Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:

“ “designated institution of higher education” has the same meaning as it has in the Higher Education Authority Act 2022;”.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach Gníomhach, agus cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. This amendment provides that in page 3, between lines 18 and 19, that the words "designated institution of higher education" have the same meaning as they have in the Higher Education Authority Act 2022.Amendment No. 5 proposes that on page 6, between lines 15 and 16, that the following words be inserted as a subparagraph (3): "Nothing in section 2(2) shall prohibit a person from engaging in debate or lawful protest, advocacy or dissent on premises occupied by a designated institution of higher education, provided such debate, protest, advocacy or dissent is not directed at a specific relevant healthcare premises or persons accessing a relevant healthcare premises."

I have already criticised this legislation extensively on Second Stage. I think there are all sorts of constitutional questions attached to it. It reflects very badly on all those involved in bringing it forward. It is legislation that is really not about facilitating people or preventing them from being harassed at all, but is in fact about crushing dissent on an important issue of controversy. Dissent should be allowed everywhere in a democracy, but if there is one place where we should ring-fence and make sure the right to free speech, free exchange of ideas and the right to test ideas and prejudices of every kind, overreach of Government or power of any kind, it is surely in our institutes of higher education.

Taking into account the terms of section 53 of the 2022 Act, in my view, the envisaged university exemption should apply to all the designated higher education institutes referred to in section 53, rather than just the universities. It is on that basis that I have drafted the relevant amendments on this aspect. My version of the proposed new subsection for higher education institutions seeks to align with the wording of section 3(1), to a large extent, not with section 3(2), which would perhaps have been a more ambitious option but with significant differences from section 3(1).

There is a specific reference to debate, because that is more necessary and especially appropriate in the context of higher education institutions than it would be near the Houses of the Oireachtas. Although it would be better if it were included even in relation to that area. I also note that there does not appear to be any reference to "lawful debate" anywhere in Irish legislation, though the word "debate" itself occurs in 28 provisions in the Irish Statute Book.

Section 3(1) states that the protest, etc., near the Oireachtas must not be "directed at a specific relevant healthcare premises, or persons accessing a relevant healthcare premises, within that 100 metres", that is, from an entrance to the House. This wording says that the debate or protest must not be "directed at a specific relevant healthcare premises or persons accessing a relevant healthcare premises". There are various options. If we added to the first part of that wording, the phrase, "situated within premises occupied by a designated institution of higher education", there could be protest or advocacy within the education premises being "directed at a specific relevant healthcare premises or persons accessing a relevant healthcare premises" that was just outside - for example, 10 m away from the edge of the education premises. This will probably be used as an effective argument against this amendment. For this reason, I have not worded it that way, nor have I added in the part about "100 metres of an entrance to a premises occupied by such an institution".

How my amendment is worded should make it palatable to Senators who do not consider themselves pro-life. It might be more palatable to them if the references to debate in the proposed subsection were deleted also but for the reasons indicated I would not be inclined to do so.

It might be the case that some higher education institutes, perhaps even most, would have a relevant healthcare premises as part of their own premises, bearing in mind the broad definition of that term in section 1 of the Bill. I do not think this presents a problem because the exemption expressly provides that it is applicable only where such debate, protest, advocacy or dissent is not directed at a specific relevant healthcare premises or persons accessing a relevant healthcare premises.

I note that amendment No. 1 introduces into the Bill a mention of an Act not currently mentioned therein. This would mean having to insert a mention of that Act in the list of Acts on page 2 of the Bill.

I will leave it at that for the moment and will come back in if necessary.