Wednesday 16th May 2012

DEBATE ON SYMPHYSIOTOMY IN SEANAD TODAY

The debate arranged by the Labour group of Senators on symphysiotomy will take place in the Seanad today Wednesday 16th May from 15.30-17.00.

This debate will be led for the Labour Senators group by Senator Mary Moran. Other Labour speakers will include Senators Marie Moloney, Aideen Hayden and Ivana Bacik. The debate will be attended by members of the Survivors of Symphysiotomy group and others. Minister Kathleen Lynch will be present for the debate in the Seanad chamber.

The debate will build upon and develop the issues raised during the earlier Dail debate on the same topic. Particular issues raised during the debate will include a discussion of the most effective means to facilitate survivors’ access to justice.

Speaking in advance of the debate, Senator Bacik said:

“The barbaric practice of symphysiotomy was carried out for far too long in our maternity hospitals. Many women continue to live with the legacy of this procedure and have suffered long-term health consequences. In seeking to take legal action to hold those responsible to account, survivors have faced serious legal and procedural obstacles. It is time that we addressed these, in particular through amending the Statute of Limitations. This will be one of the issues that we will address in this important debate today.”

ENDS

Tuesday 15th May 2012 

LABOUR SENATORS ARRANGE FOR DEBATE ON SYMPHYSIOTOMY

The Labour group of Senators have arranged that tomorrow Wednesday 16th May from 15.30-17.00,a debate on symphysiotomy will take place in the Seanad during their private members’ time.

This debate, which will be led for the Labour Senators group by Senator Mary Moran, will be attended by members of the Survivors of Symphysiotomy group led by Marie O’Connor.

Minister Kathleen Lynch will bepresent for the debate in the Seanad chamber.

The debate will build upon and develop the issues raised during the earlier Dail debate on the same topic. Particular issues raised during the debate will include a discussion of the most effective means to facilitate survivors’ access to justice.

Wednesday, 2 May 2012

Senator Ivana Bacik:     I welcome the members of the Humanist Association of Ireland who are in the Gallery and I thank them very much for their help and support with this legislation.

As colleagues know, because we had a very full debate on Second Stage on 10 November, this Bill is aimed at making a small but significant change in the law on the registration of civil marriages. It does not extend to civil partnerships which, of course, are governed by separate legislation. I hope this Bill will be passed and it had full support from all sides on Second Stage last November. If passed, it will allow for the registration of legal marriages by members of, for example, the Humanist Association of Ireland and of other philosophical and non-confessional bodies who may apply under the criteria we have provided for. The amendments which I have put forward, and I thank the Minister for her support, will seek to deal with some issues identified on Second Stage as to what should be the criteria for designation of a non-religious body which can apply for registration. This is the context of this Bill and I will speak further on those amendments when they arise.

I thank Senator Norris and Senator Zappone for their contribution to the debate on Second Stage and for tabling the amendment today because it is useful that we would debate the broader issue of extension of provisions to civil partnership. However, I am grateful to Senator Norris for indicating he will not put the amendment to a vote because this would do a different thing as it would deal with civil partnerships. As Senator Norris knows, I entirely agree with him and with Senator Zappone on the need to separate church and State and the need to ensure equality between gay couples and straight couples. I support the Senators on gay marriage and I entirely agree with their views in that regard. However, this legislation is to deal with civil marriages only and with the registration of civil marriages which are dealt with under different provisions. There is another issue to deal with as regards civil partnerships. I hope to deal with that once this Bill has been passed. I would like to work with the Senators in the future on civil partnership law generally. We are all in agreement in principle but, as Senator Norris said, this amendment is putting down a marker about future developments in the law.

…

Senator Ivana Bacik:     I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, to delete lines 18 and 19 and substitute the following:

““‘body’ means the Executive or a religious body or a philosophical and non-confessional body;

‘philosophical and non-confessional body’ means a body which has as one of its functions the celebration of marriage, and which, for the purposes of this Act—

(a) has been performing marriage ceremonies for a period of at least five years, and

(b) at least twenty couples have participated in the marriage ceremony of the body, and

(c) these marriages have been solemnised by a registrar and registered in the register of marriages, and

(d) at least one of these marriages has been registered in the register of marriages at least five years before the date of an application under section 54;”.”.

I thank Senator Norris for his kind comments and support for the Bill. He is never obstreperous in this Chamber. I also thank other colleagues for their supportive comments on the previous amendment.

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Burton, to the House and I am very grateful to her for indicating her support for this Bill on Second Stage and for being so supportive of it during the process of coming to Committee Stage. I also thank her officials who have been extremely helpful and the staff in the Bills Office who have been very helpful on the drafting side.

As colleagues have said, it is an unusual process that a Private Members’ Bill would be introduced during Private Members’ time in the Seanad and would then proceed to Committee and Report Stages in Government time in the Seanad with Government support. I understand that was formally approved at Cabinet yesterday. It is a very good day for the Seanad that a Bill of this sort, that was introduced as a Private Members’ Bill will finish in the Seanad with Government support and will then proceed, I hope, speedily through the Dáil, sponsored by the Minister, Deputy Burton. I thank her once again for her support. I am delighted about this. I have also thanked the humanist association for the initiative it has taken on this and particularly Brian Whiteside who has been extraordinarily helpful on this.

