Senator Jillian van Turnhout speaking in the Seanad.
Tuesday, 11th December 2012.
90th Anniversary of Seanad Éireann: Statements
90th Anniversary of Seanad Éireann: Statements
11th December 2012
I am honoured to speak on behalf of the Taoiseach’s nominees. In preparing for today I spent the past week reflecting and reading through the history of the Seanad, as it appears my colleagues also did, and in particular I looked at its earlier days. My colleagues know I have a keen interest in family history, and through my research on my family I learned the necklace I am wearing today was given by my grandfather to his sister on her wedding day in the 1920s. I wonder what were their thoughts about the newly founded Seanad on that day in County Clare. My family history includes some amazing strong women, and as I wear my great-aunt’s necklace, I wonder whether the first women of the Seanad gave her inspiration.
The women nominated to the 1922 to 1937 Free State Seanad were highly gifted and made significant contributions to the political, economic and cultural spheres of Ireland. Notably these women were committed to gender equality during a period in which legislative changes ensured women’s rights were further weakened. Jenny Wyse Power had been active in the Ladies’ Land League and local government, and also ran various businesses. Ellen Odette Cuffe, Countess of Desart, was a London-based Jewish woman who had founded a woollen mill, a theatre and a hospital in Kilkenny. She was also a keen supporter of the Irish language. Alice Stopford Green was a noted historian. Eileen Costello was a London-based teacher who moved to Galway and had a keen interest in Irish folklore. Elected in 1928, Kathleen Clarke was a well-known nationalist who opposed the wording of Bunreacht na hÉireann as she believed it placed women in a lower position than the Proclamation of 1916. Kathleen Browne, a member of Cumann na nGaedheal, joined the Seanad through a by-election in 1929.
Despite their political differences, these women often worked together to promote women’s issues. The Civil Service Regulation (Amendment) Bill 1925, which sought to confine State examinations for senior Civil Service posts to men, was strongly opposed by Senators Wyse Power and Costello. Additionally, Senator Wyse Power, who had worked in the republican courts established during the War of Independence, was staunch in her opposition to the Juries Act 1927 which barred women from jury service in the new state. Many of the women Senators supported the Illegitimate Children (Affiliation Orders) Bill 1929, which was introduced to improve the status of unmarried mothers by providing the mother with the right to financial maintenance from the child’s father. Senator Clarke opposed a ban on contraceptives in 1934, arguing it would drive the issue of birth control underground. Radically for the time, Senator Clarke also called for solidarity from the trade union movement on the issue of equal pay in 1935.
A number of women elected over the years to the post-1937 Seanad, such as Mary Robinson and Gemma Hussey, began their political careers campaigning actively for women’s issues. Once elected, they worked hard to ensure women’s rights were placed on the agenda of the House. The then Senator Robinson, despite being subject to personal hate mail and high levels of suspicion from a number of colleagues, introduced a Bill in 1973 to make contraceptives legal in the Republic. Meanwhile, Senator Hussey attempted to introduce legislation on rape, sponsoring the Sexual Offences Bill 1980, which lapsed on First Stage. A former Judge of the Supreme Court, Catherine McGuinness, who was first elected to the Seanad in 1979, argued for the rights of the individual throughout her legislative and judicial career. These women, and others, made improving the lives of ordinary women central to their work as Senators, and are just three examples of the high level of female talent which has emerged from the Upper House.
I was interested to note that between 1937 and 2007, no Taoiseach nominated more than four women. This was broken in 2011 when the Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, included seven women among his 11 nominees.
This ensured the new Seanad was 30% female, a record high in women’s political representation in the Houses of the Oireachtas. As one examines the transcripts and history of the House, it is clear that women Senators have made contributions to the Upper House and to Houses of the Oireachtas well beyond their paltry numbers.
The 90th anniversary has given me an opportunity to reflect on our history and to draw inspiration. I feel very privileged to be a member of Seanad Éireann. As I reflect today, and especially looking at my colleagues in my Independent group and admire the work that they have done outside and inside the House, I think that each one of us has an opportunity to reflect and decide what will be the legacy of our work. Will we be willing to use our voices, our role and our powers to make a positive difference to the lives of the people of Ireland?
Note:
I would like to record my thanks to Claire McGing, NUI Maynooth and Fiona Buckley UCC for their input and assistance in preparing this statement.
Order of Business, 11 December 2012
I will save my comments on the budget for next week, but I am very concerned about the cumulative cuts. We cannot just consider this year’s budget but must also consider previous budgets and how they affect children and families directly. Our group has tabled a motion for debate tomorrow on the value of youth work. Youth work organisations are being affected by the cuts and I hope we will have our colleagues’ support in that debate.
This morning the Supreme Court has handed down its full judgment, which was unanimous, in its ruling that the Government acted wrongfully by spending €1.1 million on its information campaign in the recent referendum. I call for this House to have a debate on how we hold referendums to ensure we have a fair and balanced debate.
While I know I am beginning to sound like a broken record, last week’s budget announced €546 million for the new child and family support agency. The task force report was published in July. Nobody in this House could say what the remit and scope of the new child and family support agency entail, yet we have allocated a budget of €546 million. We urgently need a debate. We cannot wait for the legislation to be placed before us and then fine-tune the legislation. If the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs is not available, I have suggested to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges three individuals of high calibre who could come before this House and discuss the new agency with us. I do not understand the reason for the delay.
I repeat the call I made during the debate on Senator Quinn’s excellent Bill on employment permits. We should have a debate on forced labour in Ireland.
