Amendment No. 1 in the names of Senators Mullen and Keogan has been ruled out of order.
Health (Termination of Pregnancy Services) (Safe Access Zones) Bill 2023: Report and Final Stages
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, line 19, after “practitioner” to insert the following:
"(other than a general practitioner who has notified the Minister that the practitioner does not wish the premises at which he or she provides healthcare services to be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be a relevant healthcare premises)".
I second the amendment.
With this amendment, we propose to insert the following text into the Bill:
(other than a general practitioner who has notified the Minister that the practitioner does not wish the premises at which he or she provides healthcare services to be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be a relevant healthcare premises)
Including this line on page 4, line 19 is to provide for the definition of "relevant healthcare provider" and that where that includes a general practitioner, it would, therefore, exclude any general practitioner who had notified the Minister in the terms I have just outlined. The effect of that would be to provide for a GP with a conscientious objection to the provision of the service in question who does not want to be in any way, shape or form to be used in the context of any threat by the Garda of prosecution or any attempt to move people on - people who are engaging in legitimate and respectful freedom of expression - in order that there would not be anomalous situation whereby a general practitioner who agrees 100% with the concerns being expressed would find themselves at risk of being used for the purposes of the prosecution of a law he or she regards as unjust in the first place. You could describe it as the "not in my name" amendment.
This is a very straightforward issue. It is quite clear that this legislation is unprecedented. It interferes with normal freedom of expression in a very surprising and unexpected way. It puts at risk of public harassment by the gardaí or otherwise or the forces of law and order people who see themselves as solid and responsible citizens objecting to something they regard as a breach of fundamental authentic human rights. It is all the more appropriate that those who are practising medicine in good faith and good conscience and honouring, as many do not, the Hippocratic oath and the time-honoured principle of doing no harm and doing as much good as possible, but first doing no harm - primum non nocere - could be separated from any possible implication in the workings of this law.
That is the proposal. I had set out on Committee Stage that I would be tabling these amendments again on Report Stage. Most of them with the exception of the first I withdrew precisely so that the Department and the Minister would have time to consider what are in my view and that of many others reasonable proposals that seek to mitigate the worst effects of this strange and unprecedented new law. This is a law that I believe to be of doubtful constitutionality, and I have said so before. If the Minister wants to propose this law, he should only do so where he seeks to reassure people that he is seeking to limit its scope and not to embarrass or compromise any people who have objections in good faith to the procedures at the heart of this legislation.
What appears to be proposed here is an opt-out for service providers. From the outset, there has been a core policy principle that the legislation would not forcibly highlight or identify the specific service sites where termination of pregnancy is being provided and it would allow them to continue in relative anonymity where preferred. To accept this amendment would risk undermining that principle and, therefore, I will not be accepting it. It should also be remembered that the psychological impact of these protests extends beyond those availing of termination services to stillbirth, pregnancy loss and neonatal death.
Not for the first time, I am disappointed with the Minister's response. The problem is that the Minister does not address the core of the purpose of the proposed amendment. His latter point about those who might be distressed by any reasonable witness is the premise of the Bill. This Bill seeks to limit freedom of expression on the grounds that certain other people may profess to be offended, hurt or wounded by it. It is entirely possible to make clear, and this has been said on many occasions by Garda authorities, that in respect of any wrongdoing that arises in the context of these protests, and we are living in an era of protest and an era where there is a lot of debate about the extent and the way in which An Garda Síochána goes about prosecuting its tasks, the support it deserves and the necessary restraint it will also choose to show precisely because it respects people's right to protest, that the notion of people's right to protest or even to witness respectfully is completely absent from the spirit underlying this legislation. I will no doubt return to what has been said by Garda authorities during the course of our discussion about subsequent amendments. The Minister's additional point does not address the purpose of this amendment.
It is nonsensical for the Minister to present the whole policy objective of preventing the identification of any person who is in the position of providing the services at issue as justification for failing to provide for somebody who specifically wants to opt in and notify the Minister that he or she does not want in any way to be involved or used as an excuse for the curtailment of reasonable protest or witnessing. The idea is that we do not want any premises mentioned in the process, but what if the premises itself wants to mention or at least to break out from its own anonymity precisely because it does not want a situation where some officious bystander approaches nearby gardaí, who are busy enough trying to deal with many problems in our country, wants to create hassle or harass using the law two or three respectful respectable citizens who nonetheless have a deep conscientious concern about the breach of human rights going on at the heart of all of this and draws the attention of those gardaí to the fact there is a general practice within 80 m of where this protest is happening?
The general practice in question might be among the great majority who are not opting in to the provision of this service and might fully agree that what is being protested against is not good medicine, should not happen, is damaging doctor-patient relationships and is undermining authentic healthcare in the country. The Minister does not even see fit to allow that such a general practitioner can say "not in my name" and put it clearly on the record that they are not to be used, invoked or instrumentalised in the prosecution of this new law, which we regard as unjust.
