Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the context of this business, the combined opening speeches of the proposer and seconder shall not exceed 16 minutes. All other Senators have six minutes. The Minister of State has 15 minutes and the proposer has five minutes to reply. I call on Senator Malcolm Byrne to move the proposal.

Malcolm Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am grateful that the Government is accepting the principle of what we are seeking to achieve here. I am happy therefore both in moving this Bill, to move the proposed Government amendment and to accept it. This will allow for consideration of this Bill, it is a timed amendment, and it will allow for the Bill to go before the justice committee. My friend and colleague, Deputy James Lawless, as Chair is going to be quite happy to have engagement, debate and consultation with relevant and interested stakeholders.

I introduced this Bill in late 2021. At the time we saw a significant number of protests outside the homes of politicians, journalists and medical professionals. I am a strong advocate of the right to peaceful protest. It is healthy in any democracy that we have protests and that there is a way for people to express their anger, their opposition or their support for particular measures. Just prior to this debate, I went outside for a few minutes. There are two protests currently outside the gates of Leinster House. One is on the issue of forestry and I engaged with some of the people who are protesting there. As I was walking by the other protest some people shouted abuse and they name-called me and a number of other public representatives. I defend their right to protest. Indeed, if they want to call me abusive names I will defend their right to do so.

This legislation is about where we should allow people to protest. It is not acceptable to protest outside the homes of individuals. It is not just the individual within the home who is targeted, it is often their families as well. It can also be disturbing for their neighbours. This legislation introduces a very specific offence to address the question of a targeted protest against an individual in his or her principal private residence.

This Bill will strengthen the Garda's hand and it will ensure that those who decide to take this kind of action will think twice before doing so. The sanction that I set down will be a fine in the first instance but where somebody is a repeat offender, as found by the courts after prosecution, he or she should face a prison sentence. If one is unhappy with the policy of Government or anyone else one can protest outside the gates of Leinster House. One can protest outside a Government Department or agency, or outside constituency offices. There are plenty of places in Ireland where one can protest. Gardaí handle protests quite well, even in difficult circumstances. We should always defend that right to freedom of expression that allows people to do so.

I would really prefer that this legislation were not necessary. I would really hope that most people in this country would have the cop on to know that one does not go to an individual's private home to take up a grievance. Unfortunately, there is a very small minority that does. I think most of those who take part in protests and vigils would have nothing to do with that minority. I find it rather ironic that some of those who protest outside politicians' homes claim they are motivated by family values and yet have very little respect for the sanctity of the family home. In all of the decisions we make in this House we have to look at how we balance rights and responsibilities. The right to protest cannot be without restrictions. There are obviously requirements around a protest being peaceful. There are also counterbalancing rights, such as an individual's right to privacy and the right of an individual's family not to be harassed or intimidated.

There has been legislation on this in other countries, most notably in the United States and Canada. In the United States, restrictions that have been introduced on targeted protests outside individuals' homes have been upheld to be constitutional. There is a famous 1988 U.S. Supreme Court case, Frisby v. Schultz, which concerned an ordinance in Brookfield, Wisconsin. In that circumstance, it prohibited targeted picketing of a residence or dwelling. The court upheld it because it was said that there were adequate alternative ways for the protesters to communicate their views. They could use other channels such as going on marches or distributing leaflets to express their point of view. This is starting to become a bigger issue in the United States. Not only are we seeing protests outside the homes of politicians and journalists, we are now seeing protests outside the homes of judges. The question is how an individual's private home is to be protected.

Similar legislation is being introduced in Canada. In Nova Scotia there were a series of protests outside the home of the chief medical officer. He would have been quite happy if they protested outside his offices or the department of health but it is entirely inappropriate for that sort of protest to happen outside a public servant's house. Having dealt with a number of these cases, the position in the United States and Canada now seems to be that so long as the protest does not linger and is carried out without the intent to intimidate, it is held to be legitimate and in the United States to be constitutional. There are strong protections in our Constitution around the family home and rights to privacy.I believe that those rights act in counter to those who choose to protest outside an individual's private home.

I would have hoped we would never have to bring in legislation like this. I am sure nearly everybody in these Houses has at some stage in their lives taken part in a protest of some sort, on some issue. Most people in Ireland have been involved in a protest. It is one of the cornerstones of our democracy but none of us would ever countenance the idea of going to an individual's private home to protest outside it. We know and we have the cop on where we need to take our grievances.

