20 April Burial and Cremation Regulation Bill 2011
Click to hear Maureen speaking
Deputy Broughan does a considerable service in bringing forward this Bill. Until I read the Bill and received other information, I was unaware there is no legislation to regulate the establishment and operation of crematoria and some graveyards. It was a particular inappropriate planning application for a private burial ground and crematorium on the grounds of a nursing home in his own constituency that brought the lack of regulation to light.
I was surprised and appalled to see there are no barriers to entry and no licensing in an industry that is responsible for the burial and cremation of 30,000 people every year. It seems as if anyone can set up in this business. There is a mixture of full-time and part-time funeral operators in the country. There seem to be no regulations or standards in the area of embalming, where there are often untrained personnel and inadequate premises. Cremation, which has become more popular, is also not governed by specific laws or regulation.
Crematoria are following UK legislation and best practice but there is no obligation on them to do that, so there is, obviously, a need for this legislation. I believe the Bill is in the public interest.
Funerals and the ceremonies associated with them are part of every society and in Irish society we have a great respect and understanding for people at these difficult times. We also have great respect for burial grounds. If one walks into any Irish graveyard during a weekend, coming up to Christmas or Easter or at anniversaries or particular occasions, one sees families and friends tending graves, planting shrubs or bringing flowers. They are remembering their loved ones in death and honouring them in that way. In my own experience, the graves of my relatives and friends in the Dublin area are well tended and looked after. It causes great anguish and anxiety to people when graves are desecrated.
Regulation of crematoria is vital from an environmental point of view, owing to mercury emissions produced by dental amalgam in human remains. In preparing for this debate, I learned that in many European countries emissions from crematoria are now a major source of mercury emissions. Other ways to treat dental amalgam waste are covered by EU law but emissions from crematoria are not. This is something else to be tackled. There are also various newer approaches to dealing with human remains. These could also be a subject for debate.
The Bill contains some technical details relating to the proposed burial and cremation regulatory authority. The details on the roles, resignations and removal of members are straightforward. However, I am concerned about the bugbear of expenses. I agree that regulation is necessary and that an authority is necessary but I do not want to support legislation that could create another quango. We have enough of them.
The national council of the Forum on End of Life in Ireland has a model of licensing for funeral directors involving payment of a levy by funeral directors into a central fund. This self-financing model is similar to one in operation in Ontario, Canada, for the past 30 years. The proposal is that the levy would be paid by funeral directors in exchange for official certification and licensing. The levy would go into a fund which would finance the operation of an office which would regulate the funeral industry. The industry must be regulated according to the number of funerals a funeral director organises. Population is a major factor. Some areas such as the greater Dublin area have many more funerals than take place in other parts of the country with smaller populations. The difficulty is that the payment of the levy by funeral directors could result in an additional cost to individual funeral bills, which would not be desirable. The suggestion is that the levy would be €25 per funeral. Based on 30,000 deaths per year that would realise more than €700,000. I hope if such a levy were to be introduced that it could be absorbed by funeral directors and not by bereaved families.
It was said that the average cost of a funeral in Dublin is approximately €4,500. From my experience of organising funerals it is considerably more, while it is slightly less outside the greater Dublin area. Graves account for a considerable part of funeral expenses. Standard plots in Dublin are between €1,500 and €5,000. I cannot understand why it costs almost the same to open an existing grave as it does to open a new grave. Some funeral directors in the Dublin Central area have been most supportive of families who have been unable to cover the cost of funerals. I know of families in some communities that are struggling badly to cover the costs, in particular in the case of the deaths of young people.
We are somewhat spoiled in the area I represent - Dublin Central - because we have long-standing funeral directors who are all full time and who provide a professional service. I refer to Stafford’s, Kirwan’s and Jennings’. They have put resources into their funeral parlours although if anyone could use the word “nice” about a funeral parlour some of those fit the description. They are quiet, dignified places that allow families privacy and dignity. The way in which those undertakers have handled funeral arrangements at difficult times has been second to none.
Deputy Broughan addressed issues on the planning of new crematoria and graveyards. I hope the proposed authority will follow proper planning procedures because we have enough examples of irregular planning in this country. It is important that the rules and procedures relating to the maintenance and running of crematoria and graveyards are set down and followed.
In the Dublin area, Glasnevin Cemetery does a phenomenal job of looking after the graves. The cemetery has a lot of historic graves, ones which are of great interest to everyone. I am impressed with the museum that it has set up and the various walkways, which add something to the cemetery.