I wish to give colleagues a context for these amendments. Everyone is aware that the purpose of the Bill is to amend the Civil Registration Act 2004, the Act which regulates the registration of civil marriages. Under the current version of the Civil Registration Act, the only people who can solemnise or celebrate legal civil marriages are either HSE registrars - who only work Monday to Friday as we know, and that is not in any way to denigrate them it is simply the fact of the matter - or members of a religious body. “A religious body” is defined in the Act to mean “an organised group of people, members of which meet regularly for common religious worship”. That definition has enabled quite a large number of religious bodies to apply for and obtain registration for individual members. This issue came up on Second Stage when colleagues asked what organisations were included. If one goes to the website groireland.ie, the website of the registrar general, one will find a register of solemnisers which contains the list of names and addresses of the individual members of the religious bodies and of the HSE who are authorised to perform civil marriages. One will also find the list of the religious bodies which constitute quite an extensive list. It includes the Catholic Church, the Church of Ireland but also quite a number of very small churches, some of which are very local churches; the Gospel Hall, Skibbereen jumped out at me, the Spiritualist Union of Ireland, of which we have spoken, the Pagan Federation of Ireland, Riverside Gospel Hall, quite a number of very small ministries which have applied and obtained authorisation. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and so on have authorisation. Quite a wide range of groups is covered.

An issue arose on Second Stage about scientologists but I do not believe they are included - they are not on that list but a wide range of other groups is included. Clearly the definition excludes members of the Humanist Association of Ireland who, in practice, for many years now have routinely been conducting both funeral ceremonies and humanist wedding ceremonies, but those humanist wedding ceremonies have no legal status. Couples who wish to have a humanist wedding must in addition to the humanist celebration also go, as everyone in the Gallery knows, to a civil registry office and a registrar to have their marriage celebrated legally, to give their marriage legal effect.

The fact that humanists and other non-religious bodies were excluded from the definition in the Act is clearly out of line with the current situation in Irish society where the proportion of couples choosing a non-religious civil wedding ceremony has dramatically increased from 6% in 1996 to more than 23% in 2006, and there have been further increases since. The CSO has stated that this year for the first time the number of non-religious wedding ceremonies conducted by HSE registrars may exceed the number of religious ceremonies. During yesterday’s debate with the Minister, Deputy Quinn, on patronage, we noted the new census figures on the number of non-religious, which has now gone up to 270,000. Those who say they have no religion are the second biggest group after the Catholic Church in terms of faith and belief in Ireland now. The 2004 Act no longer reflects the changing reality of Irish life, whereby large numbers of people are not members of religious bodies and do not wish to have their wedding celebrated through a religious body. I digressed somewhat to give the context of the amendments and I apologise for that. I wanted to explain how we got to put forward these amendments.

When I introduced the Bill on Second Stage on 2 Nov 2011, the text was to simply change the definition in the Act which currently states an authority, meaning the HSE or a religious body, and to include also “a body designed by the Minister”. In a very naive act of drafting, I thought perhaps this would mean that the Minister could then designate bodies such as the Humanist Association of Ireland to be authorised to apply for authorisation for its members to conduct legal weddings.

However, although speakers on both sides universally supported the Bill on 10 November 2011, many speakers, including the Minister, quite rightly expressed the view that specific criteria would need to be provided in the Bill to guide the decision as to which non-religious bodies could apply to have their members conduct legal wedding ceremonies. Coming away from that debate, I thought the simplest method of dealing with this issue would be to do what Senator Mooney has done, and I am grateful to him for tabling amendments, which was to name the Humanist Association of Ireland as another body. In amendment No. 2, Senator Mooney has proposed a change to the definition of “body” such that a “‘body’ means an authority or a religious body or the Humanist Association of Ireland”. That seemed to be the most straightforward means of amending the Bill to ensure it would do what we all want it to do, which is to enable members of the Humanist Association of Ireland to perform legal ceremonies. However, after a great deal of discussion with the Registrar General and others, including colleagues and the Minister’s officials, and following representation from groups and individuals other than the humanists who might at some stage wish to apply for authorisation, I came to the conclusion it would be preferable not to name any one organisation in the Bill. I stated this on Second Stage to explain why I had not done so originally. There is also a clear danger that if we were to name any one organisation in the Bill other organisations might claim discrimination and might launch constitutional challenges. With all of these issues in mind we examined how best to draft or develop a set of criteria to cover the Humanist Association of Ireland and potentially cover other groups which may wish to apply in future, without being too broad because we are speaking about the very important function of the solemnisation of legal marriages.