With regard to recent controversies, if one has a grievance about Government policies on Covid or vaccination, or immigration, one takes the protest outside the gates of this building or outside the relevant Department. If someone has a problem with the Government's immigration policy, then the protest should take place outside here or outside the Department of Justice. Those are the correct places to protest. There are plenty of media outlets that can articulate a protester's point of view.

As democrats, we should defend the right of people to be able to express themselves. However, it has to be done in a responsible and accountable way and other individuals' rights have to be taken into account. I will not name instances but I think it is horrific that we know of people who have had protests that were designed to harass and intimidate outside their homes and where their spouse or partner and, in some cases, their children were in that home. It is just not acceptable. We need to strengthen the legislation in this area. The Garda has said that it has limited powers in this area. This is something that we need to take seriously. I am grateful that the Government has indicated support for the principle of the Bill and I look forward to the justice committee debating it in detail so that we can get legislation and we can protect an individual's right to privacy and freedom within his or her own home.

Shane Cassells (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to second Senator Byrne's proposal. I congratulate him on bringing forward this Bill. I thank the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Deputy Browne, for being here. There is broad Government acceptance for what is being proposed. It is regrettable that such legislation is needed at all, especially given the fact that we live in such an open democracy where protest is allowed, facilitated and welcomed by all of us. I was at a protest last Saturday standing on the streets of Navan outside the gates of my own hospital along with the people of my own town.What the people expect of their public representatives is that they use their elected office. They expect that I would come in here and raise their concerns, in this instance with the Minister for Health, and defend their hospital. The Minister was sitting in this Chamber five minutes before the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, arrived and I am pretty sure he heard what I had to say, as he should. That is democracy but for anyone to contemplate bringing protests to Deputy Donnelly's home and intimidating him or his young family is completely unacceptable. Unfortunately, we have seen the safety of politicians threatened and, in the case of the United Kingdom, we have seen lives lost. In the US, protests fuelled by a madman resulted in the storming of that country's seat of democracy. Unfortunately, because of the global age we live in, which is circular, the belief that this is acceptable infiltrates all of our society and becomes the norm. Members of the Oireachtas have been threatened. Deputy Martin Kenny has had his home attacked and was forced to relocate. That is not acceptable.

We live in a society where our public representatives are readily available, thank God. We are on the street, in clinics, at matches at the weekend and in the local pub. We are out there, not sheltered away. The access to public representatives in Ireland is unique and it should be valued. It is something that we all value, as public representatives. We do not live in a glass bubble. We are readily accessible and the public respects that but, unfortunately, lines have been crossed in certain instances and that is regrettable. It is also regrettable that this Bill is even needed and that we are debating today the issue of respecting the privacy of the home. I note the comments of the Garda Commissioner, Mr. Drew Harris, yesterday. He recognised that protests are a lawful part of our society but said that protections are needed.

Like Senator Malcolm Byrne, I look forward to the Minister of State's contribution to the debate and to seeing this Bill progress to Committee Stage.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I compliment my colleague on bringing forward the Bill. We are living in a society where it seems that anybody who puts their face into the public arena is fair game to have a go at, at any time or in any place. Recently I had a situation on Twitter. I am quite active on Twitter, as most people will know. I had put out a tweet on something or other and one of these bots came back and said, "We know where he lives; let's go to his house". The sad fact of the matter is that for most of us, our home addresses are well known and we are easily identifiable. If one wants to look behind the sort of aggression that is directed against public representatives, one has to look inside this House. There are people in this House who agitate, bring up the storm and then step back and allow the lunatics to take over, although it is not always lunatics. Again, going back to Twitter, and I acknowledge that it is not my personal residence we are talking about here, I suffered a major attack one night. All of my attackers were members of the medical profession; every single one of them. One of them made a diagnosis online and I told him he had gone too far. Within minutes, all of the tweets disappeared. If it is that easy to whip up intelligent people who hold respected positions in society, how much easier is it to get the mad guys out in front of our houses? How brave they are when they stand in front of people's houses, as happened to Deputy Harris some time ago, screaming all sorts of abuse and names.