In the context of burials, I have been involved in cilliní. I acknowledge the work of archaeologist and anthropologist, Toni Maguire, who has been doing great work in this area. She uncovered thousands of cilliní in the diocese of Down and Connor. She is now working in Milltown Cemetery. She stresses the social importance of preserving cilliní, which involve burials carried out in secret. In some cases the babies were not baptised or some other issue arose in connection with the death. The families tried to bury the children as close to consecrated ground as they could and that must be respected. I wished to take the opportunity to make that point. Perhaps the authority could take it on board and the walls associated with crematoria could accommodate a space for the cilliní.
Another group of people of whom I am aware from my involvement with them are the ladies who lived in the Magdalene Laundries. They had no dignity in life and, unfortunately, in some cases they do not have any dignity in death. Again, perhaps the proposed authority could play a role in ensuring there is a proper memorial to those ladies who are buried in various graveyards throughout the country and that we could get rid of the word “penitents” in the graveyard in Galway.
There are examples of international best practice in Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom where this area is subject to regulation. Questions arise in terms of the role of local authorities in that regard but I support the proposal in the Bill for another authority, one that will take the issues on board and get involved in licensing and regulation. I support the Bill.
I was surprised and appalled to see there are no barriers to entry and no licensing in an industry that is responsible for the burial and cremation of 30,000 people every year. It seems as if anyone can set up in this business. There is a mixture of full-time and part-time funeral operators in the country. There seem to be no regulations or standards in the area of embalming, where there are often untrained personnel and inadequate premises. Cremation, which has become more popular, is also not governed by specific laws or regulation.
Crematoria are following UK legislation and best practice but there is no obligation on them to do that, so there is, obviously, a need for this legislation. I believe the Bill is in the public interest.
Funerals and the ceremonies associated with them are part of every society and in Irish society we have a great respect and understanding for people at these difficult times. We also have great respect for burial grounds. If one walks into any Irish graveyard during a weekend, coming up to Christmas or Easter or at anniversaries or particular occasions, one sees families and friends tending graves, planting shrubs or bringing flowers. They are remembering their loved ones in death and honouring them in that way. In my own experience, the graves of my relatives and friends in the Dublin area are well tended and looked after. It causes great anguish and anxiety to people when graves are desecrated.
Regulation of crematoria is vital from an environmental point of view, owing to mercury emissions produced by dental amalgam in human remains. In preparing for this debate, I learned that in many European countries emissions from crematoria are now a major source of mercury emissions. Other ways to treat dental amalgam waste are covered by EU law but emissions from crematoria are not. This is something else to be tackled. There are also various newer approaches to dealing with human remains. These could also be a subject for debate.
The Bill contains some technical details relating to the proposed burial and cremation regulatory authority. The details on the roles, resignations and removal of members are straightforward. However, I am concerned about the bugbear of expenses. I agree that regulation is necessary and that an authority is necessary but I do not want to support legislation that could create another quango. We have enough of them.
The national council of the Forum on End of Life in Ireland has a model of licensing for funeral directors involving payment of a levy by funeral directors into a central fund. This self-financing model is similar to one in operation in Ontario, Canada, for the past 30 years. The proposal is that the levy would be paid by funeral directors in exchange for official certification and licensing. The levy would go into a fund which would finance the operation of an office which would regulate the funeral industry. The industry must be regulated according to the number of funerals a funeral director organises. Population is a major factor. Some areas such as the greater Dublin area have many more funerals than take place in other parts of the country with smaller populations. The difficulty is that the payment of the levy by funeral directors could result in an additional cost to individual funeral bills, which would not be desirable. The suggestion is that the levy would be €25 per funeral. Based on 30,000 deaths per year that would realise more than €700,000. I hope if such a levy were to be introduced that it could be absorbed by funeral directors and not by bereaved families.
It was said that the average cost of a funeral in Dublin is approximately €4,500. From my experience of organising funerals it is considerably more, while it is slightly less outside the greater Dublin area. Graves account for a considerable part of funeral expenses. Standard plots in Dublin are between €1,500 and €5,000. I cannot understand why it costs almost the same to open an existing grave as it does to open a new grave. Some funeral directors in the Dublin Central area have been most supportive of families who have been unable to cover the cost of funerals. I know of families in some communities that are struggling badly to cover the costs, in particular in the case of the deaths of young people.
We are somewhat spoiled in the area I represent - Dublin Central - because we have long-standing funeral directors who are all full time and who provide a professional service. I refer to Stafford’s, Kirwan’s and Jennings’. They have put resources into their funeral parlours although if anyone could use the word “nice” about a funeral parlour some of those fit the description. They are quiet, dignified places that allow families privacy and dignity. The way in which those undertakers have handled funeral arrangements at difficult times has been second to none.
