Posted on December 06, 2017
This Bill seeks to address the small number of cases where retired employees who were legally not permitted to marry persons of the same sex before a particular date may be deprived of certain pension benefits.
Posted on March 23, 2017
Senator Ivana Bacik: I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I am delighted to be here to propose this Bill. I welcome the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Leo Varadkar, to the House. I have received an indication from the Government that it will not be opposing this Bill on Second Stage. I am very grateful for and delighted about that news. I acknowledge the presence in the Visitors Gallery of Dr. David Parris and Mr. Gerhard Scully and I thank them for being here to support the Bill and for their bravery and courage in raising publicly the important equality issue it seeks to address. The Bill is the Pensions (Equal Pension Treatment in Occupational Benefit Scheme) (Amendment) Bill 2016. I am delighted to be proposing it on behalf of Labour Party Senators. My colleague, Senator Ged Nash, will be seconding it and Senator Kevin Humphreys will be speaking on it. We are putting it forward as a Labour Party Private Members' Bill. We acknowledge the legal expertise and help provided on the Bill by our drafter, Mr. Finbarr O'Malley, and also by Professor Robert Wintemute of King's College, London, who has given us some very important legal input on the Bill. I also acknowledge the support of Ms Marguerite Bolger, senior counsel, who acted in the legal case that forms the impetus for the Bill.
Let me outline the background to the Bill. It seeks to address the very small number of cases in which retired employees who, because of their sexual orientation, were not legally permitted to marry the person they desired to marry before a particular date were deprived of certain pension or survivor benefits as a result. It was drafted, as I have said, in response to a particular case which I know the Minister is aware of, namely, the case of David Parris v. Trinity College Dublin before the European Court of Justice. Judgment was given on 24 November 2016. In that case, David Parris had argued that the Trinity pension scheme was discriminatory as it provided that a Trinity employee's partner would only be entitled to a survivor's pension where the employee had married or entered a civil partnership before reaching the age of 60. The Bill seeks to address the issue that arose in that case. It will provide that if a pension scheme makes a survivor's pension entitlement dependent on the employee having married or entered civil partnership before a certain age, this would breach the principle of equal pension treatment on the sexual orientation ground where the reason the employee did not comply with the requirement was because he or she was legally incapable of marrying prior to the entry into force of civil partnership law.
Before I turn to the provisions of the Bill I will outline the facts of the Parris case in a little more detail. The applicant had been living for over 30 years in a stable relationship with his partner. His employer's pension scheme provided for the payment of a survivor's pension to the spouse or civil partner of a member. However, the survivor's pension was payable only if the member had married or entered into a civil partnership before reaching the age of 60.
Posted on December 14, 2016
Each year, thousands of women travel to England from Ireland to access terminations of pregnancy; 3,451 women made the journey in 2015 (63 per week; 9 per day).
Over 160,000 women have travelled to England from Ireland since the Eighth Amendment was passed in 1983, inserting Article 40.3.3 into the Irish Constitution. Between January 1980 and December 2013 alone, over 150,000 women travelled from Ireland to access abortion services to another country.
Posted on July 14, 2016
A study by the Nevin Economic Research Institute has shown that almost three quarters of people earning the minimum wage in Ireland are women.
The disproportionately high number of women earning the minimum wage clearly demonstrates the need to introduce a living wage to help tackle the gender pay gap.
This government has completely taken its eye of the ball when it comes to improving pay and conditions for low paid workers. It is extremely disappointing there is no commitment in the programme for government to introduce a living wage.
Posted on July 13, 2016
I welcome the Minister of State to the House and congratulate him on his appointment. I commend Senator McDowell for bringing forward this important legislation. Indeed, I thank the Leader and the Government party for giving Government time to this legislation. This is an indication of the new politics we saw in evidence in this House last week when we had Committee Stage of our Private Members' Bill on freelance workers' rights. We did so in Private Members' time but the Government promised to give us Government time for Report Stage of the Bill. It is an indication of how well the Seanad can work.
Colleagues will forgive me for a slight sense of déjà vu. Like Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell said earlier, and like so many others here, I am familiar with the many debates that we have had over the years on Seanad reform. I count myself as very privileged and honoured to have been re-elected for a third term in the Seanad. I value every colleague in the Seanad equally, a view that should not need to be said. Every one of us brings our own unique life experiences and background to the Seanad.
I agree that we have had so many reports and debates on reform and yet this new Seanad has a new dynamism and energy due to the number of new Senators elected to the House. The Manning report has provided us with a blueprint for reform. When we debated the Manning report in May of last year and the draft Bill that Dr. Maurice Manning and Mr. Joe O'Toole prepared, from which Senator McDowell's Bill borrows, we said that this should be the last report on Seanad reform and that we should be able to unite in principle behind the Bill. Therefore, I am glad that the legislation has received general support across the House. I am happy to indicate the Labour Party's support for the Bill, while, like many others, recognising some flaws in it or issues that we would like to see improved on. Certainly, we welcome the legislation.
