Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 13, line 18, after “disadvantaged,” to insert “persons to whom the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2018 apply to,”.

These amendments all relate to issues of equality. It gives me a useful opportunity, therefore, to clarify the points that were made previously. I am not against public policy existing but to be very clear, and I was clear in my intervention that my concerns are that there are requirements in the Bill for governing bodies of universities and individual institutions to implement and report on their compliance with policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government. Again, those are not policies that have become full public policy by means of either statute, regulation or law or, indeed, that have been agreed by the Oireachtas or the HEA. We all have policies we might put in our manifestos. Ministers may have policies and Government may have policy but the muddying of the line between public policy and Government policy is an issue on which we need to be clear.

I was specifically clear that I will have amendments that say they may have mechanisms in terms of compliance with matters of statute, that is, regulations that are in place on a statutory basis, laws that are put into place, laws on non-disclosure agreements, NDA, which I hope will be law soon or, indeed, such measures as I propose putting into law here. I am clear on the policies I think should become law and be given a statutory basis and should, therefore, then be matters that are appropriately enforceable. I am not okay with a blank cheque whereby any future Government's or future Minister's policy should automatically become something that on which an HEI must implement a report. That is what provisions in sections 76 and 119 say at the moment. I will propose amendments to them saying that there are many areas in which we should have more laws and clearer laws, including areas such as equality. They should be done in a proper way by law, however, and that is what should be indicated.

I will discuss the amendments in the grouping, all of which relate to the question of equality. Amendment No. 3 seeks to amend the definition of "priority groups" in the interpretations section and proposes to insert “persons to whom the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2018 apply to”. Currently, the definition of "priority groups" mentions "persons who are economically or socially disadvantaged, persons who have a disability or persons from sections of society that are under-represented in the student body in higher education". It is important to be clear and to include those to whom the discrimination grounds in our Equal Status Acts apply, many of whom, in fact, are under-represented or even if they are represented, face particular obstacles in terms of their access to higher education. Those include, for example, the grounds in the equality Act relating to things such as gender, marital status, family status, religious beliefs, age, disability, race and membership of the Traveller community. The current wording is quite narrow and does not specifically name many of the grounds that have historically been sources of exclusion such as, for example, race, family status, sexual orientation, members of the Traveller community who have experienced particular exclusion and, indeed, lone parents who face particular obstacles. Again, it is an attempt to widen who might be captured in the definition of "priority groups" and ensure that those groups, which have been acknowledged by the Equal Status Acts to have experienced discrimination across society, are not forgotten in the definition.

Amendment No. 156 would amend section 34(3) by providing that in the ongoing review of the demand for higher education in the State, an t-údarás would have regard to "the needs of society to address issues of poverty, social and economic inequality, racial inequalities and inequities and gender inequalities and inequities” in assessing the demand for higher education at a regional and national level in each discipline.

Amendments Nos. 212 and 214 relate to the equality statement provision under section 62 of the Equal Status Acts and suggest that in preparing the equality statement, the designated higher education institutions should consult with representative organisations of those to whom the Equal Status Acts apply. Examples of such groups are the Irish Traveller Movement, Pavee Point, the Disability Federation of Ireland or, indeed, many of the disabled persons organisations in the State, Social Justice Ireland, Movement of Asylum Seekers in Ireland, MASI, and others.

Amendment No. 214 seeks to inert the word "equity" in section 62(5)(b), which currently provides that an equality statement of a designated institution of higher education to which the section applies shall specify the policy of the institution on equality in all activities of the institution.This amendment simply refers to equity. There is another point in the Bill where there is a reference to equality of opportunity, which is not the same as equality of outcomes or equality in its wider sense, so this is an attempt to add "equity" and thereby strengthen what we mean by equality. We are not going for a minimalist version. I know that is not the intention in the equality statement but elsewhere in the Bill equality of opportunity is referenced, which I believe is needlessly narrow and which I will seek to amend. These amendments all seek to give strength to the legislative provisions in respect of equality and equality statements in the Bill.