Deputy Broughan addressed issues on the planning of new crematoria and graveyards. I hope the proposed authority will follow proper planning procedures because we have enough examples of irregular planning in this country. It is important that the rules and procedures relating to the maintenance and running of crematoria and graveyards are set down and followed.
In the Dublin area, Glasnevin Cemetery does a phenomenal job of looking after the graves. The cemetery has a lot of historic graves, ones which are of great interest to everyone. I am impressed with the museum that it has set up and the various walkways, which add something to the cemetery.
In the context of burials, I have been involved in cilliní. I acknowledge the work of archaeologist and anthropologist, Toni Maguire, who has been doing great work in this area. She uncovered thousands of cilliní in the diocese of Down and Connor. She is now working in Milltown Cemetery. She stresses the social importance of preserving cilliní, which involve burials carried out in secret. In some cases the babies were not baptised or some other issue arose in connection with the death. The families tried to bury the children as close to consecrated ground as they could and that must be respected. I wished to take the opportunity to make that point. Perhaps the authority could take it on board and the walls associated with crematoria could accommodate a space for the cilliní.
Another group of people of whom I am aware from my involvement with them are the ladies who lived in the Magdalene Laundries. They had no dignity in life and, unfortunately, in some cases they do not have any dignity in death. Again, perhaps the proposed authority could play a role in ensuring there is a proper memorial to those ladies who are buried in various graveyards throughout the country and that we could get rid of the word “penitents” in the graveyard in Galway.
There are examples of international best practice in Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom where this area is subject to regulation. Questions arise in terms of the role of local authorities in that regard but I support the proposal in the Bill for another authority, one that will take the issues on board and get involved in licensing and regulation. I support the Bill.
19 April Thirtieth Amendment of the Constitution (Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union) Bill 2012
Click to hear Maureen speak
I will go back a number of years to refer to the very first decision to join the EEC. I was against that decision and over the years have been consistently opposed to that membership. Consequently, I have been against both the Nice treaty and the various varieties of the Lisbon treaty. I thought we were giving away too much of our identity and our sovereignty and that we were no longer masters of our own destiny. My fear always has been that we would be swallowed up by the bigger fish in the pond that is Europe. It is very important that this referendum be held, although it appeared for some time as though this would not happen. However, decisions of fundamental importance to Ireland must go to the Irish people. In two examples in recent years, namely, the bank guarantee and the bailout, decisions were made without reference to the citizens but citizens are paying for those decisions now. People are being given the choice and an interesting survey appeared in today’s edition of The Irish Times. It shows the referendum will be a major test for the Government, as it appears the outcome is wide open. According to the latest MRBI poll, the outcome appears to hinge on those who are undecided. I can understand people voting “Yes” because that fear factor is powerful. I believe it is significant that people over 65 are giving the treaty the strongest support. However, strongest support for the “No” side comes from the age cohort just younger than the over-65 age group. Another interesting point is that 66% of the pro-Europe side, who consider Ireland to be better in Europe, comprise the better-off and farmers, whereas those who are anti-Europe are the poorest voters. This statistic speaks volumes as the current economic and political policies certainly are creating more poor people in Ireland.
My fear is the fiscal compact is protecting the central national economies of the euro over peripheral economies such as Ireland. There is a huge question as to whether this firewall agreement is in Irish interests, particularly for those on lower incomes. There is a vagueness that could be significant for future interpretation and the fear is that France and Germany could bring pressure to bear to institute greater monetary and fiscal union within the European Union. In such a case, will this State bypass the Constitution? How many more restrictions will be placed on national budgets? In the meaning of the treaty, the Council issues recommendations to the member states concerned to correct the excessive deficit and gives a timeframe for so doing. Non-compliance with the recommendation would bring further measures including, for the euro area member states, the possibility of sanctions. How will Ireland cope with this? I refer to aspects of the surveillance of Ireland’s economic policies, as outlined in the Oireachtas Library and Research Service’s digest. Ireland certainly could have done with surveillance some years ago during the Celtic tiger years. However, those who should have been in positions of surveillance certainly did not so do, which has contributed hugely to the mess in which we now are in.