The Labour Party has tabled an amendment to Sinn Féin's motion on Seanad reform simply calling for the establishment of an implementation group on Seanad reform because we believe a smaller implementation group might be more capable of working speedily. We also recommend that an implementation group has a timeframe of 12 months to implement the recommendations of the Manning report. It is in the same spirit as this Bill. We call on the implementation of a report rather than draft a new one or start from scratch.
The context in which we debate this Bill and in which Dr. Maurice Manning's group worked was the context in which we looked at reforms that could be implemented through legislation within the current constitutional framework. All of us might like to see particular changes to the Constitution. In the Labour Party Senator's group, we have said we would like to see changes made to the Taoiseach's power to nominate 11 Senators and the existing five vocational panels. However, the agreement, and I think the pragmatic approach, is to ask what can we do within the current constitutional framework and that is the aim of this Bill, that is, to seek the maximum change we can achieve within the constitutional framework.
The previous Labour Senator's group made a submission on Seanad reform to Dr. Maurice Manning's group in January 2015. We put forward a number of proposals. The key proposal, and one that has been reflected both in the report and in this Bill, is the proposal for universal suffrage - or one person, one vote. The need to achieve universal suffrage is a principle on which everyone in the House is united, although we may differ on how best to achieve it. I want to offer some constructive proposals but we all agree that we should move towards that model.
In the last Seanad, we made certain procedural changes that did not require legislation. These included, for example, the establishment of a public consultation committee. That committee has held hearings and produced reports on a number of key issues such as the human rights of older persons, lifestyle changes to prevent cancer and farm safety. These were new and dynamic ways in which the Seanad could be seen to work. We brought in different interest groups and held public hearings in this Chamber on different days. We had a series of debates with MEPs to improve and strengthen our links with the European Parliament. We also brought in a number of distinguished visitors to speak to us. We need to ensure that all of those changes are continued. We need to continue to change the way we work in this House without the need for legislative change in order to be a more dynamic and more effective Chamber. As I said, we are happy to support this Bill. In general, it will lead to a hugely improved and more democratic Seanad. In principle, the need to extend the suffrage for the Seanad and ensure an increased number of voters is a hugely important issue. In our submission the Labour Party proposed the extension of suffrage to those entitled to be on the local election register. This Bill there proposes to go beyond that to include the diaspora, which I believe all of us would support in principle. How this would be done is an issue. I believe that the approach taken in the Bill to restrict this entitlement to current Irish passport holders is a practical limitation. As the Minister said, the logistics and costings in that regard need to be examined in detail. Some of us are already elected by diaspora voters. A huge proportion of voters on my own panel are Irish citizens who live abroad. We should be conscious that the Seanad, as currently constituted, represents members of the diaspora.
There is a particular issue in the Bill about which I would like to speak, which issue I raised when we debated the report of the working group on Seanad reform on 8 July 2015. The Minister stated in his speech that there may be a difficulty in the Bill with balancing constituencies. Under the provisions of this Bill and as proposed in the report of the working group on Seanad reform, chaired by Dr. Maurice Manning, the voter chooses the constituency in which he or she will vote in Seanad elections. As I pointed out previously this means that panels could be very skewed. For example, in regard to section 8, 100,000 people might opt to vote in the arts panel and, although nobody is quite sure about this, there could be 850,000 voters potentially on the universities panel. As such, we could have very skewed numbers on different panels.
I note that Senator McDowell has proposed a complicated amendment to section 9 by way of a new section 45(1) such that limits would be applied to the number of elected representatives who would be registered in respect of a single constituency. The Labour group gave this some thought and we have come up with what I believe is a simpler and, perhaps, less cumbersome change, namely, that everybody entitled to vote on the Seanad electoral register would have a separate vote for candidates on each of the panels. In other words, a voter would not have to opt for one panel but would have five votes on the different panels. University graduates would opt for a vote on the universities panel instead of another particular panel. We suggested the national language, culture, literature, art and education panel. We also suggested that in accordance with Article 19 of the Constitution one of the panels would be reserved for election by city and county council members to preserve the existing link with local government which we believe is important. We believe that the public administration panel might be the most appropriate in that regard. I note there is a proposal in the Bill to preserve some voter rights for councillors. It is important that we preserve the link with local government in some way. The proposal put forward by Senator McDowell that we might look at changing the current position in legislation whereby councillors are not entitled to be Members of the Seanad is interesting. The preservation of one panel for election by councillors would not require constitutional change. One could also amend the current eligibility rules to enable councillors stand for election to that panel.
Returning to the Labour Party proposals, to protect against unbalanced panels, each individual registered on the Seanad electoral register would have five votes on five panels and could vote 1, 2 and 3 on each of those panels. It would be akin to a multi-seat constituency. This would guard against the skewing of voter numbers on different panels. It would also guard against what I believe is a real danger in this area, individual candidates organising registration campaigns on a particular panel to ensure they were more likely to be elected to it. We need to look at the practical implications of the panel system.