This is why in amendment No. 1 and those amendments grouped with it the new definition being provided for “body” means the “Executive”, which is the more correct summary of the HSE, “or a religious body or a philosophical and non-confessional body”. This definition is not plucked from the air but already has legal status under article 17 of the Lisbon treaty. It is used in the dialogue process between the European Commission, the Parliament and the Council and groups such as the Humanist Association through the European Humanist Federation and Atheist Ireland. The phrase “philosophical and non-confessional” already has status and this is important. Article 17 of the Lisbon treaty provides that the European Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the member states and that it equally respects the status under national law of philosophical and non-confessional organisations. We have used this phrase as the short version of a body that may apply for authorisation under the Act.

Philosophical and non-confessional bodies are further defined to provide specific criteria with which a body must be able to comply to obtain authorisation for its members to conduct legal weddings. Amendment No. 1 to section 3 provides that the body must, for the purposes of the Act, have been performing marriage ceremonies - clearly these will have been non-legally binding marriage ceremonies - for a period of at least five years. The Humanist Association of Ireland has been doing so for more than five years. At least 20 couples must have participated in the marriage ceremonies, and these marriages would have had to have been solemnised by a registrar and registered in the register of marriages. This means we are speaking about at least 20 couples who have had not only a humanist wedding ceremony but also had their wedding lawfully solemnised at a HSE registry office with at least one of the marriages registered at least five years prior to the date of application. The criteria are rigorous and this is an important point to make. It means people will not apply lightly for authorisation, or at least they will not be granted it lightly. It is important that these criteria are specific, but they are also fair and will serve to reflect the reality of modern Ireland.

I have dealt with amendment No. 2 tabled by Senator Mooney to explain why even though it may seem a simpler option it is not. The preferable option is the route we have taken in amendment No. 1. To quickly run through the other amendments, amendments Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 8 make the same technical change to add “philosophical and non-confessional body” after “religious body”. Amendments Nos 5 and 7 are tabled by Senator Mooney and I have dealt with them. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are also technical amendments to make the necessary changes to other provisions of the 2004 Act to include “philosophical and non-confessional body” alongside “Executive” and “religious body”.

I am gladdened to hear everyone in the House is supportive of the principal and purpose of the Bill. The amendments are to give greater detail and more specific criteria on how we can achieve this purpose and how the Humanist Association of Ireland can apply for authorisation for its members. I am sorry for taking so long to explain it but because the amendments are technical it is important that colleagues are aware of their context, the reason this route was chosen and the reason for the specific criteria.

…

Senator Ivana Bacik:     Some specific points were raised and I wish to respond briefly to them. As Senator Hayden has noted, this debate did indeed open up into a discussion on marriage more generally. However, the Bill has a relatively narrow purpose. While it undoubtedly is a small but significant step towards the recognition of a more pluralist Ireland, it has quite a narrow purpose, which simply is to extend the definition to enable organisations like the Humanist Association of Ireland to apply for authorisation for its members to conduct legal weddings. That is the important point to make and it is not about marriages more broadly.

In response to a couple of the points raised, I am grateful to Senator Healy Eames for indicating Fine Gael’s support. As I have stated, this Bill is supported by the Government and I am delighted it clearly has this support and will proceed to the Dáil as a Government Bill. The amendments would circumscribe ministerial discretion. The concern on Second Stage was that too broad a discretion had been left to the Minister and there were no criteria. These amendments seek to apply a set of rigorous criteria but that are not so rigid that they would exclude everyone. They are rigorous and fair. Senator Healy Eames asked about the criteria which requires that marriages be solemnised by a registrar and recorded in the register of marriages. This refers to HSE registrars. In other words, to get accreditation a body like the humanists would have to show that it had performed marriage ceremonies for at least 20 couples in the previous five years and that those couples had also had legal civil wedding ceremonies with a HSE registrar. As I stated—–

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames:     That is important.

Senator Ivana Bacik:     —–and as mentioned by Senator Hayden, the five year provision is relatively rigorous. At least one marriage must have been registered for more than five years prior to the application.

The definition of “philosophical and non-confessional body” was taken from the Lisbon treaty. The definition of “philosophical” is clear enough. As I understand it, “non-confessional” means that the body is a body which does not take confessions from its members. In other words it does not apply sacraments. It is I suppose another way of saying it is a non-religious body. It is a definition I favoured because it is clearly set out already in European law and appears to be an objective definition in respect of groups such as the humanists.

…

Senator Ivana Bacik:     I will respond to Senator Mooney. It is unfortunate in a debate in which we are all in agreement - everybody has welcomed the Bill - that Senator Mooney’s words were delivered in a somewhat discordant style. That may not have been his intention but he sounded somewhat hostile at certain times and that is unfortunate.

The first thing I should say about these amendments is that they have the full support of the Humanist Association of Ireland, members of which are sitting in the visitors’ Gallery at my invitation and with whom I have consulted at every step of the way. They are entirely happy with the rigorous criteria set down here. Senator Mooney quoted my words on Second Stage, which I absolutely stand over. I am grateful to him for reminding the House of them. On Second Stage, we debated at length the issue of criteria. Everyone was in agreement on Second Stage that the Bill, as I had originally drafted it, was too broad and that it did not set any criteria and simply said the Minister would designate. It was wide open, therefore, for groups such as commercial groups to apply for designation and to be able to perform marriages for commercial purposes - Las Vegas style, I suppose. That is certainly not what I want or what anyone wants.