This goes to the heart of the complete failure of the Minister, the Government and the Department of Health to respect that there is a legitimate difference of opinion going on in this country around these controversial services, a difference of opinion between people who regard them as so-called healthcare and those who regard these termination of pregnancy services as the antithesis of good healthcare. The Minister, the Department and the Government will not even tolerate that somebody in medicine completely disagrees, wants to completely dissociate, and does not want in any way to be used in the prosecution of this legislation. The fact he or she may not be enabled shows the intolerance and the cancel culture that is at the heart of this Government's approach to all of these issues around termination of pregnancy services. As I have said before, the aim is not really to protect anybody here. If it was, we would have heard from the Garda, which would have said there is disturbance of the peace or harassment going on which it has been prosecuting. Not only has the Garda said there is nothing happening that requires new laws, but it has not had anything to enforce even in respect of the laws that exist. That shows the intolerance of this Government, that it is basically not out to protect anybody at all here. It is not out to protect people availing of termination of pregnancy services. It is out to cancel and to eliminate legitimate opposition and dissent to what is going on.
That is what has the Government, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Green Party and, let it be said, Sinn Féin and the parties on the left in the dock in the eyes of an increasing number of citizens of this country. We saw it in the result of the referendum. You want to control what people think and say in a manner that is not befitting of a democracy, in a matter that is entirely unconstitutional. The big woke trick is always to dress it up bogusly and dishonestly as some form of compassion, except in this case you cannot even produce evidence that anybody has been wronged. We all know the reality is there are actually very few protests. There is very little witnessing going on. That is because of the nature of this service. There are not designated clinics in the country providing this service so people who access healthcare in whatever setting do so quite anonymously as regards the healthcare they are accessing. Even when what they are accessing is not bona fide healthcare but a service that cannot be properly designated as healthcare because it ends an innocent human life, that is not something the person who might be witnessing outside or engaging in any kind of lawful protest can know and it is perfectly desirable that they should not know it. The whole aim of the witnessing that is going on is never to target any person. It is to target an unjust service. It is to further the conversation in our society about the injustice of this procedure. The only evidence the Minister was able to draw was not evidence at all. It was a letter from the HSE and it was the claims of an advocacy group that is not even supported by the local hospital in the place it was advocating. We have these claims that people are being harassed and unjustly treated but actually there is no evidence of it whatsoever. If there was evidence of it, we would know about it from the Garda.
On a point of information, as with many things the Senator has said, what he has just said is entirely false. The evidence was presented from the HSE. It was not referencing civil society groups. It was a considered, formal submission to the Oireachtas by the HSE and it referenced widespread feedback from its own employees, doctors and nurses throughout the country. The record will show that when this was presented, the Senator went on to describe not just the Government as corrupt but the HSE as a corrupt institution, and decried our doctors and nurses as liars. I just want to make sure it is very clear that there is evidence, the great irony being of course that the only - we are not allowed say "lie" but whatever the appropriate word is, a Leas-Chathaoirligh - that is emanating so far today comes, in fact, from Senator Mullen. That is all on the record and documented.
I thank the Minister for his intervention but of course he is the one who is misleading not just this House but the public, as he has done all along. As I have pointed out, the Minister's approach to all of this when truth and facts are presented to him is reminiscent of the Borg in Star Trek. I get the glazed eye, the refusal to point to specific information, the computer says no, "I am on board with abortion advocates, I am in their pocket, I will do their bidding." However, when the facts are put to the Minister, when his incompetence and indeed the corruption of this particular task by the Minister and his cohort in the Department of Health is exposed-----
Senator Mullen, you need to be careful in your language. The Minister is in the House-----
I have said on the record that there is something corrupt about the Government's treatment of this issue. I have to say that, in all honesty.
I ask you to be careful of your language in terms of Members but also Ministers who come to this House.
I have always said and I will say it again that I have nothing personal against the Minister at all. I have nothing but contempt, I am sorry to say, for the way he does his job, specifically on this issue. He is not in the service of truth or good healthcare. He has acted in a way that completely disregards. Privately he says he will meet anybody, but his only approach ever on this issue has been to meet with advocacy groups on abortion and he has refused to meet pro-life advocacy groups or experts. That shows at a minimum incompetence, certainly an element of arrogance in the Department's approach to this issue, a lack of respect for democracy, a lack of respect for the principles of inclusivity and a consultative approach, and all the things you would expect for normal business. Normal business does not apply when it comes to abortion advocacy because this Government, this Department and this Minister are in the hands of a very corrupt and tendentious agenda. If you needed proof of it, it was the Minister's promise to have a public consultation before the appointment of an independent person to conduct a three-year review of the abortion legislation. We got a denial and a rejection and a reneging on that promise because it was a closed appointment and the person who was appointed was not even independent but had skin in the game in terms of abortion advocacy. That shows the level of honesty - not - of this Government when it comes to dealing with this issue.