We need to look again at the online facilities and so forth. The working group on Seanad reform consulted on this with the National Cyber Security Centre, which provided some practical points on how to address security issues. The postal ballot requirement in the Constitution is a difficulty. In terms of the use of technology to try to reduce the cost of the postal ballot the Bill is very progressive. We should also introduce a system likechecktheregister.ieto enable people to check if they are registered to vote.
The Labour group has also put forward in its proposals one very radical but simple change which I believe could make a huge difference to the make-up of the Seanad, which, again, would not require constitutional change, namely, that a Seanad election should take place on the same day as a Dáil election. Article 18.8 of the Constitution provides that a Seanad election must take place not later than 90 days after dissolution of the Dáil. The Labour group proposes that it be provided by way of legislation that a Seanad election take place on the same day as a Dáil election on a PR-STV basis by secret postal ballot. Legislation could prohibit a candidate from running in both elections, which would break the direct link between Dáil and Seanad elections often criticised by many.
I thank Senator McDowell for introducing this Bill and thank the Minister of State for his support for it.
Posted on July 12, 2016
I also call on the Leader to facilitate a debate with the Minister for Education and Skills in the House on the Cassells report. Like other speakers, I believe it is a very urgent and important issue, and one which we should debate in the House, in particular because six Senators represent university constituencies.
Posted on July 07, 2016
Senator Ivana Bacik today welcomed confirmation from the Tánaiste that Ireland will admit an additional 260 Syrian refugees for resettlement here by autumn 2016, but criticised the delay in admission of refugees from Syria under the government’s resettlement programme to date.
Posted on July 07, 2016
That Seanad Éireann:
Posted on July 06, 2016
I welcome the Minister, Deputy Mitchell O'Connor, to the House. I also welcome the opportunity to debate this Private Members' Bill, which the Labour Party group of Senators introduced on Second Stage on 20 January of this year. On that date, it was not opposed on Second Stage by the then Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton. We have now brought the Bill back on Committee Stage and it is unusual in the sense that it is a Private Members' Bill going through Committee Stage but we anticipate we will have cross-party support on it. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the House for expressing support for this Bill. I also welcome the many observers here in the Gallery from across the trade union movement and from the ranks of freelance workers, many of whom are in the acting and journalism professions where the issue of bogus self-employed, if I may call it that, is very widespread.
Section 1 provides for certain definitions while section 2 provides for the substantive issue. This Bill stems from a longstanding Labour Party commitment to ensure protection of the right to collectively bargain for vulnerable workers who are freelance, particularly those in the arts, creative and media sectors. Senator Ged Nash and myself have worked on this for some time. It dates back 14 years to a ruling by the then Competition Authority, now the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission. In 2004, it ruled, applying a very restrictive interpretation of the Competition Act 2002, that a collective agreement between Irish Equity and the Institute of Advertising Practitioners in Ireland was in breach of competition and that was an agreement that has set rates for voiceover artists. To give colleagues something of the practical import of this, until then, it was accepted that, for example, unions could publish freelance fees guides. This is a particular issue in the arts and creative sectors, in acting and so forth, where unions such as Equity and NUJ had long made agreements about minimum fee rates, a minimum floor of rights for freelance workers, many of whom were employees in all but name. I am talking about people like session musicians, voiceover artists and freelance journalists. As result of the 2004 ruling by the Competition Authority, that sort of agreement of setting a minimum floor of fees was now seen as in breach of competition law.
Posted on July 05, 2016
I welcome the Minister back to the House. I also welcome the opportunity to debate this important issue. All of us and others outside the House have spoken of the wider context in which the Bill is being proposed. All of us have seen horrific murders in recent weeks and months. Many have mentioned the shooting today in Lusk and there was another shooting last week very close to where I live in a busy shopping street in the south inner city. All of us have been shocked by the brutality of these murders and shootings and by the recent violence, although we acknowledge they represent only a small number of individuals who are connected to an international and national drugs trade and to criminal organisations. That is the context within which the Bill is being introduced and, clearly, a key aim of the Bill is to act to seek to tackle those involved in criminal organisations at low and middle level. I recognise that tackling organised crime at all levels is a priority for the Government and all of us acknowledge that. There is no doubt that the escalation of crime, particularly in inner city Dublin in recent months, requires a proactive approach.
I and my party colleagues in the Labour Party would emphasise, and I am sure most would agree, that tackling this level of this type of organised crime requires tackling the core issues of disadvantage, of drug use and of tackling these in a way where we do not only have a criminal justice approach. I share Senator Ruane's concern about criminalising addiction and my colleague, Senator Ó Ríordáin expressed that view recently in a debate on the misuse of drugs legislation. We would clearly support a model that would examine much broader issues and that would redirect attention and investment towards disadvantaged communities suffering from a lack of opportunity. We drafted our amendment along the lines of the amendment, to which Senator Mac Lochlainn referred, concerning the ring-fencing of any proceeds or money confiscated towards disadvantaged communities.