I have been in these Houses for nearly nine years. I have great respect for most of the people in this House. They are hard working and have a genuine commitment to the society we serve. We do not always get it right and we do not always have the answers. I was speaking this morning about the need to revisit the Ministers and Secretaries Act 1924 to spread responsibility across the entire decision-making chain. That is something we must do in this House, sooner rather than later.

The fact that any one of us gets elected to the House does not mean that our families get elected. Our wives, children, brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers are entitled to peaceful living and to safety in their homes. It is sad state of affairs when we have to take extra security precautions in our own homes. In recent months, I have had to install CCTV in my home, both front and back. I have had to take out a back gate and put in a stronger one. Thankfully, I have a dog who makes lots of noise when anybody comes around. All of us in this profession travel and there are times when we go away and we wonder whether our family is safe. My son, daughter and wife did not seek election to the Seanad or the Oireachtas. In some ways, they would rather I did not do so either but they are entitled to a peaceful existence.

I commend the Bill and I hope it can be pushed right through both Houses quickly. There must be sanctions for those who would come and threaten innocent people who have no responsibility for decisions we make in here or for what we say when we speak on issues. More important, I have never met anyone in here who has made a speech that did not genuinely believe what he or she was saying and did not genuinely want to make a point and get it across. Surely to God that is the basis of democracy? We do not always like what others say, but at least they have the right to say it. We should all have the right to say it, knowing that our personal safety is assured at all times. I support the Bill and do not see any need for amendments to it. I will support it and I hope it can go through the House fairly quickly.

Barry Ward (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. Cuirim fáilte roimh an Bille freisin agus an obair atá déanta ag mo comhghleacaí, Seanadoir Malcolm Byrne. As has been said, it is regrettable that this kind of legislation is required but unfortunately it is. It is not just politicians who need to be protected, but all kinds of people, including some who are not even necessarily in the public eye as we have seen in recent times with protests against people who come this country seeking shelter taking place outside their places of residence, which are hotels in many instances. So-called protests are happening outside and it is very important, in the context of this debate, to distinguish between protests and what amounts to callous intimidation. The latter is what is involved in most of these instances.

Many Members have said that they do not want to shut down the right to protest and I agree with that. The right to protest and the act of protesting is a tremendously important component of any democratic society. It is, therefore, very important that we see this Bill not as a stricture on protest but on the kind of behaviour that goes beyond protest and strays into the area of intimidation and harassment in real terms. One identifiable point at which a line is crossed is when protesters turn up at somebody's home. There should be an ultimate protection of any person's home. One should be able to go home at the end of the day, close the front door and be secure and safe. People are entitled to peaceably enjoy their home without the threat of someone coming to their door, into their front garden, onto the road outside their house, or wherever it might be in the curtilage of their house, to destroy that peace and quiet and to destroy their enjoyment of the home. For that reason, the Bill makes perfect sense.

The definition of "residential dwelling" in section 1, which refers to "any permanent building being used by one or more occupants for residential purposes" is very broad and that is fair enough because it covers scenarios involving people seeking international protection who are staying in hotels in Dublin, for example. I welcome the fact that the Bill will go beyond those who have brought the subject into the spotlight and will include people who are very vulnerable, who have fled to this country from very difficult circumstances, either for them personally or for their society. The notion that they would come to this country, the so-called Ireland of a hundred thousand welcomes, and face a baying mob outside telling them to go home, is not acceptable. That is not protest but would fall within the definition of "protest" in the Bill.It is entirely appropriate that, in addition to considering the scenarios outlined by other Senators regarding public figures or those in the spotlight who have attracted the ire of a particular group because of something they have said or done in their professional or public role, we should be considering those who are vulnerable in their own way and need the protection of legislation exactly like this.

I agree with the sentiments expressed by Senator Malcolm Byrne and other Members to the effect that we are in a sorry state if we have to introduce a Bill such as this, but the reality is that we all know it is necessary, without even going through the examples listed by other Members or other examples that have been in the public media. We, as a Legislature, should be putting down a marker indicating that homes where people and families live are off the reservation, or out of bounds, regarding the kind of behaviour in question. Whether you call it protesting, intimidation or harassment, it is not acceptable. We should put down a marker stipulating it must not happen and that if it does and you insist on continuing to engage in it, there will be penal consequences for you. That is entirely appropriate.