It is perfectly possible for me to say I have nothing personal against Deputy Stephen Donnelly but the way he has handled this issue has been a disaster. It has cost thousands of lives. We now have 10,000 abortions happening a year. That is a tragedy. It can only be described in terms of its being a holocaust. We have seen nothing like it in our country since the famine. He and the previous Minister for Health are responsible for that. We are in a very grave situation. When he says I lie by suggesting he has produced no evidence, he has produced no evidence.
I put it to the Minister that a submission from the HSE is not evidence. The Minister can give me evidence that he has a submission from the HSE. Yes, he has evidence of a submission, but it is a submission that makes claims and which claims to have concerned doctors and nurses and he will not show any of it to us. This would not happen in any other area of medicine. It would not happen in any other Department, but this Government's approach is to obfuscate and, if necessary, to lie. We saw this in the run-up to the heavily defeated referendum proposals as well. A public consultation was carried out, and despite repeated requests, we never got the results of the public consultation until after the referendums had taken place. Those public consultations showed that nobody really wanted the referendums anyway except a few NGOs, but it did not suit the Government for that information to be known so it hid it. This is the way the Government goes on. It obfuscates and it denies. The HSE, for which the Minister has ultimate responsibility, cooked up a submission at the Minister's request and the Minister pretends that somehow it constitutes evidence. The Minister has not produced evidence and he has not quoted a single thing. The Minister has not quoted anybody except an advocacy group that is itself discredited, which has a highly tendentious approach and is in denial about all sorts of realities relating to termination of pregnancy services. The Minister can say as much as he likes - Borg-like - that he is telling the truth and that I am lying, but his inability to produce a shred of evidence when invited repeatedly to do so lays bare the moral and political bankruptcy of his position. The Minister can just smile glibly through it all and then turn to the Chair every now and again when he does not like what I am saying to ask whether or not I can say it, but it has to be said.
The Minister's handling of his brief in this area is an absolute disgrace and it is a tragedy. The Minister will not be viewed well in history. The Minister has a job for a few years as a Deputy and he is currently a Minister, which is great and I congratulate him and I wish him well in all his duties, but when I see him doing evil things in his brief I must call him out on that. This is an evil thing because it costs lives and it endangers people's safety. It endangers free speech and endangers freedom of expression, and it is the antithesis of democratic practice. I could be the Minister's best friend and meet him in a pub tonight but I would have to call him out on this. The Minister has to be called out on it because he is acting wrongly and in a way that is quite unprecedented.
Although he may seek to claim that he has produced evidence and that it is a lie for me to say otherwise, it is the Minister who is misleading the world in claiming he has some kind of evidence. The Minister has a document from the HSE and he has not quoted a single medical practitioner here today. On Committee Stage I quoted to the Minister - and will quote again now - that the Garda Commissioner made it clear some years ago there was no need for extra law. If I recall correctly, the Commissioner said the law was there in the Statute Book to deal with anything that would need to be dealt with if people were behaving inappropriately in the context of protests. We have no evidence of the Garda even moving people on, much less instigating a prosecution. We have no evidence, therefore, that those responsible for trying to keep the peace in our society, to protect the vulnerable and to secure good citizenship have any problem with the absence of this legislation. Then the Minister tries to claim this is about preventing people from being hurt and upset, but the Minister has nobody he can quote other than a pro-abortion advocacy group. The Minister tries to claim he has a document from the HSE that says this is needed. We know what goes on in Government and we know the way they order up reports and advice to suit their agenda. That is not evidence and it is not evidence of a kind that any reasonable voting citizen has the right to expect. I ask the Minister to please not insult our intelligence by suggesting he has evidence when he does not. I ask that he would not disrespect people by misleading them to the extent he is seeking to mislead them today.
Before we continue I welcome to the Seanad Chamber Deputy Richard O'Donoghue and his wife Kay, who is the boss, along with Gillian, Joan, and Niamh. They are most welcome to Seanad Éireann. I thank them for being here.
I will not respond on behalf of myself but the Senator has described me, the Government and all sorts of people as corrupt and liars and in the pockets of people for some bizarre reason. As the Minister for Health, I must object to the Senator describing officials within the HSE, and by association my Department, and our own doctors and nurses as corrupt. The Senator has just very clearly asserted on the record that the HSE has produced a false document under pressure of Government. He stated it very clearly and it is there for all to see. I am so used to these horrific, nasty, small, insidious and insipid accusations from the Senator on this that you would be tempted to just let them flow over us because ultimately we will pass this legislation very shortly, but as Minister for Health-----
I referred to the process-----
-----I must be very clear on the record that while I am not interested in Senator Mullen's accusations against me or the Government, his accusations against my officials, against the HSE, against doctors and nurses, and against first-person testimony by GPs here, and that it is somehow cooked up and being brought by identifiable officials in the HSE as a lie that the Government is pressuring them to do, are simply outrageous. I know he will not retract these accusations and I would not waste my time trying, but it is important we put on the record of Seanad Éireann that everything he has just said is verifiably false. If the Senator had a shred of integrity, he would withdraw the accusations, but we will not hold our breath.