On Second Stage it appeared as if there were two routes we could go down on Committee Stage. One route of amendment would be to name the Humanist Association of Ireland and another route would have been to set down a rigorous set of criteria. As I said, subsequent to the Second Stage debate, I received representations from other groups and individuals who said that they might wish to have authorisation to solemnise marriages in the future.

Senator Paschal Mooney:     Could Senator Bacik name them?

Senator Ivana Bacik:     Atheist Ireland, which is included as one of the philosophical and non-confessional organisations under the European definition. There are other groups which may not have applied yet but which potentially may do so in the future should they fit rigorous criteria. I certainly did not wish to close off that potential. I do not make any judgment about any group as to whether it might wish to apply in the future, because it is clearly not my place.

There was also a further concern, which I have already set out as a reason for the way in which the amendments are drafted, that if a non-religious group which was not named but which identified itself as wishing to perform marriages in the future wished to apply and saw the Humanist Association of Ireland had been named, there was a danger it might challenge the Bill under the Constitution as being discriminatory. That concern, having discussed the matter with officials, others and, indeed, the humanists, weighed heavily enough on me and I felt the better of the two approaches we had identified on Second Stage was to go down the route of rigorous criteria.

I think everyone is in agreement that these criteria are rigorous and it will be very difficult for non-religious bodies to apply for registration. That is right and proper as nobody wants to see it opened too widely.

In terms of the numerous groups the Minister and I listed which already have authorisation, the vast number of solemnisers are still from the main churches because the individuals authorised must be members of the religious bodies. If one looks at the number of individuals listed, the vast bulk of them are from the main churches. There is usually only one or two named individuals from the very small groups.

I think we are all in agreement about the need for this Bill. The format the amendments take is the question. I think I have outlined fairly fully, as has the Minister, the reason these amendments giving the criteria are preferable to the amendments naming the Humanist Association of Ireland. I suppose the proof of the pudding is that the Humanist Association of Ireland is very happy with the definition included in my amendments.

…

Senator Ivana Bacik:     I move amendment No. 9:

In page 3, after section 5, to insert the following new section:

7.—The Act of 2004 is amended by the insertion of a new Section 54A:

“54A.—(1) An application under section 54 by a philosophical and non-confessional body to have a member or members registered in the Register of Solemnisers shall not be accepted unless an tArd Chláraitheoir is satisfied that

(a) the body in question has been performing marriage ceremonies for a period of at least five years, and

(b) at least twenty couples have participated in the marriage ceremony of the body, and

(c) these marriages have been solemnised by a registrar and registered in the register of marriages, and

(d) at least one of these marriages has been registered in the register of marriages at least five years before the date of the application.

(2) The body in question shall provide such evidence as an tArd Chláraitheoir may determine to satisfy him or her that the conditions specified in subsection (1) have been met and such evidence shall include direct evidence from the couples referred to in paragraph (b) and (d) of subsection (1), or as many of them as is practicable.

(3) A member of a philosophical and non-confessional body who is registered in the Register of Solemnisers may not solemnise a marriage unless at least one of the parties to the marriage is a member of the body in question.”.”.

We have had a very full debate on the other amendments and essentially this is part of the same series of amendments but somewhat different. The amendment would insert a new section 54A into the 2004 Act which would refer specifically to applications by a philosophical and non-confessional body. It sets out the same criteria we have already debated and agreed. It just requires that the body would provide such evidence as the Registrar General, an tArd Chláraitheoir, may determine to satisfy him or her that the conditions have been met. This responds to some of the points made by others. It will not be a body designated by the Minister - it will be the Registrar General who will adjudicate on the applications as the registrar currently adjudicates on applications by religious bodies.

Subsection (3) of the new section would require that a member of a philosophical non-confessional body registered in the Register of Solemnisers will not be able to solemnise a marriage unless at least one of the parties to the marriage is a member of the body in question. This is a further relatively onerous requirement which would mean that anyone, for example, who wishes to have a humanist solemniser celebrate his or her marriage would have to be a member of the Humanist Association of Ireland. That amendment, which would create a new section, is entirely in keeping with the amendments we have already discussed. Amendment No. 12 simply inserts a new subsection to create an offence where a person breaches section 54A(3). Again, this is very much linked with amendment No. 9. We have already debated the criteria, and the substance of the amendments has already been passed. These are further amendments to facilitate applications by a philosophical non-confessional body.

…

Senator Paschal Mooney:     On behalf of the Fianna Fáil group I compliment Senator Bacik, as I did on Second Stage, for initiating this important legislation. I also thank her for addressing, not just adequately but enthusiastically, a number of points made about inherent flaws in the Bill during the full and comprehensive debate that took place on Second Stage. I am sure the original objectives she set herself will now be achieved. We can all feel confident that when the Humanist Association of Ireland makes its application under the new amended legislation, it will be included on the list. I wish it well.

I thank the Senator for dealing with this legislation and also for her prescience in ensuring that those of us who were contributing to the debate were brought up to speed with documentation relating to it by e-mail in the last couple of days. I am grateful to her for that.