I asked that the Minister for Justice and Equality publish the International Labour Organisation’s report on criminalising forced labour in Ireland. This report needs to be published, we need to criminalise this and there needs to be urgency on this issue. I repeat my call for that debate.
Order of Business, 7 December 2012
I will withhold my comments on the budget until we discover what it contains and whether all the reports relating to it have been accurate.
I echo Senator Darragh O’Brien’s call for a debate on palliative care. This is an issue I have also raised on several occasions. I will do whatever is required in order to ensure that the debate is held at the earliest opportunity.
I wish to request a debate on the proposed new child and family support agency. When created, this will be the second largest agency in the State and it will have the potential to impact on the lives of all children in Ireland. I am extremely concerned by the fact that the report of the relevant task force into the agency was published in July. I have requested a debate on this and other issues relating to children on a number of occasions. I am of the view that this is a particularly pressing matter. The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs is supposed to introduce a Bill to facilitate the establishment of the agency, which was due to be in place by 1 January next. In order to facilitate a debate on this matter, I took the opportunity this morning to write to the Cathaoirleach and suggest the names of three people who could be invited to address the House on the proposed new child and family support agency. Even if the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs is not available, the Seanad should proceed to engage in a debate on this matter. This agency is too important and we should not be obliged to await the publication of the Bill before engaging in a discussion on it. As already stated, a report has been produced in respect of what will be the second largest agency in the State. Regardless of whether it is resources or children’s lives, we should engage in a debate on this matter at the very earliest opportunity.
Adjournment Motion – Child Protection
4th December 2012
While I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O’Sullivan, to the House, I would have loved an opportunity to congratulate the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Fitzgerald, on the successful passage of the children’s rights referendum. We have not seen her in this House since the referendum, unfortunately. I am raising the issue of direct provision on the Adjournment tonight. Much of the public awareness and outcry about the abuse and mistreatment of children in State-run institutions followed the publication of a series of damning reports, including the Ferns, Ryan, Murphy and Cloyne reports and most recently the child death review report that was drawn up by Dr. Geoffrey Shannon and Ms Norah Gibbons. In response to the latter report, I expressed my profound sadness and a sense of the responsibility and shame I bear as a member of a society that has systematically failed to protect our most vulnerable children. As the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, remarked last year at the launch of an Amnesty International report, In Plain Sight: Responding to the Ferns, Ryan, Murphy and Cloyne Reports:
At every turn, Irish people kept their mouths shut out of deference to state, system, church and community. When they should have been unified in fury and outrage they were instead silenced, afraid to even whisper a criticism against the powerful.
I am genuinely concerned that the situation for children in direct provision accommodation centres for asylum seekers will lead to a future Ryan report if we do not take immediate action. I refuse to stay silently complicit.
This is not an easy area to pursue. At this juncture, I am focusing solely on the situation for children in direct provision. I am finding it difficult to establish which ministerial remit covers which scenario. I have previously raised the applicability of standard 3.4 of the HIQA national standards for the protection and welfare of children with the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, on the Adjournment. The standard in question stipulates that “child protection and welfare services provided on behalf of statutory service providers are monitored for compliance with legislation, regulations, national child protection and welfare policy and standards”. In my opinion, the HIQA national standards for the protection and welfare of children clearly apply to children in direct provision. They apply because the children in question are residing in accommodation facilities under the remit of the Department of Justice and Equality. They apply irrespective of the children’s country of origin or the status of their parents. They apply regardless of whether they are in the care of the State or cared for by the State. They apply because contrary to what the Minister, Deputy Shatter, has suggested, it is simply not true that all children living in direct provision “live in a family context and their parents or guardians have primary responsibility for their care and welfare”.
I would like to refer the House to a report drawn up by the Irish Refugee Council, State Sanctioned Child Poverty and Exclusion: The Case of Children in State Accommodation for Asylum Seekers, which was published in September of this year. I would also like to mention the 2011 report of the special rapporteur, Dr. Geoffrey Shannon, in which he highlights “the specific vulnerability of children accommodated in the system of Direct Provision and the potential or actual harm which is being created by the particular circumstances of their residence including the inability of parents to properly care for and protect their children”. The HIQA national standards apply because the State has an obligation to ensure the health, safety and welfare of these children. The Minister, Deputy Shatter, has conceded that the HIQA standards “apply to the HSE children and family services in the context of its role in dealing with children living in the direct provision system who are referred to it”. I assure the House that such referrals are capable of being made under the Reception and Integration Agency’s child protection policy or by GPs and teachers, etc. According to the HSE, these scenarios fall under the remit of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. I am seeking clarification on the number of referrals the HSE has received about children in direct provision accommodation centres. I want to know whether the Minister shares my position that any centre from which a child welfare and protection referral is made should be subject to immediate inspection in accordance with the HIQA national standards.
While I appreciate the Minister of State may not be able to answer this question, I have a huge difficulty in differentiating between “in the care of the State” and “cared for by the State”. These children are being directly cared for by the State. If one visits any of these direct provision centres, children are not necessarily in a normal family context and there may be two or three families in one room. I have a difficulty with this and I will continue to pursue this question. I feel the response is a fudge.
On the question I asked about standards, are we basically saying the HIQA standards do not apply and that no child protection standards apply? Must we wait for requests from the very people whose applications are being decided on by the Department of Justice and Equality and who do not want to upset that Department? It would be the equivalent of asking Irish families who are receiving social welfare payments to get the Department of Social Protection to investigate itself. These matters are separate for a reason. It should be independent. We should have learned from the past.