The Minister again has misrepresented what I said. I spoke about the corruption of the process. I believe the Minister's officials are victims of a corrupt Government approach.
As I said at the start, the proposer of an amendment can come back in once on Report Stage.
I do not agree with Senator Mullen's amendment, but as I have said before, we need to be respectful in the language we use here. I consider Senator Mullen as somebody with the height of integrity, as I do the Minister, and surely to God we can have a debate here that is respectful and careful in language. That is all I have to say.
I am a little bit sorry to see this debate going the way it is at the moment, with neither colleague having respect for each other's view, which is a shame. This amendment provides an opt-out for general practitioners who do not wish their GP surgeries to automatically become a safe access zone by notifying the Minister of Health. We are aware that most GPs do not want to provide abortion and the majority are not offering abortions at the moment by exercising their right to conscientious objection. Therefore, I find the automatic inclusion under this Bill of all GPs, including those run by ardently pro-life doctors, as safe access zones to be bizarre and unfair. Consider, for example, a pro-life doctor whose practice is in his or her home or next door to his or her own home. Under the current legislation they would be in breach of the law if they put a pro-life sticker on their car or on their window. When a healthcare worker forms an opinion that abortion is not healthcare but is the ending of a life, it is wrong to compel that healthcare worker to perform an abortion against his or her will. It violates the Hippocratic oath of medicine.
Respecting doctors' rights to opt out should be acknowledged and supported by this Bill. If people are genuinely pro-choice, they should respect the doctor's right to opt out of this Bill. I find it astonishing because every day this Government seems to be so out of touch with what the public is asking it to do. Every single day, more and more the Government is moving away from the people it governs. I do not like this society we are becoming. I really do not.
It only happens by talk, negotiations and by pleasing people along the way. The Minister does not seem to have made any effort to listen to the other voices in this. Also, he has failed to publish any evidence he has had from An Garda Síochána or any other advice he had.
It is a public document.
There has been no evidence to say-----
The Senator can google it.
-----that this legislation is needed.
The Senator can google it. It is there.
It can be managed within the current legislation we have if there are any violations in terms of protests. This legislation is not needed because if there are people in protests behaving badly, there is legislation to deal with that currently. Is there or is there not legislation to deal with that, Minister? There is. That can clearly be seen by the protest down in Newtownmountkennedy last weekend. There is legislation to deal with people behaving badly within society. They can be dealt with if it is turning violent in some way but these protests are not violent. They are silent and prayerful. I am a little disappointed with the Minister that we are not going to have a respectful debate for the next hour and a half. There is a refusal to listen to those alternative voices and there are many of us within Ireland.
Amendment put.
Vótáil.
Will the Senators claiming a division please rise?
Senators Sharon Keogan and Rónán Mullen rose.
As fewer than five Members have risen, I declare the amendment lost. In accordance with Standing Order 61 the names of the Senators dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Seanad.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 7 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 6, lines 10 and 11, to delete “within 100 metres of an entrance to either House of the Oireachtas”.
I second the amendment.
Amendment No. 3 proposes: "In page 6, lines 10 and 11 to delete the words "within 100 metres of an entrance to either House of the Oireachtas"." Amendment No. 4 proposes: "In page 6, lines 12 and 13, to delete ", within that 100 metres"." That is obviously connected to amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 7, which is consequential on the acceptance of amendments Nos. 3 and 4, proposes the deletion of lines 20 to 23 on page 6.
Let us get into the detail of what we are talking about. We are talking about section 3(1), which states:
Nothing in section 2(2) shall prohibit a person from engaging in lawful protest, advocacy or dissent within 100 metres of an entrance to either House of the Oireachtas, provided such protest, advocacy or dissent is not directed at a specific relevant healthcare premise, or persons accessing a relevant healthcare premises, within that 100 metres.
These amendments would basically extend the freedom of a person to engage in lawful protest. I stress the word "lawful" here. This is about encroaching on what otherwise would be considered lawful protest, not unlawful protest or protest that could cause a disturbance of the peace or that would harass or endanger a person, etc. This is about restricting protests, advocacy and dissent that would otherwise be lawful. It is clearly written here that this legislation aims at curbing dissent. In order to prevent such dissent from being unlawful within 100 m of the entrance to either House of the Oireachtas, the legislation seeks to say so. That word "dissent" is a big giveaway. That is why I invite the Minister to reflect on what he said in exchanges with me before the vote. He seems to take it very personally that I am going in so hard on him and his Department. I am not doing it in any personal way. I take no offence at anything he has said to me here today, except for one word. He upset me and cut me to the quick when he suggested that what I was saying was insipid. I would absolutely hate to ever have my speech described as insipid. Other than that, he is absolutely entitled to push back as strongly as he believes necessary. However, as I have already said, I need to push him hard on this because there is corruption in this process. This is corrupt thinking. It is not financially corrupt. I am not suggesting he is a dishonest person in his dealings, but his handling of his brief in this area speaks to corruption at the heart of Government, a corruption of the public good. He is restricting people's basic freedoms and trying to crush dissent. That is what is so unprecedented. I wish it to be said that I have no issue personally with the Minister or indeed with his officials, but everyone involved in this is colluding with something that is deeply wrong and harmful and in a way that is endangering life.