I can go along with aspects of the treaty. I agree there must be budgetary discipline, that debt levels must be reduced and deficits must be corrected. However, the problem is with the manner in which this will be done. People are told they must swallow a bitter pill but when someone is ill, there is more than one remedy for dealing with that particular illness. Europe will be dictating our budgets, tax policies, wages and pensions and Ireland’s economic policy will not be its own. If one considers the bailout, the main beneficiaries were those insolvent banks which had run riot. Was it not nice of Europe to give a bailout in order that those Irish banks would have the money not to default on their debts to the French, German, British and other banks, namely, those debts which were accrued during the binge of property buying more than ten years ago? Issues also arise in respect of voting weights which will be of serious disadvantage to Ireland.
It is interesting to read the views of various economists and politicians and to listen to the discussions of the sub-committee of the Joint Committee on European Affairs on the referendum. There have been those who were in favour, those who were against and an interesting group of those who are against the treaty but who will be voting for it. I refer to some of their arguments, which include the point that the fiscal treaty will require substantially more austerity measures in the medium term. There are groups which simply cannot take any more austerity. Moreover, the fiscal treaty will depress growth in the eurozone, which will have a significant impact on Ireland’s external demand. It will limit the measures future Governments may take during downturns and will undermine productive economic growth. Nevertheless, those who articulated such views still intend to vote for the treaty. One also has been told that regardless of a “Yes” or “No” vote, Ireland will have access to institutional funding. An interesting aside is that if Monsieur Hollande wins the French presidential election, he has other ideas on the fiscal compact. There has been a major emphasis on macro-economics but one cannot lose site of the micro side. Euro fiscal restraint cannot be allowed to dominate over the real needs of ordinary and vulnerable people in Ireland and Europe. I ask whether there is a social compact to this treaty. I have read some of the documents produced by the People’s Movement and agree with them that Ireland has other sources of funding. I refer to Ireland’s oil, gas, lead and zinc resources, which are continually given away for half-nothing. I refer to the suggested progressive tax system, with particular reference to a wealth tax, as well as to one of the movement’s suggestions about renegotiating foreign debt.
Moreover, while there are times when people claim we must do what Europe wish us to do, there are other times when we are quite happy simply to ignore Europe. I have in mind a cause in which I am particularly interested, namely, blood sports, animal welfare and coursing. Although many countries in Europe do not permit such activities, we continue on regardless. I also am concerned about the military implications, because I am not sure that Ireland is not being drawn into something it will regret entering.
I have just come from a meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs on the Global Irish Economic Forum. It was addressed by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, who made many points about what he is trying to do in respect of job creation, economic growth and so on. However, I am not convinced that continuing in the present manner will bring about those things, even though there have been some successes. At this point in time, I intend to vote “No” but I will wait to see what the Referendum Commission produces. I will examine the exact wording and will then make a final decision.
My fear is the fiscal compact is protecting the central national economies of the euro over peripheral economies such as Ireland. There is a huge question as to whether this firewall agreement is in Irish interests, particularly for those on lower incomes. There is a vagueness that could be significant for future interpretation and the fear is that France and Germany could bring pressure to bear to institute greater monetary and fiscal union within the European Union. In such a case, will this State bypass the Constitution? How many more restrictions will be placed on national budgets? In the meaning of the treaty, the Council issues recommendations to the member states concerned to correct the excessive deficit and gives a timeframe for so doing. Non-compliance with the recommendation would bring further measures including, for the euro area member states, the possibility of sanctions. How will Ireland cope with this? I refer to aspects of the surveillance of Ireland’s economic policies, as outlined in the Oireachtas Library and Research Service’s digest. Ireland certainly could have done with surveillance some years ago during the Celtic tiger years. However, those who should have been in positions of surveillance certainly did not so do, which has contributed hugely to the mess in which we now are in.
I can go along with aspects of the treaty. I agree there must be budgetary discipline, that debt levels must be reduced and deficits must be corrected. However, the problem is with the manner in which this will be done. People are told they must swallow a bitter pill but when someone is ill, there is more than one remedy for dealing with that particular illness. Europe will be dictating our budgets, tax policies, wages and pensions and Ireland’s economic policy will not be its own. If one considers the bailout, the main beneficiaries were those insolvent banks which had run riot. Was it not nice of Europe to give a bailout in order that those Irish banks would have the money not to default on their debts to the French, German, British and other banks, namely, those debts which were accrued during the binge of property buying more than ten years ago? Issues also arise in respect of voting weights which will be of serious disadvantage to Ireland.
