Ivana Bacik

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.

Senator Ivana Bacik: On this auspicious day for children’s rights Senator Fitzgerald referred to the issue. On a related matter I ask that the Minister for Health and Children attend the House for a debate on the fact that the Government does not have child benefit as a universal benefit. The habitual residence condition deprives up to 3,000 of the most disadvantaged children in the State, and these are largely the children of asylum seekers or persons to whom leave to remain in the State has been refused. This has a detrimental effect on their schooling, nutrition and general upbringing.

While the numbers are small, a campaign has been in place for the past year, which I had the honour of launching, run by the Free Legal Advice Centres and supported by the Children’s Rights Alliance, Barnardos, the Vincentian Refugee Centre and others. All argue the Government should restore child benefit as a universal benefit, given that Ireland has ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We have an obligation to ensure social welfare policies are applied in the best interests of the child and without regard to the status of the parents. This is a small matter but has a big impact on a relatively small number of children to whom we are clearly neglecting in our duties.

 Senator Ivana Bacik:  I ask for a debate on public transport and alternatives to the use of private cars. This is timely on a day when thousands of commuters are stranded without bus services. I am sure we all hope the matter will be resolved at the Labour Court. However, it begs the question of broader issues about Government support for public transport and for forms of transport other than the private car.

Last week Senator Ross called for the restoration of Leinster House lawn and that Members would lead by example. I fully support his call but I take issue with him when he says that most of us drive. Some of us cycle in every day and we see at first hand the lack of support for cyclists from both the Government and Dublin City Council. There is a very poor network of cycling lanes and cyclists face extreme danger every day.

The fact that the Government has not seen fit to support cycling as an alternative form of transport to private cars is hugely problematic but there is also a lack of support for public transport which is evident in a report last week that integrated ticketing for bus, rail, DART and Luas services across Dublin will now not be introduced until 2010, which is appalling. It was nearly ten years ago when the prospect of integrated ticketing was first raised. The then Minister, Deputy Mary O’Rourke, said it would definitely be introduced by 2002, the Railway Procurement Agency promised it by 2005 and now we are told it will not be introduced until 2010. Is it really that difficult to develop an integrated ticket system for all public transport services across Dublin? We need to debate this issue.

Senator Ivana Bacik: Will the Deputy Leader convene a debate on Irish Aid and development programmes, specifically on the need to mainstream disability rights in development programmes? I have just come from a seminar on disability and development being run by the Centre for Global Health at Trinity College Dublin in conjunction with Dóchas and Irish Aid. In the year in which Ireland signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities — it has still not been ratified — it would be timely for the House to debate the importance of placing the rights of people with disabilities centre stage in our development programmes. Irish Aid had done a good deal of work on this issue but Ireland is required, under Article 32 of the convention, to promote disability awareness in our international co-operation programmes.

It is very important we meet this requirement, especially in light of the report published yesterday by the Disability Equality Specialist Support Agency which found that almost half of child care providers in Dublin do not include disabled children in their services. Even at home, we are falling short of providing for the rights of children with disabiities. On an international stage, it has been estimated that only 2% of disabled children in developing countries receive any education. It is critical, therefore, that we address disability issues in development aid and Irish Aid programmes. I echo the call made by Senator Ormonde yesterday that the House debate Irish Aid and ask that such a debate include the issue of disability.

I support Senator Alex White’s comments on the rights of undocumented persons living here and those who have experienced difficulties in the area of family reunification. I raised this issue last week. The Refugee Information Service produced a report showing the difficulty experienced by those with refugee status who seek to bring family members, dependants and children to Ireland from their home countries. We treat these people, who have secured refugee status and been through persecution in their home countries, appallingly badly by preventing them from bringing their families to Ireland.

 Senator Ivana Bacik: I support Senator Norris’s call for a debate on the Civil Partnership Bill. I welcome the support expressed by Senators from both sides of the House for the principle of legal recognition of gay relationships. It is distressing to hear the Government piously pontificating about the need to protect the family, when the policies it has adopted, such as its new policy on subvention on child care and the damage it is doing to community child care facilities, clearly show its hypocrisy and lack of respect for the family. It is also expressed in a report I will launch today for the Refugee Information Service on family reunification for refugees. Again we see people treated as second class citizens despite being granted refugee status because they face complex, cumbersome and inconsistent procedures in trying to get their children, parents and other family members to join them in Ireland. It is an appalling situation that again points up the hypocrisy of the Government in its so-called protection of the rights of the family.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I support the request by my colleagues, Senators Norris and McCarthy, for a debate in this House on the Civil Partnership Bill. We should all support the Civil Union Bill which the Labour Party is to bring before the Dáil today but it should be also noted we have a Bill on the Order Paper for this House which deals with the same matter and which would also give a route to legal recognition for same-sex relationships. This is a matter in which Ireland lags behind other progressive countries and we urgently need that debate.