The crushing of dissent around abortion is about securing a public attitude that never suggests there is anything regrettable about abortion. Back in the 1990s, Mr. Bill Clinton and Ms Hillary Clinton were in the vanguard in the Clinton administration pushing abortion. Their way at the time of sanitising what they were doing was to say they wanted abortion to be safe, legal and rare. That kind of language is not used anymore by pro-abortion advocates or indeed their facilitators in government, which includes the Minister and his officials, who, I believe, are victimised by this process because people have jobs and have to do the bidding of their masters and mistresses in government. There is something deeply wrong going on here when all of our law and all of our public policy refuses to express it as desideratum. They refuse to express it even as a desideratum, not a legal necessity, that abortions should be rare.
Nobody says that anymore, because the Government is on board with promoting the idea and with the agenda of people who want to crush any memory that there was ever public or personal disquiet about abortion.
There are many facilitators of that agenda. I recently had reason in this House to criticise the "RTÉ Investigates" documentary that completely ignored all the concerns about precautionary pain relief and the lack of it, the reality of what happens in a late-term abortion and the major moral and social question about what it is to destroy a human life, whether at an early or late stage, in the womb. On all of that, since the repeal of the eighth amendment and the introduction of legislation for abortion, the attitude of the Government has been to say this is a good thing and that it will not try to talk about trying to reduce the number of abortions. I have never heard the Minister talk about that. He will surprise and delight me today if he says he thinks it should be a policy objective to reduce the number of abortions, but I have never heard him say that. I have never heard Simon Harris or any of the people in the Government say it, because they are on board with the agenda of those who believe it is a good thing.
If that is not corruption, what is? It is a corruption of the good. Corruptio optimi pessima, the corruption of the best is the worst thing, and that is what we have seen in recent years. Those who previously had party platforms that defended the right of every human being to live have been corrupted and pursue a corrupt and evil policy that smiles on the destruction of innocent human life. That is why I have to challenge the Government when it has no evidence worth speaking of that suggests this legislation is in any way needed to protect people accessing services that are now legal. The constitutional and social justification for this legislation is absolutely threadbare. It is about crushing dissent, no more and no less.
That is why I have to challenge the Minister in the terms in which I do. I really wish he would rethink his position on abortion and stop with this harmful legislation. I had hoped the lesson imparted by voters to the Government on referendum day recently would have made it wonder whether it is losing touch with ordinary people, overcentralising, pushing an arrogant agenda, and listening only to the few and ignoring the concerns of the many.
Insofar as it should be possible for people to engage in lawful protest anywhere within 100 m of Leinster House, regardless of the proximity of a building or place where terminations of pregnancy are carried out, that same level of protection should apply to all lawful protest, advocacy or dissent. Likewise, our amendment promotes a saver, namely, it provides that such debate, protest, advocacy or dissent must not be directed at a specific relevant healthcare premises or persons accessing a relevant healthcare premises. Here we have an offer of a compromise, which the Minister and his team have completely ignored. This issue should unite not just people who have concerns about abortion although, obviously, they are very upset at the attempt in this legislation to crush their dissent. Rather, this legislation should be of concern to anybody who values and cherishes free speech and freedom of expression. I recall the famous words of the German pastor Martin Niemöller. It is from a different time and context but it was also a very dark time, when thousands of people were losing their lives. His words were formed into a poem:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
That was based on Pastor Niemöller’s words after the Second World War about his own early complicity with what the Nazi regime did and his eventual change of heart. These are powerful words about guilt and responsibility, which are frequently drawn on wherever such questions of guilt and responsibility arise and whenever the issue of failing to show solidarity with other people arises. I am not just talking about solidarity with the unborn here, although there is clearly a parallel. Abortion has been called the modern Holocaust. I think 100 million abortions have taken place in Britain since its legalisation in 1967, if memory serves. Abortion rates have shot up radically in Ireland since the introduction of the legislation following the repeal of the eighth amendment. I recall that at the time of the abortion referendum there was a great reluctance on the part of the media to consider whether the eighth amendment had saved lives, and data was produced to show it had actually saved thousands of lives. That data was challenged and an advertising agency upheld the right to present it, but it is clear that because the law protected life, lives would be saved. That is almost a truism.