It is interesting to read the views of various economists and politicians and to listen to the discussions of the sub-committee of the Joint Committee on European Affairs on the referendum. There have been those who were in favour, those who were against and an interesting group of those who are against the treaty but who will be voting for it. I refer to some of their arguments, which include the point that the fiscal treaty will require substantially more austerity measures in the medium term. There are groups which simply cannot take any more austerity. Moreover, the fiscal treaty will depress growth in the eurozone, which will have a significant impact on Ireland’s external demand. It will limit the measures future Governments may take during downturns and will undermine productive economic growth. Nevertheless, those who articulated such views still intend to vote for the treaty. One also has been told that regardless of a “Yes” or “No” vote, Ireland will have access to institutional funding. An interesting aside is that if Monsieur Hollande wins the French presidential election, he has other ideas on the fiscal compact. There has been a major emphasis on macro-economics but one cannot lose site of the micro side. Euro fiscal restraint cannot be allowed to dominate over the real needs of ordinary and vulnerable people in Ireland and Europe. I ask whether there is a social compact to this treaty. I have read some of the documents produced by the People’s Movement and agree with them that Ireland has other sources of funding. I refer to Ireland’s oil, gas, lead and zinc resources, which are continually given away for half-nothing. I refer to the suggested progressive tax system, with particular reference to a wealth tax, as well as to one of the movement’s suggestions about renegotiating foreign debt.
Moreover, while there are times when people claim we must do what Europe wish us to do, there are other times when we are quite happy simply to ignore Europe. I have in mind a cause in which I am particularly interested, namely, blood sports, animal welfare and coursing. Although many countries in Europe do not permit such activities, we continue on regardless. I also am concerned about the military implications, because I am not sure that Ireland is not being drawn into something it will regret entering.
I have just come from a meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs on the Global Irish Economic Forum. It was addressed by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, who made many points about what he is trying to do in respect of job creation, economic growth and so on. However, I am not convinced that continuing in the present manner will bring about those things, even though there have been some successes. At this point in time, I intend to vote “No” but I will wait to see what the Referendum Commission produces. I will examine the exact wording and will then make a final decision.
19 April Medical Treatment (Termination of Pregnancy in Case of Risk to Life of Pregnant Woman) Bill 2012
Click to hear Maureen speaking
I wish to share time with several Independent Deputies. I understand the Acting Chairman has the list. It is important that Deputy Clare Daly has introduced this Bill on the issue of abortion or termination of pregnancy and that it is being discussed today in advance of the publication of the report of the expert group set up by the Government. Since we are a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, I believe the Government is obliged to remedy any breaches of it. I realise other arguments have been put forward in this regard. It will be interesting to see the findings of the expert group. I believe a timeframe has been set.
It is easy to suggest that we should wait for the expert group but we have been waiting for a long time and not only for this group. Let us consider the history of this matter in the country. It has been repeatedly delayed, leading to referendums, Supreme Court cases, various working groups and a Green Paper. There was an all-party Oireachtas group set up in November 2000. It published its report after 12 months of submissions and deliberations but failed to reach a consensus. A fifth referendum was held in 2002 and it brought about the current position. There is a good deal of divergent opinion and that is likely to continue.
I am not keen on the polarisation by groups along the lines of pro-choice and pro-life because the issue is not black and white. I wonder about the significance of some of the arguments these groups bring forward in respect of women who find themselves in the situation of having to travel to England or elsewhere to terminate a pregnancy. We know such a decision is rarely if ever taken lightly and I am mindful that there are serious consequences, including mental, emotional, psychological and physical consequences. There is no doubt these consequences are compounded by having to travel outside the country. The recent letters, accounts and testimonies in The Irish Times bore witness to these consequences.
I listened to some of the contributions last night and today. I cannot but be struck by the speeches on various sides of the House from Members to the effect that they support the idea behind the Bill but they will not vote for it because it does not go far enough. This will make for interesting debate when the review group publishes its findings and any proposed resolutions.
Like many others, I do not agree with abortion on demand and I do not like the idea of abortion being used as a form of contraception. However, there are times when a termination is needed and this reality must be recognised. It would be great if no woman had to make that decision but that is not the case in the real world. Even while we are debating the matter, some women are making the journey out of the country because they have made a decision to have a termination.
If victims of rape and children who are pregnant through incest make the decision to have a termination, then it should be respected. The case of where there is a real and substantial threat to the life of a pregnant woman is one such situation. I have one concern about the idea of involving a psychiatrist and a psychologist. This is derived from my involvement with mental health issues and the varying roles of psychiatrists in forced electroconvulsive therapy, ECT, treatment. I have some doubts about their role in any decisions. Any decision should be made in a non-judgmental situation with a doctor. This is the way forward. I hope that women from lower socioeconomic groups will not be discriminated against because of this provision.