Senator Ivana Bacik:     I thank Senator Mooney for his kind comments. I did try to ensure people were kept up to speed by e-mailing all colleagues a briefing on the amendments and the rationale behind them, and I am grateful to all colleagues on both sides of the House that the amended Bill has passed unanimously. The aim with which we were all in agreement - that the Humanist Association of Ireland be included in the Register of Solemnisers - can now be fulfilled by this legislation. I thank the Minister of State, Deputy McGinley, for coming to the debate, and, in particular, the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, who has been hugely supportive of this Bill. I also thank the Registrar General, the officials and advisers in the Minister’s office, and the Bills Office, as well as colleagues in the Labour Party group, who sponsored this originally, and on both sides of the House.

This is a good day for the Seanad. This is a Private Members’ Bill from the Seanad that has been accepted by the Government and will now proceed to the Dáil, sponsored by the Minister, Deputy Burton, and passed - very soon, I hope - as a Government Bill. To be personal for a moment, I have attended many humanist wedding ceremonies, which of course had non-legal status until now, and I very much look forward to attending my first legally binding humanist wedding ceremony. There was some reference during the full and considered debate to marriage break-up, but this relates to a very happy occasion, the celebration of marriage.

This Bill seeks to ensure that those who wish to have their marriage celebrated by a member of the Humanist Association of Ireland or a philosophical non-confessional body can now do so in a legal way. It is an inclusive Bill and represents a small but significant step towards greater inclusiveness in Irish society. It will greatly improve the quality of life for those who wish to have humanist wedding ceremonies and it will ensure our laws are somewhat more reflective of our pluralist and diverse society.

I thank the members of the Humanist Association of Ireland for their forbearance with the difficult legislative process, although I must point out that this Bill was relatively quick to pass through the Seanad. I hope it will pass through the Dáil even more quickly.

Question put and agreed to.

Sitting suspended at 1.25 p.m. and resumed at 4 p.m.

Senator Ivana Bacik
 Labour Party Seanad Group Leader
2nd May 2012

Senator Ivana Bacik will today pilot the Civil Registration (Amendment) Bill 2011 through its final stages in the Seanad. This Bill will amend various sections of the Civil Registration Act 2004 – the Act which regulates the registration of civil marriages. Until now, apart fromHSE registrars, only an authorised member of a ‘religious body’ may celebrate legal civil marriages. Senator Bacik’s Bill, which is supported by Minister Joan Burton and has Cabinet approval, will change that by allowing members of the Humanist Association of Ireland and other non-religious bodies to carry out legal civil wedding ceremonies.

Welcoming the passage of the bill through its final stages in the Seanad today, Senator Bacik said:

“I am really delighted that this Bill, which started life as a private member’s bill, is being supported by Minister Burton and the government. It already achieved cross-party support in the Seanad when I introduced it last November, and I very much hope that it will pass speedily through the Dail once it has gone through final stages in the Seanad today.

“Change is long overdue to the current situation, where only HSE registrars or members of religious bodies can officiate at civil wedding ceremonies. This does not reflect the changing reality of Irish society – we know that the proportion of couples choosing a (non-religious) civil wedding ceremony in Ireland increased from 6% in 1996 to more than 23% in 2006, and the CSO has also stated that in 2012, for the first time the number of non-religious wedding ceremonies may exceed the number of religious ceremonies.

“The Humanist Association of Ireland is a well-established and highly respected organisation which has been carrying out (non-legal) wedding ceremonies for many years – even without this change in the law, over 150 ceremonies were due to be held this year. Humanist wedding ceremonies already have legal status in Scotland, Australia and Scandinavian countries and here in Ireland, a growing number of couples seek to have Humanist wedding ceremonies even though these currently have no legal status. I am really delighted that the Government has supported this change to enable these ceremonies to have legal status. I see this Bill as making a small but important contribution to a more pluralist Ireland.”

ENDS

Tuesday, 1 May 2012

Senator Ivana Bacik:     I welcome the Minister to the House on this auspicious day, 1 May, as he was the Minister at the time who introduced the May Day bank holiday. I also welcome members of the Portobello Educate Together School Start-Up Group who are in the Gallery and I thank them for coming along. I should declare that I am chair of the group and that we are one of the groups seeking change in our system. I commend the advisory group, Professor Coolahan and his colleagues, on producing what is a comprehensive, measured and balanced report. I take issue with Senator Mullen who has unfairly characterised it as being in some way biased or skewed. It takes a very measured approach and deals with a number of pressing issues. I have heard other colleagues suggest that patronage is not a pressing issue but, clearly, quality of education - I speak as a parent - is the most pressing issue, of which patronage is a key part. I went to a rural national school that was Catholic in ethos where the Catholic faith formation dominated the day.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames:     Look how well the Senator turned out.