Certainly, since the repeal of the eighth amendment, we have seen a tragic increase in the number of abortions year on year. I calculated at one stage that there had been an increase of between 40% and 75% on the previous rate of abortions, when it was mostly women travelling to Britain for abortions. If we add in the Government's estimates about the number of people importing abortion pills, take those figures and look at what has happened post repeal, we see a massive increase. That is an indictment of the media and all those who refused at the time to engage with the question as to whether a change in the law would lead to an increase in the loss of life. People who were very adept at claiming Ireland was exporting its problems by not having an abortion facility in Ireland while not preventing other people from travelling elsewhere to avail of one were never challenged, except to the extent that the prohibition of abortion meant that while it might have been regrettable that anybody was procuring an abortion, at least the rate of that was lower because it was not legal in Ireland.
When we think of the talent that has been lost to Irish society, the personal tragedies in each case and the women who, in some cases, perhaps in many cases, have been hurt by the experience of abortion and suffer from abortion regret - not everybody, of course, but some do - and when we think of the loss of life, the loss of opportunity, the miracle that life is and the chance each one of us, including the Minister and me, has had, it is a miracle we are here at all. It is great to have this chance to live. We rightly discourage suicide in our society because we rightly want to stress the message that however difficult or challenging life is, it is still a wonderful thing and it is still something we should always make the most of and be thankful for. The reason people protest against abortion is that that chance and opportunity is taken away from an innocent person.
The point I wanted to make in referring to Martin Niemöller is that he reflected on the fact he had not spoken out when he was not the one being targeted.
If we do not show solidarity with each other, then sooner or later there will be nobody left to stand up for us.
One of the very problematic issues at the heart of this legislation is that it is classically woke in its approach. Recently, I heard the Taoiseach say he did not know what the word "woke" means, but everybody knows what it means. It relates to a certain set of grievances or arguments around perceived injustices. In the making of those arguments, those who claim that injustice brook no dissent and will restrict other people's right to even speak in opposition to their point of view. The woke agenda is characterised by absolute intolerance of the expression of another point of view. This is why this legislation is woke in the worst sense. It seeks to crush dissent. It seeks to prevent the expression of the opposing point of view.
The idea that the Government can do anything to restrict behaviour that was previously legitimate or restrict freedoms, including freedom of expression, has many people worried. This legislation is not supported by the Garda and cannot be said to be required in any way by the Garda. There is no basis for it in the context of the Government producing evidence of instances where people have done wrong. If the Government can propose the restriction of freedom in the absence of evidence in the way this is being done, then people are entitled to wonder whether it has any bottom line. Is there anybody's freedom that it would not be happy to restrict? At some future date, would it restrict legitimate protest outside the Dáil or try to do so? Would it restrict protests by trade unions? Would it move towards ever-more restriction of legitimate protest?
The attack on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly that is going on in the legislation cannot be divorced from the other concerns that people have to the effect that their right to express a point of view is being closed down or, at least, that we have a Government that is more than willing to close down their point of view. It makes me wonder whether the Minister would serve in any regime and crush freedom of speech and freedom of expression in the way he is doing here. This is why I say there is real corruption at the heart of this. The Minister is attacking something that is of fundamental importance in a democracy.
The amendments are of critical importance. As I and others have noted during the course of the debate, both inside and outside Houses, the Bill has a deeply totalitarian undercurrent. Its enactment would severely damage and limit legitimate constitutional rights, including the right to protest and freedom of expression. In the past, some have attempted to portray the Bill, like the hate speech Bill, as an effort to address the extremities of freedom of expression. There is a debate to be had on where the limits of legitimate speech and expression begin and end, but the Bill has, from the get-go, attempted to distort its true impact by referring to extreme cases. In fact, it will impact the most ordinary forms of expression of viewpoints. It will criminalise a particular ethical and human rights-grounded worldview. For this reason, it is discriminatory.
Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 7 are an effort to challenge the severity of the Bill. The Bill remains inherently discriminatory and is, therefore, unacceptable in a supposedly democratic republic. It has been pointed out several times that even Garda Commissioner Drew Harris felt that specific safe zone access areas legislation was gratuitous due to the existence of public order laws. This very rational and correct observation by the Garda Commissioner was dismissed at the time. When the Minister, Deputy Donnelly, spoke in this House on 10 February 2022 he said that a view had been expressed to him through the avenue of legal opinion, and held by An Garda Síochána, that additional powers were not required and the current powers were sufficient. The Minister stated that this was not a view he agreed with or accepted. He said the Government was legislating and that this was happening. This showed a serious arrogance from the Minister, in addition to showing that he cares more about ideological point scoring then he does about the expert opinion of our national police force. His comments also undermined the authority of An Garda Síochána. In the same debate, the Minister said An Garda Síochána believed it had comprehensive powers.
