern to all of us. It is a most regressive measure to start means testing for all sorts of State benefits and it will lead to greater inequity and inequality.

I ask the Leader to arrange a debate on youth justice. At this time of cutbacks and closures it is important that the House should debate what will happen to young offenders who are a particularly vulnerable group. In that context, I and Deputy O’Rourke will co-host a seminar on youth justice tomorrow at 11.30 a.m. in the audiovisual room. The meeting will be addressed by a leading academic expert in the field from University College Cork and will be facilitated by the Irish Penal Reform Trust. All colleagues are welcome and I urge Senators to come along, even for a short time, or to send assistants if they wish to learn about development in the difficult area of youth justice or whether plans to build Thornton Hall and children detention centres will proceed in the current economic climate.

Irish Daily Mail 14th October - Commentary on the Budget