Annie Hoey (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State. I thank the Fianna Fáil grouping for introducing this Bill. I echo the comments made about the fact that we need this legislation in the first place. I have a sense of unease regarding the times we are in. We will all have seen the footage of really stark scenes of protests in Ballymun and Finglas, which are in my area, Dublin North West. Some of the protests are held at public representatives' offices and some where people live or at what are currently their homes. I love a good protest. I know there are some present who were at protests over the weekend. I love a good peaceful protest. I am mad for them but, in the context of our discussion on this legislation, I am not entirely sure whether any of the protests I have seen outside the houses of politicians or others would be considered peaceful. Perhaps the protestors would disagree but I certainly feel those protests move into a different space of intimidation. As we mentioned here before, there are very often people living in the house targeted in addition to the politician or other figure subject to the protest. There may be partners and children.

In hotels and other places where we have refugees, there are very big communities of people. In this regard, consider some of the scenes at Citywest. Citywest is the people's home right now. The hotel in Ballymun is the home of those who live there. They have come here and are currently being housed here. I hope where they are being housed is temporary because hotels are no place for people to live, but that is where they are currently living. We all read in the newspaper the really upsetting reflection from the little girl who was looking out at the protesters protesting about her. She had no idea what was going on and was frightened that they were going to come in.

Any sane, sensible person, even someone who loves attending good protests, can draw a very clear, distinctive line between a peaceful protest and the intimidation of people in their own homes and safe spaces. It is important that we strike a balance between the rights to protest and freedom of assembly, on the one hand, and the right to be free from intimidation and harassment, on the other. If I felt this Bill were going down the route of the UK public order legislation, which is totalitarian legislation designed to suppress protesters and public engagement, effectively banning protests and giving rise to some extremely concerning civil liberties issues, I would not support it. If the UK police even suspect you are going to protest, they have a right to stop you and search you. This is really unacceptable. If I felt for a second that there were even a whiff of this about the Bill before us, you can bet your bottom dollar that I would not be supporting it in any way. However, I do not believe this proposed legislation does what I have described. I believe it is balanced. It considers the fundamental right to freedom of assembly, a right that is really important here in Ireland. We have often talked here about totalitarian regimes in other countries and crackdowns on people's right to protest, and we rightly condemn these from this House. If I felt our Bill would interfere with civil liberties and human engagement in Ireland, I would not be here supporting it.

It is not only politicians' homes that are affected. I have referred to the circumstances in the Dublin North-West constituency. There are many other constituencies where there are some really frightening and intimidating things happening. We must not derail the conversation on this legislation but I believe what I am talking about is related because, as I have said, people's homes and sometimes their offices are targeted.

We will have to face a reckoning. There is a movement of people or bad actors, or whatever you want to describe them as, who could not be appeased in any way by any language we use. Particularly the other night in Finglas, there was nothing but organised thuggery. Those involved were going down to protest at a Deputy's office. They used very explicit language about fighting, the message being not to stop fighting until you are taken out. They used language to the effect that if migrants come, you just keep going, and phrases such as, "You are the men of Ireland." This is not peaceful protesting. The protest was set up as an intimidatory tactic. Putting these things up online to frighten people from even trying to stand up against those involved is in itself an intimidatory tactic. The protest did not spill out but it is very clear that the organisers' were quite happy and willing to intimidate, and if things had kicked off they were ready to go.

I have taken a slight sidestep. This legislation is important. We are in a period in which people, including politicians, do not feel safe in their homes. People in my party and many other political parties are putting security cameras on their houses, afraid to answer the door if somebody knocks. That should not be part of political life or the life I wanted to get involved in. I should not have to go out of my way to keep my address hidden.

My last point concerns a matter not being dealt with today. The requirement to have your address on ballot papers is the subject of a conversation we may need to have in the future. In this context, there are people who have refused to run for office in the North because of the danger that meeting the legal requirement would pose to them. I would like us to have a conversation on this at another time.

I welcome this legislation. It is fair and balanced. It balances the right to protest with the right not to be intimidated and harassed in your own home.

Niall Ó Donnghaile (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is welcome. I also welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I will not rehearse all the points because there is pretty much universal agreement on the salient point and the intention of the legislation. I commend Senator Malcolm Byrne and his Fianna Fáil colleagues for introducing it.