Senator Ivana Bacik:     It affected the quality of my education and I do not mind saying that. I think that is true of many schools, although not all because many schools seek to be accommodating. I know of children who have been turned away from schools because they were not of an appropriate religion and of others who were put very far down waiting lists. That happens. The opt-out mechanisms that are in operation, as the report has pointed out, are unsatisfactory. This was pointed out to the advisory group by numerous stakeholders. We need to bear in mind the context within which the advisory group has produced its report and the context in which the Minister, Deputy Quinn, rightly commissioned the report in the first place, which is that Article 42.3.1° of our Constitution provides that, “The State shall not oblige parents in violation of conscience and lawful preference to send their children to … [a] particular type of school designated by the State.” In a system where more than 2,800, or 90%, of the 3,200 national schools across Ireland are Catholic-run, there is clearly not any excessive pandering to the non-religious minority who, according to the recent census, now comprise—–

Senator Rónán Mullen:     We agree on divesting

Senator Ivana Bacik:     —–the largest group after Roman Catholics in the country, as the Minister pointed out. Only 60 schools in Ireland are multidenominational under the patronage of Educate Together, the group to which the Portobello group—–

Senator Thomas Byrne:     There are gaelscoileanna that are multidenominational.

Senator Ivana Bacik:     Yes and the gaelscoileanna make up approximately 50 more. About 4% of our national school system is either multidenominational under Educate Together or under the patronage of the gaelscoileanna movement. These are the two biggest growing movements of parents. In my group in the Portobello area in Dublin we have more than 600 parents of nearly 350 pupils pre-enrolled and we are hopeful that we will see divestment take place in the near future because we have a real and pressing need.

In that context I very much welcome this report. It has tried to address the need for greater inclusion and greater diversity in the school population and it has done it in a measured way.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames:     With the permission of all the parents in that area.

Senator Ivana Bacik:     What it seeks to do in terms of the divestment issue is to, first, examine the areas where there is demand from parents in accordance with their constitutional rights. It is taking a minimalist approach in saying there are 47 catchment areas. Obviously, that is something already established with the Department, and in those areas it is setting out a blueprint as to when divestment can occur. In our area we hope we will be covered by a provision in the report which requires, at recommendation A4, that where there is established evidence of parental demand, divestment could proceed without the need to go through the phases that the report has set out.

The report has also made some valuable and important recommendations for stand-alone schools and for the need to ensure greater inclusivity and pluralism in those schools. In that context, I ask the Minister when he anticipates a first divestment might occur. Clearly, I have a particular interest in my own area and we hope our school will be open if not this year then certainly by 2013. In terms of the blueprint the report has set out - it has set out a very detailed timeline - when does the Minister think we might see divestment occur in the 47 areas? The report is very mindful of the need to ensure community sensitivities are considered and that parents are brought along with the process, and that is important.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames:     It will not work otherwise.

Senator Ivana Bacik:     That is acknowledged. I wish to make two further points. On the issue of faith formation in schools where there is no divestment, where there is a stand-alone school under the patronage of usually the Catholic Church, will faith formation be able to take place outside of the school day? The report recommends a variety of different ways where this could be done but clearly there might be difficulties with having it within the school day where there is a significant minority in the school.

In terms of the VECs and the community national school model, the report, at page 48, expresses certain reservations about the model, notably about the segregation of children within the school day for faith formation, which is certainly at odds with some of the demands of the parents. It also refers to the difficulty about the boards of management within the school. Some of the issues around the VEC schools that are of concern were highlighted in recent RTE reports, about which the Minister will be aware. It might be something on which we could reflect.

Educate Together, as an established and national patron, I attended its AGM on Saturday, as did the Minister, and it has charted an important and progressive way of offering education to children in a multidenominational ethos that is respectful of children of all faiths and none and which has a proven track record not only among parents who do not have a particular religion. I have plenty of Catholic friends who are very happy to send their children to the Educate Together school locally and I have plenty of Catholic friends who are very unhappy because there were not enough places in their local Educate Together school.

Tuesday, 1 May 2012

Senator Ivana Bacik:     Many of us have already been canvassing in the treaty referendum campaign and I acknowledge Senator O’Brien’s comments and statements of support for the treaty. I know he has already been canvassing also. In my experience, people are very keen to obtain information and detail about the content of the treaty. There is very much a receptiveness to information. The arguments have not yet crystallised in people’s minds as we are still at the stage of gathering information. The Labour Party and Fine Gael posters went up this morning and we are seeing the start of the real referendum campaign which I very much welcome. I also welcome the announcement that we will not sit during the week of the referendum. It is very helpful to all of us who will be campaigning.

I echo what Senator O’Brien stated about the debate on the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill which was very constructive. There were fundamental disagreements on issues but everyone was in agreement on the overall goals of the Bill and the need for social welfare reform. The ideas and suggestions put forward were very helpful. In light of that debate, I call for a debate on child care in the coming months with the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, and the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Fitzgerald, and the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, to speak specifically about preschool child care and an issue we teased out in the debate on the Bill which is the increased provision of after-school child care. It would be very helpful to address these issues.

In this light I express great concern about the reports over the weekend of a 16-year-old girl who was excluded from school when she became pregnant. I know the story is in the public domain and that the Minister has expressed his concern about it. Later we will have a debate on the report of the Minister for Education and Skills on patronage in primary schools but it is clear there is an issue about the control and running of secondary schools which needs to be addressed when such appalling treatment of a young girl occurs.