I refer to these comments because they are indicative of the Government's cynical attitude towards the public. The Government got a very rude awakening with the results of the referendums held on 8 March. They showed that the public is not being led by the nose by the NGOs, which are self-appointed oracles of the general will. The Bill before the House is yet another example of the Government deliberately confusing the views of the public at large with the fringe and unrepresentative views of hard-core lobby groups and NGOs.
Without amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 7, there is no guarantee the Bill would not criminalise people who organise protests, marches or other events in cities and towns throughout Ireland. The Government is keen to deceptively depict such protests or marches as some sort of mob descending on a GP clinic or a hospital. That is not what I am referring to, however. I am referring to the fact that at present it is physically impossible to organise a march to go from one end of O'Connell Street to the other without inadvertently or unwittingly falling within the 100 m zone as a building would be designated as a safe access zone.
I take O'Connell Street as an example because it is a pertinent street in our capital city. It is regularly the site of protests, marches and public activities. This is right and good in a free society. The GPO was captured in 1916 and a republic was proclaimed by Pádraig Pearse and others. The idea was to establish a democratic republic that would guarantee religious and civic liberties, equal rights and equal opportunities for all our citizens.
The Bill is repugnant to a principle espoused in the Proclamation of the Irish Republic because it actively discriminates against one section of the public, namely those who hold a pro-life, ethical and moral outlook and who wish to express this in public, as is their right. Today, the Government has betrayed the republican idea that we live in a free country that cherishes all the children of the nation equally. The Bill would criminalise legitimate protest and pro-life activity that happens unwittingly to pass by a designated premises. In Dublin each year there is a march for life. There is one next week. It attracts 1,000 or more participants who pass peacefully through the city centre. If the Bill is enacted, there are concerns that events such as the march for life would be prescribed on a purely ideological basis.
The response to such concerns has mostly been to ignore them. Instead there is a laser focus on the inflated issue of harassment, which, it is said, cannot be tackled in any way other than through the Bill. This is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. In some cases these concerns have been dismissed as not falling within the intention of the Bill. We all know this is how the law works. Dismissing this awkward implication of the Bill as not being the intention of its authors reminds me strongly of that famous neologism "durable relationship". The most recent effort to introduce widely ambiguous wording into our Constitution got a serious drubbing in the referendum on 8 March.
It was well deserved. Most of my colleagues in this House were happy to try to spoof the electorate with promises that such ambiguous wording was a small price to pay to modernise the Constitution, but their reckless rush to amend our Constitution was decisively rejected by the electorate. Now we are seeing yet another attempt here today to dismiss serious concerns about the Orwellian overreach of this Bill by simply refusing to engage with the points raised by these amendments.
I want to bring us back to what it is we are doing with this legislation. I would like to read first-person testimony from a Dublin midwife:
Dear Stephen, I am a midwife working in a Dublin maternity hospital. Every day I am faced with anti-abortion protests. This morning I am looking at six men, for most of the time they are men - very rarely do I see a woman. They are being peaceful but I find it very upsetting that they are allowed stand so close to us. What is happening with the exclusion zones? Surely I can come to work and do my job without having this problem every day? I am in a clinic where I sometimes give the news to a patient that her baby has no heartbeat. As I comfort her, I am aware that these men are outside the window and that she will see them. Can I ask you to please urgently bring forward laws to implement the exclusion zones?
That is what we are doing here. We are not seeking to stop people protesting outside the Oireachtas. We are not seeking to stop people marching. Senator Keogan has raised a legitimate concern, and it has been looked at. I asked the same questions myself to make sure that people could march through Dublin. I received clear assurance that would be compliant with the law because no offence can be committed until a formal warning has been issued by a Garda. For example, if marchers decided they were only going to march around the Rotunda, then clearly that is a protest affecting people walking in and out of the Rotunda. No offence at that point is committed. The Garda would issue a warning to cease and an offence would only be committed if, having received the warning, they refused to comply with that warning. It does not affect marches. I appreciate the Senator raising that point so that we could clarify it.
The Bill is about this midwife being able to treat women who sometimes are in a very vulnerable space, without six men standing outside the window with placards. That is ultimately what this is about. I have other testimony from GPs around the country talking about the protests outside their surgeries. I have complete respect for everyone's views regarding termination of pregnancy. It is probably the most difficult issue we legislate for and deal with. I do not believe there is a right answer to this. We do the best we can. My view is that women should have access to termination services. However, I fully respect views right across the board on this.
My points with regard to my officials and the HSE is that direct accusations of corruption were being made against officials. I do not care what accusations are made against me. I do not mind. However, I have to speak on behalf of this midwife and the GPs because it is being alleged in this Chamber that they are lying. It is being alleged here that this testimony is false testimony and that either I made it up or my officials made it up, or that someone is masquerading as a Dublin midwife. This is a legitimate testimony directly to me from one of our midwives. She is speaking the truth. My belief is that she needs to be able to go to work every day without feeling intimidated and harassed, and the women she helps, and indeed their partners, deserve that same dignity and privacy. That is the only reason we are here.