The first point I want to make, which is probably the most important and the crux of this matter, is that there is zero justification for the attacks on the homes of my colleagues Deputy Martin Kenny and the Minister for Health, Deputy Stephen Donnelly, or any other public representative, whether a Member of either of these Houses, a Minister or a party leader. After two attacks on Deputy Martin Kenny's home, unfortunately his family has decided to move as a result. That is the outworking of the intimidation and harassment.

Ultimately, the attacks on people's homes and intimidatory behaviour outside them are a criminal matter for the Garda to act upon. I am not behind the doors in saying the full rigour of the law needs to be employed to bring anyone involved to justice. These are not matters that fall within the domain of peaceful protest. I agree wholeheartedly with Senator Hoey in that regard. We do not for one second suggest this is the intent of the legislation, and that is why I hope that if Senators have concerns or suggestions to strengthen or better define some of the provisions, they can raise them on Committee Stage and later Stages.

It is important in this debate to be very clear. The Garda and criminal justice system are meant to protect people when they are in their homes and to protect communities. It is important to note that while we are debating the threats and difficulties elected representatives are experiencing in their work, there are others facing similar difficulties. We have seen nurses and doctors intimidated. Gardaí, paramedics and many other front-line workers are regularly assaulted or verbally or physically abused while going about their work.

As has been said, the right to protest peacefully is a right that was hard won and one we have to protect. Peaceful protesting has been very important in bringing about positive, progressive and democratic change in this society.People have a right to hold their public representatives to account. I do not think anybody would disagree with that. We have to strike the right balance between protection of people, families and family homes and the right to protest. I am firmly of the view that it can be done. It is possible to ensure that the right of protest continues but also that elected representatives and those around them such as their families and staff are safe and protected. I commend Senator Malcolm Byrne and the Fianna Fáil group and wish this legislation well going forward.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support the idea of preventing people from picketing the homes of Members of the Oireachtas because they are their homes and Members are entitled to the same privacy that anybody else is at their home. It struck me that way back in 1994, a Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act was passed which provides in section 5:

(1) It shall be an offence for any person in a public place to engage in offensive conduct— (a) between the hours of 12 o'clock midnight and 7 o'clock in the morning next following, or

(b) at any other time, after having been requested by a member of the Garda Síochána to desist. (2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500.

(3) In this section “offensive conduct” means any unreasonable behaviour which, having regard to all the circumstances, is likely to cause serious offence or serious annoyance to any person who is, or might reasonably be expected to be, aware of such behaviour.

In one sense, that is very near to what is proposed here, namely, that if people congregate outside somebody's house in significant numbers and in a manner calculated to cause offence or annoyance to the person residing there, it is already an offence. Perhaps we should tweak that offence to extend it to causing fear or serious interference with the capacity of the person to enjoy their own property, something like that.

I am a bit worried about the exact phraseology of the Bill. I know it is only tendered to get the debate going. On the idea of 200 yd from the residence, where I live, the entire of Ranelagh centre would be a picket-free zone if this was passed in its present state. The other thing is that it does not apply to urban areas where virtually every home of anybody for any purpose is within 200 yards of somewhere else. The 200-yd limit is probably a bit impractical. We do have to protect public representatives from intimidatory picketing of their own private residences. They are entitled constitutionally to the protection of the inviolability of the dwelling. How is someone's dwelling inviolable if people are entitled to surround it and make it inaccessible or intimidating to be within it? There is a constitutional argument that supports the idea of protecting the privacy of individuals' homes.

I welcome the principle of this legislation although it should be tweaked to make sure it is not too extensive in its potential ambit. How that should be done is the important point. I listened to a person from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, on the radio today talking about it. I fully accept that there is a constitutional right to freely assemble, subject to public order and morality. However, there is also the constitutional right to the inviolability of one's dwelling. What good is a right of inviolability of one's dwelling if it only means that people cannot smash the door down? That to me is a very narrow interpretation. Access to one's dwelling and the capacity to enjoy its amenity is also a constitutionally protected right, not to mention the unenumerated right of privacy and the right of other persons using the home who are not party to any dispute or whatever to enjoy their home as well.