I call for a debate on prisons in light of the launch of the Irish Prison Service’s three-year plan. The Minister, Deputy Shatter, announced a very welcome programme of structured community release to try to address the serious problems of recidivism where we see people returned time and again to prison where they receive no rehabilitation and are simply released to re-offend. The idea of the structured community release and integrated sentence management being pioneered through the Prison Service is long overdue and is something we could usefully debate in the House. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality is also working on it. When the committee reports on it in October, it might be worth debating it.

To read this article from the front page of today’s Irish Times, please click on the following link.

Monday, 30 April 2012

Senator Ivana Bacik:     I will be brief as we debated this very fully on Second and Committee Stages. I am very heartened to hear the Minister’s commitment to ensuring there will be adequate supports put in place for lone parents with child care provision. The Minister deserves our support in making sure this system is rolled out so that people are not left in a difficult position when the changes are introduced on a phased basis. On Second Stage the Minister spoke of some other significant changes made over the years that were not thought possible at the time, including alterations at third and second level. The Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, is making significant changes at primary level, which we will debate in the House tomorrow.

All of us who are committed to seeing the outcomes from the lone parent spending improved in tackling child poverty, as well as those who want to see progressive reform of social welfare models, must ensure that the system of child care described by the Minister is put in place. We must support the Minister in ensuring that is done. She has said she will engage with the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and the Minister for Education and Skills to ensure it is done and the required levels of support are there for lone parents as the youngest child reaches the relevant age threshold. We will hold the Minister to account in that regard as we all want to see it happen.

I have direct experience of needing child care provision and the levels of child care provision in this country have improved substantially in recent years. There is no doubt about this as more women, in particular, have entered the workforce. We must ensure standards are maintained across the sector and access is made more affordable. There are more places available and many schools, especially those which I know in the Dublin area, are offering after-school care which was never available before because more parents are demanding it. It is a matter of ensuring co-ordination of what is already there in order to assist lone parents who will see changes to the payment system on an incremental basis. In speaking of progressive reform and improving outcomes, we are all on the same side. We all agree on the need for supports to be put in place.

…

Senator Thomas Byrne:     What is the reason for the mad rush? As I said on Friday, the same applies to today, the doors of the Seanad and the Dáil are always open when we want to make cuts to the most vulnerable in society. I repeat my call. Where is the legislation from the Minister’s Department and from the Departments of Justice and Equality and Finance that will help people? Why not open the doors of the Seanad and Dáil on usual days to help people instead of always appearing to facilitate hurt? We know there will be reductions but why not offer a carrot with the stick to show that something good is being done and that there is a plus on the reverse side. The section deserves to be voted down on the basis not only of its merits but the rush and the huge amount of effort that the institutions of State are going to today and last week to ensure the Bill is passed into law by Thursday next, come hell or high water.

Senator Ivana Bacik:     I take issue with the Senator’s comments about rush and undue haste. If the Senator looks carefully at the wording of the section he will see that, as the Minister has said, it is intended that changes be made on an incremental basis and, therefore, with time to ensure adequate supports are in place. From the constructive debate earlier on the two amendments, I considered it was a useful debate and that we were all in agreement on the need to ensure better outcomes from the spend and on the need to ensure that children are lifted out of being at risk of poverty. That is the real challenge. I supported the free preschool year, an important initiative introduced by the previous Government. It was a good example of how better outcomes can be achieved by spending less, simply by targeting it better. That is the model we are looking at.

In terms of child care, Senator van Turnhout referred to costs. Of course, there is a cost. The after-school model I am talking about is rolled out not only in Dublin but in primary schools all over the country on the initiative of parents who have taken it upon themselves to organise the provision of after-school child care. Generally it is on a much better value basis because the hours are fewer and the children are older and require less supervision. It is different from the preschool model with which people are more familiar. As Senator van Turnhout said the capacity is there and the Minister gave clear figures. We are all conscious of the enormous increase in the provision of child care places across the country. There is, perhaps, a misapprehension that the State will have to build new crèches or provide new legislation in order to ensure adequate provision of child care places for lone parents affected.

Senator Thomas Byrne:     Scandinavian-type care.

Senator Ivana Bacik:     That is not the case. The capacity is there, it is how we ensure the places are made available through the existing system. There is not a requirement for any new buildings or new legislation. We need to be clear on what we are talking about.

In terms of the section, we are in favour of progressive reform. The lone-parent groups I have met, as Frances Byrne said in today’s edition of The Irish Times, agree with progressive reform. They are concerned about adequate supports. We have had the debate on child care but the other support needed is to ensure that transitional arrangements are in place for those lone parents who are in employment and can remain in employment while in receipt of their allowance but are concerned the transition to jobseeker’s allowance will be made flexible in order that they can continue in part-time employment on the same basis. Those are the issues we need to look at as well as the child care supports. Supports are available to ensure a smooth transition to the progressive reform we are making. The reforms are needed because the outcomes are not good under the current spend and the Minister has put that clearly to us.