I also support Senators Buttimer, Twomey and Mary M. White in seeking a debate on child care. In examining the provision of child care, Ireland lags very badly behind other progressive and developed countries, as there is a lack of support for parents who work outside the home. I have raised this issue previously and we should consider it as part of an overall package of measures, including paid paternity and parental leave, which we do not yet have.

I note the National Women’s Council of Ireland, in its pre-budget submission launched last week, called for a package of measures to support parents who work outside the home in a variety of different ways, including a greater provision of child care and support for child-care facilities. The Irish Examiner report demonstrates the need for regulation of existing child-care facilities. That is a vital issue, particularly for parents who work outside the home.

I will mention the debate on crime sought last week. In particular, comments were made on the other side of the House about the need to introduce draconian measures to fight gangland crime. There were even calls to bring back internment. It is important we do not succumb to that sort of knee-jerk reaction to the appalling gangland murders we have seen in recent weeks.

Last week, the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill was rushed through because it was necessary to correct an inadvertent slip made in earlier criminal justice legislation rushed through without adequate debate. On the criminal justice side it is important we consider much more comprehensive and long-term measures to fight the spectre of organised crime in Ireland. Knee-jerk calls, such as for bringing back internment, are not the correct answer.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I propose an amendment to the Order of Business to enable the House to debate Private Members’ motion No. 30 on the Order Paper. The motion, which is proposed by me and seconded by my colleague, Senator Norris, is to annul the Cockle (Fisheries Management and Conservation Regulations) (Waterford Estuary) 2007. To give a little background, the regulations were signed by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, in the summer and have been laid before the House. However, a provision in the enabling legislation allows either House of the Oireachtas to annul any regulations made under the relevant legislation provided the annulment is done within 21 sitting days. By my calculation, this is the 11th sitting day since the regulations were signed.

It relates to the Suir Estuary at Passage East, a special conservation area in County Waterford which many Senators will know. The regulation in question allows dredging for cockles within certain insufficiently restricted time periods. The national co-ordinator of Coastwatch Ireland, Karen Dubsky, has briefed me on the matter. Coastwatch Ireland has monitored the area and has found that enormous damage is being done to the seabed in the Waterford Estuary as a result of dredgers moving into the area on foot of this regulation and dredging up not only cockles but also other seabed life and matter. The practice is seriously damaging seabed life in the region and may be in breach of the Habitats Directive. If the Seanad agrees to annul the regulation, a more restrictive regulation could be introduced which, in keeping with European Union law, would prevent dredging for cockles in this manner.

I understand Ireland is out of line with other countries where dredging for cockles has been banned and cockle fishing is only allowed by hand. This does much less damage to the seabed, although it has resulted in cockles becoming very expensive. Virtually all cockles from Ireland are exported. The practice of dredging for cockles should not continue and the relevant regulation is too broad. I would be grateful if time were made available to debate the issue.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I support Senator O’Malley in her comments about CURA. The concern is that CURA is not co-operating with the Crisis Pregnancy Agency policy and that it is not providing women in crisis pregnancy with all the information on all the options available to them. I would be concerned that an organisation should receive State funding if it is not co-operating with an agreed body such as the CPA.

I also echo the comments by Senators O’Malley and Corrigan regarding the family. The calls made yesterday for debates on parenting may have missed the point. I have already called and I again reiterate a call on the Leader to institute a debate about how the Legislature can support parents through the provision of paid paternity leave to enable fathers to take time off from the workplace. It is a scandal that fathers have no right to paid paternity leave at present. It is also a scandal that we have such a poor provision of pre-school child care. As a Legislature we should be concerned about the quality of provision for children and the best interests of the child. I was very concerned at views expressed yesterday that showed a certain prejudice towards a particular type of parent, which is not helpful in a debate. We should consider what is in the best interests of the child, which is the quality of the parenting, and not who the parents are or the nature of their relationship and whether it is based on a legal bond. We should call for a debate on what the Legislature can do to support parents, be they single, married, same sex or opposite sex parents.