I commend the Senator and his colleagues for tendering this legislation. I ask the Minister of State to look at the public order legislation that is already there, and the constitutional right to the inviolability of the dwelling in the context of privacy rights under the Constitution, and to come up with a response to this Private Members' Bill which adequately deals with the issue.I am getting a bit wary of 200 m exclusion zones. Now we have 200 m zones where one cannot put an advertisement for drink within 200 m of a creche and all sorts of crazy propositions. It is interesting that one cannot advertise for a drink within 200 m of a creche but one can have a mass picket outside a politician's home. That seems to be a strange legal arrangement that we have arrived at.

I commend the Senator for his industry in bringing this Bill forward, but we need to fine tune it to get it absolutely right and we want to build on existing precedent. I will finish on this, but the point is that the section I referred to requires the attendance of a member of An Garda Síochána to tell them to desist. We cannot have a situation where one can do whatever one likes until the Garda turn up and then one has to comply and disperse at that stage. The damage is done to the family by the time that happens. I am interested to hear what the Minister of State proposes to do in response to this valuable piece of draft legislation.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator McDowell has spoken very eloquently on the thrust of the Bill and I commend Senator Byrne for bringing this forward. I also have sympathy and agree with the intention and thrust of the Bill. All persons should be able to live in their homes at peace and without fear of abuse, attack and harassment. Some people have spoken about us as politicians, as if we are some sort of precious beings within these Houses. However, we have county councillors throughout this country who are also having their homes attacked. I am thinking of Councillor Vincent Jackson in Dublin where protesters turned up at his house a couple of weeks ago. He was not at home at the time, and he is a foster parent on top of being a parent himself. One can imagine the vulnerability of those children within those four walls on that particular night. People have to think about the consequences when they turn up. They do not know whether that politician could be looking after an elderly parent, or a child with disabilities, so people need to think carefully when they turn up to a person's home.

We also have Councillor Eugene McGuinness in Kilkenny. He had his car attacked and his windows broken last week. These are very serious incidents where people think they can turn up to politicians' homes and cause damage. I believe there is CCTV footage of the second incident and I hope gardaí apprehend and charge those individuals who committed that crime.

This Bill does not do what it intends to do. Section 2, which outlines the offences, prohibits targeted protests within 200 m of any residential dwelling, rather than a dwelling that houses, is believed to house, or is owned by the target of the protest. Of course, this is nonsense and would likely prohibit protests outside Leinster House or Department buildings, or maybe protests would have to held some place in a field in Kildare or Leitrim. The figure of 200 m is way too high.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Kildare is the best place to have it.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not saying literally in Leitrim. People tend to be poor at estimating distance. From Leinster House 200 m takes one physically into Merrion Square Park or onto the Trinity campus. If one were in the canteen 200 m possibly takes one onto Stephen's Green. That might need to be looked at. Somewhere between 20 m and 50 m would be much more appropriate.

The Bill needs quite a lot of work. I would like to see tighter provisions and protections for the right to assembly and freedom of speech included within the Bill, while also criminalising the threatening behaviour, which we have all condemned, directed at individuals and their families.

As regards our Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, returns, I have not put down my home address. I told them I cannot put down my home address because I foster children. I do not want the children I foster to be in an unsafe space. I have had the parents of some of those children writing to me here, and at my office address. My personal home is not on my SIPO returns and I have told them why I cannot have it on my SIPO returns while I am fostering. I am trying to protect the children. It is nothing to do with Sharon Keogan and where she lives. That is immaterial as far as the public is concerned. The children I take care of are more important to me than any protester. If someone wants to come and protest he or she can protest outside my office. I have already had it burned down. You can knock yourself out if you want to come and protest at my office. I believe in free protest and people's right to protest, but I think the family home needs to be off the market.