Friday, 27 April 2012

Senator Ivana Bacik:     I welcome the Minister of State. It is a pleasure for me to speak after the eloquent and expert spokesperson on social welfare, Senator Marie Maloney. I will address a couple of the points raised during the debate.

The Minister for Social Welfare highlighted the importance of the spend on social protection. Some 40% of all current Government spending, €20 billion, goes on social protection payments. The other point the Minister has made is that the spend is not only an outflow from the Government but also acts as a driver of growth and a stimulus in the economy. She should be recognised as a reforming Minister who brings a progressive impetus to the Department of Social Protection. She does not lose sight of the need for social protection to protect the neediest in society but also for social protection spending to be seen as part of a stimulus.

I take issue with much of what Senator Averil Power said. She has misrepresented the reforms the Minister is seeking to introduce. Other speakers have pointed out that the vast majority of those in receipt of lone-parent allowance are women. As a feminist, like the Minister, we must ensure the outcomes for those in receipt of the allowance are not discriminatory but effective. The Minister has put it clearly that the outcomes of the spend on lone-parent allowance remain poor because lone parents and their families are at a disproportionate risk of poverty. We must address this issue.

I also take issue with Senator Averil Power’s suggestion that lone parents are being denigrated or described as passive recipients. Far from it; we must all pay enormous tribute to them in facing the difficulties they encounter in raising children without a partner. Senator Fidelma Healy-Eames has mentioned that her husband sometimes feels like a lone parent with a partner involved in politics, but the reality is lone parents do a great job and need and deserve our support and praise.

The Minister is looking at how best to reform the payment of lone-parent allowance to achieve better outcomes for loan parents and ensure they are not discriminated against in terms of access to education or employment, the best route out of poverty. The reforms are in line with changes made elsewhere where we see a better system of supports for lone parents. In the Netherlands there is a work obligation on lone parents when the youngest child reaches five years of age, while in Scandinavian countries the age limit is even younger, at three or four years of age. The Minister has recognised that in Ireland it is not feasible to move to a younger age, unless adequate supports are made available. That commitment is critical.

Senator Katherine Zappone:     Put it into law.

Senator Ivana Bacik:     The Minister has given a commitment to progressively reform the system to ensure better outcomes for lone parents and their families and that she will not bring forward the key reform in respect of the reduction in the age limit, unless the necessary supports are provided.

We would all say access to safe, affordable and accessible child care is critical. The Irish model of child care has been traditionally based on a private, for-profit industry model, but we can change this and there is a commitment at Government level, not just from the Minister for Social Protection but also the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, to make that change.

The Minister has outlined the significant changes made at second and third levels in the past. To be fair, the early childhood care and education scheme marks an important change.

Senator Thomas Byrne:     A Fianna Fáil idea.

Senator Ivana Bacik:     The transition is critical. I have met groups such as SPARK and One Family which support in principle the idea behind a progressive change to lone-parent allowance and the idea that the State should not intrude into the relationship between parents or base payments for children on the status of their parents’ relationships but on whether a child is at risk of poverty and needs the money. The critical points the groups made and which I support concerned access to preschool and after school child care services. They also made the important point that there was a need to ensure adequate transitional supports would be provided. Other Senators have pointed out that 47% of single parents are working and that lone-parent allowance lets them to continue doing so. It is critical in the transition to jobseeker’s allowance single parents who are working and in receipt of lone-parent allowance retain that right.

There has been a general welcome for the additional measures included in the Bill to tackle fraud and abuse. There is also a welcome for some of the changes to pension schemes such as introducing a buffer for defined benefit schemes and to ensure greater sustainability of pension schemes. The sustainability of pension schemes is one of the ticking time bombs of which we are all conscious. I am very encouraged by the changes to ensure the economy is made more attractive for investment by pension funds. We would all want to see this happen. I welcome the Minister of State and thank him for his attention.

Senator Ivana Bacik,
Friday 27th April 2012

Tomorrow Saturday 28thApril, Senator Ivana Bacik will address the inaugural Sheehy Skeffington School at Liberty Hall on the topic of ‘embedding a human rights culture’.

Speaking on the theme of the conference‘putting human rights at the heart of a good society’, Senator Bacikwill say:

“Can a new human rights cultureever take root in the Ireland? Now is a good time to debate this issue,as we come towards the 10th anniversary of the incorporationof the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR)into domestic Irish law through the 2003 Act, with the Constitutional Conventiondue to look at revision of the Constitution generally, and with the proposedmerger of our two rights-enforcement bodies into one new Commission.

“I am very hopeful that the proposednew Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission will form a strengthenedbody that will play a key role in developing our understanding and applicationof rights into the future. I was very heartened to read in the recentlypublished Report of the Working Group that the new body must have bothindependence from government and adequate resources. I note that the Equalityand Rights Alliance has broadly welcomed the report, and I very much hopethat we will see some public debate on the content of the report.

Like the debate around the documentscontaining human rights guarantees generally, such a debate can only serveto improve and deepen our understanding of what a real human rights basedculture could be.”

ENDS