I knew a woman some years ago who became pregnant on her fourth child and who developed a life-threatening illness. The medical advice was for a termination. She made the decision not to have the termination. The baby lived and she lost her life because she did not have the treatment in time. That decision should be protected in law as well. Whether a termination goes ahead or a woman continues with her pregnancy, the decision should be covered in law. The Bill also covers those who object to having to perform the procedure. The matter is well covered. No one would be placed under a duty to participate, and provisions are in place for this. While discussing abortion we should discuss the role of the father as well.
Although I support the Bill I am not in favour of abortion on demand and I dislike the way this issue has been hijacked by certain groups. The Bill has a narrow focus for a particular situation regardless of the legal and medical point scoring. I accept that maternity services in this country are excellent and it is the safest place to have a baby. However, the situation addressed by the Bill does arise and such a decision must be protected in law.
It is easy to suggest that we should wait for the expert group but we have been waiting for a long time and not only for this group. Let us consider the history of this matter in the country. It has been repeatedly delayed, leading to referendums, Supreme Court cases, various working groups and a Green Paper. There was an all-party Oireachtas group set up in November 2000. It published its report after 12 months of submissions and deliberations but failed to reach a consensus. A fifth referendum was held in 2002 and it brought about the current position. There is a good deal of divergent opinion and that is likely to continue.
I am not keen on the polarisation by groups along the lines of pro-choice and pro-life because the issue is not black and white. I wonder about the significance of some of the arguments these groups bring forward in respect of women who find themselves in the situation of having to travel to England or elsewhere to terminate a pregnancy. We know such a decision is rarely if ever taken lightly and I am mindful that there are serious consequences, including mental, emotional, psychological and physical consequences. There is no doubt these consequences are compounded by having to travel outside the country. The recent letters, accounts and testimonies in The Irish Times bore witness to these consequences.
I listened to some of the contributions last night and today. I cannot but be struck by the speeches on various sides of the House from Members to the effect that they support the idea behind the Bill but they will not vote for it because it does not go far enough. This will make for interesting debate when the review group publishes its findings and any proposed resolutions.
Like many others, I do not agree with abortion on demand and I do not like the idea of abortion being used as a form of contraception. However, there are times when a termination is needed and this reality must be recognised. It would be great if no woman had to make that decision but that is not the case in the real world. Even while we are debating the matter, some women are making the journey out of the country because they have made a decision to have a termination.
If victims of rape and children who are pregnant through incest make the decision to have a termination, then it should be respected. The case of where there is a real and substantial threat to the life of a pregnant woman is one such situation. I have one concern about the idea of involving a psychiatrist and a psychologist. This is derived from my involvement with mental health issues and the varying roles of psychiatrists in forced electroconvulsive therapy, ECT, treatment. I have some doubts about their role in any decisions. Any decision should be made in a non-judgmental situation with a doctor. This is the way forward. I hope that women from lower socioeconomic groups will not be discriminated against because of this provision.
I knew a woman some years ago who became pregnant on her fourth child and who developed a life-threatening illness. The medical advice was for a termination. She made the decision not to have the termination. The baby lived and she lost her life because she did not have the treatment in time. That decision should be protected in law as well. Whether a termination goes ahead or a woman continues with her pregnancy, the decision should be covered in law. The Bill also covers those who object to having to perform the procedure. The matter is well covered. No one would be placed under a duty to participate, and provisions are in place for this. While discussing abortion we should discuss the role of the father as well.
Although I support the Bill I am not in favour of abortion on demand and I dislike the way this issue has been hijacked by certain groups. The Bill has a narrow focus for a particular situation regardless of the legal and medical point scoring. I accept that maternity services in this country are excellent and it is the safest place to have a baby. However, the situation addressed by the Bill does arise and such a decision must be protected in law.
18 April Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2012: Second Stage
Click to hear Maureen speak
I believe that any discussion on social welfare must be guided by two principles, namely, fairness and social justice. However, those principles are very much under threat and at times, one can discern the manner in which they have been maligned and that those of us who are guided by principles of justice and fairness are almost perceived to be figures of fun who trot out such cliches. However, across the River Liffey in the constituency of Dublin Central, I can see where they are not cliches because there are plenty of examples of unfairness and injustice. Decisions undoubtedly have been made by the Government - regardless of the intention - arising from which the needy and vulnerable are suffering disproportionately. Again, I note terms such as “vulnerable” and “needy” are almost looked upon scornfully by certain sections of society and in the media. Some people in society are not unduly affected by the cuts. I refer to Members of this House, as well as people in certain positions in State, semi-State and private organisations. They are not unduly affected and the significance in this regard lies in the word, “unduly”. Obviously, no one wishes to pay additional taxes, direct or otherwise but one must accept that some people can afford to pay more. This brings one to a fairer system of taxation in which those who earn more pay more. Were the State to have such a fairer system of taxation, it would not be making demands on those who are dependent on social welfare. In part, this pertains to the sacred cow of the 12.5% corporate tax rate. One cannot even consider a slight increase in the rate, which would realise significantly more income. At the very least, one should ensure that the full 12.5% is collected.