Malcolm Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following: "Seanad Éireann:

condemns:

- any attempt to promote division and hostility towards those who come to Ireland seeking safety;

notes that:

- the right to protest peacefully is enshrined in the Constitution and the European Convention of Human Rights;

- balancing the right to protest with protecting the public and upholding the law is a complex task, and that An Garda Síochána, through its human rights-led approach to policing, seeks to uphold and protect the right to freedom of assembly and the right to protest, while also upholding the law and protecting the public and businesses;

- people do not have the right to protest in a way that causes others to fear for their safety or in a way that threatens public order;

- there is a range of legislation under which threats and intimidation can be prosecuted, including the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Persons Act and under Public Order

legislation;

- any proposal to restrict the right to protest would have to be carefully considered;

calls on:

- An Garda Síochána to continue to provide an effective policing response to known and impromptu protests to ensure public safety;

and resolves that:

- the Bill be deemed to be read a second time this day 12 months, to allow for scrutiny between now and then by the Joint Committee on Justice, in order to consider submissions on this issue and to consider any issues of a constitutional nature that might arise, and to fully discuss and explore other practical issues and consequences that may arise as a result of the proposals, including any unintended consequences, and for the Joint Committee on Justice to make recommendations, to be considered further by Seanad Éireann."

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am taking this Private Members' Bill on behalf of the Minister for Justice, Deputy Harris, who unfortunately cannot be here.

I would like to begin by strongly condemning a small minority of people whose intentions in recent weeks have been to create division and who are engaging in intimidation rather than protest. Over the past year, communities across Ireland have demonstrated great solidarity with those who are coming here seeking refuge. Ireland has a moral and legal responsibility to provide shelter to those who come to our country fleeing war and persecution. I strongly condemn any attempt to promote division and hostility towards those who come here seeking safety.

I thank Senators Malcolm Byrne and Fiona O’Loughlin for bringing this legislation before the House and facilitating a discussion of these important issues. The right to protest peacefully is one of many rights protected by the Constitution and by numerous international human rights instruments, including the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the right to protest is not an absolute right. While people have the right to protest and that right must be respected, this is subject to the rights of others in our community. The right to protest is subject to other important principles such as the right of people to be safe, particularly where they are residing. The right to protest does not extend to the right to do this in a way that causes others to fear for their safety or in a way that threatens public order.

As is set out in the countermotion, balancing the right to protest with protecting the public and upholding the law is a complex task for members of An Garda Síochána. It is through its human rights-led approach to policing that An Garda Síochána seeks to uphold and protect the right to freedom of assembly and the right to protest, while also upholding the law and protecting the public and businesses. If that line between protesting and threatening or intimidating behaviour is crossed there are a number of provisions in our laws that apply. I wish to take the opportunity to recognise the important service performed by An Garda Síochána in ensuring public safety, order and peace in our communities. The Garda Commissioner is responsible for operational policing matters, including public order operations. Neither the Minister for Justice nor I have a role in directing the Commissioner regarding operational matters. I am informed by Garda authorities, that as with any protest, the policing approach is predicated on keeping people safe, preventing any antisocial and criminal behaviour and traffic management, where appropriate. I commend An Garda Síochána for carrying out this role in a professional way that safeguards human rights and public safety.

There are a number of existing laws that have to be considered when dealing with this issue. As Senator McDowell has pointed out, section 5 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 provides for the offence of disorderly conduct in a public place. I am happy to have that matter looked at again regarding An Garda Síochána requesting someone to desist. I do not think that is required between the hours of 7 a.m. and 12 noon, but it is at any other time during the day. Section 6 of the same Act provides that it is an offence for any person in a public place to use or engage in any threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned. Section 7 provides for an offence of distribution or display in public place of material which is threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene. Other provisions of this Act deal with Garda powers to arrest in public order situations and the issue of fixed charge penalties where offences are committed.

In addition to public order legislation, there are also other penalties on the Statute Book which may be relevant. There is already an offence of harassment in section 10 of the Non–Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, which includes the offence of persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with a person. It is also an offence under existing road traffic legislation to block or interfere with traffic for any reason. These and other existing parts of the Statute Book are relevant to the issues outlined in the Senators’ Bill and of course it falls to An Garda Síochána to bring its professional policing judgment and discretion to bear in how these laws are enforced.Legal advice provided to my Department by the Attorney General has identified these and other existing provisions that are highly relevant to the subject matter of this Bill. That said, the spirit and intention behind the Bill is clear. It arises from concern regarding protests that are intimidating to people in our communities. The aim is to protect the rights of persons to live in peace and not be intimidated by protest at their place of residence.

I turn now to the main provisions of the Bill. Section 1 provides a standard interpretation provision and defines the key terms of "protest", "target" and "residential dwelling".

Section 2 provides for an "offence of targeted protest" where a person organises or engages in a targeted protest at a distance of 200 m or less from a residential dwelling.

Section 3 outlines the penalties under the Bill. Anyone found guilty of a summary offence under the proposed legislation shall, upon conviction, be subject to a class D fine of up to €1,000. A person guilty of a second or subsequent offence shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a class A fine, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both.

Section 4 provides a power of regulation-making for the Minister under the Bill.

As noted in legal advice provided to my Department by the Attorney General, the existing legal provisions, as I mentioned, are highly relevant to the subject matter of this Bill and require further detailed consideration. The Attorney General has also noted there is an issue of practicality with regard to the offence provision of the Bill. It could be argued that given the larger number of residences in any particular urban area of the State, that provision may be very challenging to enforce in respect of any large-scale protest through a town or city. For example, an industrial dispute or other matter of public concern giving rise to protests in an urban area, such as a march through Dublin city centre, might unintentionally result in offences being committed under the Bill. It is undesirable in principle to bring in laws that cannot be enforced as this brings the law into disrepute.

As the House will appreciate, this is a complex area, given the need to reconcile the existing right to protest, the need for public safety and the efficacy of existing laws on the Statute Book that are relevant to the subject matter of the Bill. The Government considers that this issue would benefit from further detailed consideration and public debate. For that reason, on behalf of the Minister, I have proposed amendment No.1, which is a timed amendment.

I thank the proposing Senators once again for their continued work and interest in criminal justice matters. As I have outlined, there is already a body of legislation in place to deal with the types of issues addressed in the Bill. I would not like anybody outside the House to think there is not legislation in place to tackle those who may be targeting people. However, this Bill deals with a hugely important issue and I would like to see how we might take it further. It would be worthwhile for the joint Oireachtas committee to consider the principles underlying the Private Members' Bill and its provisions, particularly in regard to reconciling the right to protest and the right to public order and public safety. I will seek to work with the proposing Senators and the committee in that regard. I thank Senators for supporting our timed amendment. I note in conclusion that as the Bill creates a criminal offence, the issue of a money message will need to be addressed in due course.

Malcolm Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his response. This Bill relates to targeted protests. In the case of the example he gave of a protest arising out of an industrial dispute at a factory, its provisions would not impact on such an event, even if it took place in a residential area. I take Senator McDowell's point that the restriction of 200 m can be a challenge. The issue is really to do with targeted protests and clearly identifying them as such. In the context, for example, of some of the decisions by the US Supreme Court on similar issues concerning a march, for instance, or where somebody is moving through a particular area, something like that is not covered in the Bill. It relates to circumstances were there is, for a period of time, actions targeted against an individual in which harassment or intimidation may potentially be involved.

I welcome Senators' contributions in support of the Bill. As the Minister of State said, there is legislation in place that is relevant. However, from talking with gardaí, there is a question around the extent to which some of it is being used. If the legislation in place is strong enough, the question then arises as to why we are continuing to see some of these types of protests and actions not necessarily being taken to address them. I certainly agree with the comments by Senators Ward and Hoey that people are entitled to privacy and peace within their home, no matter how temporary that home may be. That is the principle behind the legislation.

It was important that we had this discussion. It will be very welcome to have the detail teased out before the justice committee to avoid any unintended consequences. Ultimately, we must, as Members of the Oireachtas, stand up for our profession. More importantly, as Senator Keogan said, we must stand up for the right of everybody, no matter who they are, to privacy within their own home, as is their entitlement and that of their family. When people close their front door, they should feel safe within their home. The right to peaceful protests is hugely important but those who are protesting outside an individual's home do not believe in the concept of peaceful protest. Their intimidatory actions deserve to be condemned and we must ensure the law is in place to address that.

I welcome that the Bill will be prioritised by the justice committee. I also welcome the timed amendment by the Government. I hope we can work over the course of the next year to strengthen these provisions and ensure legislation is enacted in this area.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, the Minister of State, in his closing remarks, made reference to a money message being required. This Bill does not require a money message, full stop, and anybody in the Department or in government who thinks this type of legislation does require it is deluding himself or herself. Money messages should not be used as a kind of veto card for Private Members' legislation.

Mark Wall (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to sit again?

Malcolm Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At 2.30 p.m next Tuesday.