Various crises in the country have led to the term, “the new poor”. People are now entering the social welfare net who would not have been part of that net until recently and consequently, massive demands are being placed on the services. I consider the main criterion to be that social welfare payments should go where they are most needed and that one should not ask those who are totally dependent on social welfare to face any additional burden in respect of further taxes, be they direct or indirect.
The most significant aspect of the Bill is the targeting of payments to one-parent families. As a result of what is envisaged, such payments will eventually cease when the children involved reach the age of seven years. Like previous speakers, I acknowledge the “Seven is too young” campaign. Has there been much engagement between the Department and organisations which work directly with women and children who are particularly vulnerable or is everything guided by the economics and figures involved? A particular report recommended that seven years was a good age at which to cut this payment and suggested lone parents were stuck in a poverty cycle. It also stated there was a need for incentives to move such parents away from social welfare and towards work. There is a need to respect the rights of lone parents whose choice is to remain at home. They must be supported by means of a social welfare payment which allows them to live in dignity. Comparisons were made with the position in the Nordic countries which have very extensive support systems in place for lone parents who wish to work outside the home. I acknowledge what the Minister said about trying to ensure there would be adequate supports available in this country in time. On the question of where are the jobs for people who wish to move, I do not know whether the JobBridge scheme is going to realise the results for which the Minister is hoping.
We have been informed that some 700,000 people, including 200,000 children, are living in poverty in this country. I acknowledge the work of Social Justice Ireland on this matter. It has produced figures which indicate that those among the poorest 10% of the population have an average disposable income of €210. This compares with an average disposable income of €2,276 for those in the richest 10%. Earlier today the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade discussed the issue of development aid and considered the question of sustainable and shared growth in developing countries in Africa in the context of not increasing the grip of the class system. We need to look to ourselves in the context of this matter. Social Justice Ireland has proposed that we broaden the tax base and eliminate those tax breaks which solely benefit those on the highest incomes.
When one considers lone parents, one is obliged to wonder how representative are the memberships of the Dáil and the Seanad of those in this group. One is also obliged to ask how many officials in the IMF and the ECB are lone parents. I am sure those who are have massive support systems in place and are not obliged to deal with the predicament which many lone parents in this country face. We continue to make allowances for and pay obscene salaries and bonuses to bankers and directors. However, we cannot maintain the lone parent allowance at a level which would allow lone parents to retain an element of dignity in their lives.
Community employment schemes provide services for many lone parents. I hope the review will lead to the schemes being strengthened and the elimination of the fears of many of those on such schemes. Disallowing supports to lone parents entering community employment schemes - I refer, in particular, to some of the very vulnerable women on the schemes in my constituency of Dublin Central - makes a savage statement of discrimination against them and their children. Those to whom I refer need more, not fewer, supports. Such supports must come in the form of realistic opportunities in training and education in order that the women concerned do not end up being exploited within the shadow economy, be it black or grey.
On the pension legislation and the attempts to extend further protection to individuals and families, I wonder whether the Government is going far enough in putting in place stringent regulations to ensure pension funds will have sufficient reserves in order that pensions will be fully protected.
My penultimate point relates to rent supplement and I hope social welfare inspectors will take on board what I have to say. Dublin Central is plagued by rogue landlords who are charging exorbitant rents for accommodation which is both appalling and overcrowded. I hope action can be taken to tackle this matter. I am concerned about tenants who are in receipt of rent supplement and who, through their anti-social behaviour, are causing absolute havoc in communities. It seems local authorities are powerless against these individuals. At least in the context of local authority housing, there are procedures which can be employed by officials to deal with tenants who engage in anti-social behaviour. There is too much happening under the radar in respect of this matter.
Earlier this evening I launched a photo exhibition depicting people who had previously worked on Dublin’s docks. Obviously, the men in question are all now well advanced in age. They were employed for all of their working lives on the docks where they engaged in extremely hard work in difficult conditions. They paid their taxes and reared their families and are now dependent on their pensions and social welfare payments. It was heartbreaking to hear men who had worked in appalling conditions on the docks acknowledging that they were afraid that further inroads would be made into their pensions. As I travelled to Leinster House after the launch, I was very conscious of that group of elderly people who were completely dependent on their pensions. They cannot take any more cuts and do not deserve to do so.
Various crises in the country have led to the term, “the new poor”. People are now entering the social welfare net who would not have been part of that net until recently and consequently, massive demands are being placed on the services. I consider the main criterion to be that social welfare payments should go where they are most needed and that one should not ask those who are totally dependent on social welfare to face any additional burden in respect of further taxes, be they direct or indirect.
The most significant aspect of the Bill is the targeting of payments to one-parent families. As a result of what is envisaged, such payments will eventually cease when the children involved reach the age of seven years. Like previous speakers, I acknowledge the “Seven is too young” campaign. Has there been much engagement between the Department and organisations which work directly with women and children who are particularly vulnerable or is everything guided by the economics and figures involved? A particular report recommended that seven years was a good age at which to cut this payment and suggested lone parents were stuck in a poverty cycle. It also stated there was a need for incentives to move such parents away from social welfare and towards work. There is a need to respect the rights of lone parents whose choice is to remain at home. They must be supported by means of a social welfare payment which allows them to live in dignity. Comparisons were made with the position in the Nordic countries which have very extensive support systems in place for lone parents who wish to work outside the home. I acknowledge what the Minister said about trying to ensure there would be adequate supports available in this country in time. On the question of where are the jobs for people who wish to move, I do not know whether the JobBridge scheme is going to realise the results for which the Minister is hoping.
We have been informed that some 700,000 people, including 200,000 children, are living in poverty in this country. I acknowledge the work of Social Justice Ireland on this matter. It has produced figures which indicate that those among the poorest 10% of the population have an average disposable income of €210. This compares with an average disposable income of €2,276 for those in the richest 10%. Earlier today the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade discussed the issue of development aid and considered the question of sustainable and shared growth in developing countries in Africa in the context of not increasing the grip of the class system. We need to look to ourselves in the context of this matter. Social Justice Ireland has proposed that we broaden the tax base and eliminate those tax breaks which solely benefit those on the highest incomes.
When one considers lone parents, one is obliged to wonder how representative are the memberships of the Dáil and the Seanad of those in this group. One is also obliged to ask how many officials in the IMF and the ECB are lone parents. I am sure those who are have massive support systems in place and are not obliged to deal with the predicament which many lone parents in this country face. We continue to make allowances for and pay obscene salaries and bonuses to bankers and directors. However, we cannot maintain the lone parent allowance at a level which would allow lone parents to retain an element of dignity in their lives.
Community employment schemes provide services for many lone parents. I hope the review will lead to the schemes being strengthened and the elimination of the fears of many of those on such schemes. Disallowing supports to lone parents entering community employment schemes - I refer, in particular, to some of the very vulnerable women on the schemes in my constituency of Dublin Central - makes a savage statement of discrimination against them and their children. Those to whom I refer need more, not fewer, supports. Such supports must come in the form of realistic opportunities in training and education in order that the women concerned do not end up being exploited within the shadow economy, be it black or grey.
On the pension legislation and the attempts to extend further protection to individuals and families, I wonder whether the Government is going far enough in putting in place stringent regulations to ensure pension funds will have sufficient reserves in order that pensions will be fully protected.
My penultimate point relates to rent supplement and I hope social welfare inspectors will take on board what I have to say. Dublin Central is plagued by rogue landlords who are charging exorbitant rents for accommodation which is both appalling and overcrowded. I hope action can be taken to tackle this matter. I am concerned about tenants who are in receipt of rent supplement and who, through their anti-social behaviour, are causing absolute havoc in communities. It seems local authorities are powerless against these individuals. At least in the context of local authority housing, there are procedures which can be employed by officials to deal with tenants who engage in anti-social behaviour. There is too much happening under the radar in respect of this matter.
Earlier this evening I launched a photo exhibition depicting people who had previously worked on Dublin’s docks. Obviously, the men in question are all now well advanced in age. They were employed for all of their working lives on the docks where they engaged in extremely hard work in difficult conditions. They paid their taxes and reared their families and are now dependent on their pensions and social welfare payments. It was heartbreaking to hear men who had worked in appalling conditions on the docks acknowledging that they were afraid that further inroads would be made into their pensions. As I travelled to Leinster House after the launch, I was very conscious of that group of elderly people who were completely dependent on their pensions. They cannot take any more cuts and do not deserve to do so.