My second last point is that it has been alleged that we are not doing anything to try to reduce the number of abortions or termination services that are required. I have never met anyone who said this was something that they wanted in their lives. This is something that women are faced with. It is a service they must have access to. In terms of reducing unplanned pregnancies, the House will be aware that we have taken a very considerable option. In fact, we introduced free contraception for women, which is now available right up to the age of 35. I have no doubt that is already making a big difference. In fact, in 2023 approximately 200,000 young women in Ireland availed of the free contraception services. We take that part of our responsibilities very seriously in healthcare. Women need access to termination of pregnancy services. They also need access to the full range of contraception services. They need them for free. They need full access to their GPs, checkups with their GPs and full access to the services pharmacists provide. This Government is proud of the fact that we have provided those services. I want to recognise there has been a great deal of support around the Houses, both in the Government and in the Opposition, for that.
Specifically on amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 7, which deal with exemption for lawful protest within 100 m of entrances to either House of the Oireachtas, it is essential that protest is allowed within 100 m of the Oireachtas. The reason we have this in the Bill is in order that, if there was a service provider within 100 m of the Oireachtas, that could create a zone where people may feel they could not protest. We are making it clear that in fact they can protest within 100 m of the Oireachtas even if that is within 100 m of a service provider. For that reason I will not be accepting amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 7.
A number of issues in what the Minister had to say merit a response. Most striking was when he said it has been alleged that the Government is not doing anything to reduce the number of abortions. He immediately pivoted to saying the Government is committed to reducing the amount of unplanned pregnancies. Those are two very different things. It is of course the case that if you seek to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, that hopefully will lead to a reduction in the number of abortions.
However, the Minister needs to be more honest than he has been there, because he is not in any way committed to reducing the number of abortions directly. It was previously public policy to do so. When abortion referral information was made illegal in 1996, there were clear measures providing that it would be the policy to seek to reduce the number of abortions. That was there in writing. It was a message that was promulgated by the healthcare authorities in this country. That has changed and the Minister should be honest enough to admit that it has changed because, as I pointed out, nobody is allowed to say that abortions are regrettable or that they should be as rare as possible and nobody is allowed to say that we should have policy that encourages women to keep their babies, yet the reality is that many women who have had abortions report feeling that they had no choice because they were unsupported. It would be possible for the Minister and the Government to have a policy that says abortion is legal but it will do its best to encourage people not to have abortions because each time an abortion takes place, a life is lost. The Minister will not face up and use that language honestly. He will not say it is regrettable that that life is lost because either he does not believe it is life we are dealing with, or he does not believe that this is human life that is worthy of protection.
The Minister will not use that kind of language. He will talk about how people insist that this is a service, and he will call it a "service" and call it "healthcare" to sanitise it but he will not face up to the truth of what is going on. If he cared about reducing the number of abortions, he would not just be talking about reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies. He would be talking about the need to ensure women are offered positive alternatives to abortion. He does not use that kind of language. We recently had a case, did we not, where somebody nearly died because they had an ectopic pregnancy and that was not picked up, because when they went for an abortion, there was no-----
I do not want to interrupt the Senator but we are on amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 7 which are dealing specifically with the right to protest within 100 m of an entrance. I ask the Senator to please keep it relevant to that.
I point out to the Cathaoirleach I am responding to the Minister's points very directly here, because as I was saying, a person nearly lost their life. The reason this nearly happened is because it is not in any way required as part of the provision of abortion services that ultrasound would be offered. That amendment was tabled at the time of the abortion legislation. The party of which the Minister is a member was not in government in time, as far as I can recall. That amendment was rejected. I am sorry, the Minister's party was in a confidence and supply arrangement. That is what we have as a result of having a law that does not seek in any way to encourage the protection of human life by offering positive alternatives as a matter of public policy. Offering ultrasound might lead to a conclusion there is a human life there that needs to be protected. As I said, the absence of such ultrasound even endangers women, but such is the ideology around promoting abortion, that is not even to be tolerated.
I have pointed out previously there are some late-term abortions. There is a question about whether precautionary pain relief should be in play. There is a question about what happens when a baby is born in late term under the permitted procedures now in the legislation and left to die. Barbaric stuff is happening and it does not seem to trouble the Minister’s conscience and it does not seem to trouble his Government’s conscience. That is why I find the Minister's purported concern for people at the heart of all this to be so lacking. He refuses to face up to the reality of what is going on with abortions and he refuses to talk about abortion being regrettable and it being a desirable thing that we would reduce the number of abortions. We should have a policy that encourages women to keep their babies where crisis pregnancy occurs and to ensure they are offered all the necessary supports. None of that is part of public policy and the Minister should be honest enough to come out and say it.
As for the letter from the midwife he quoted, I have never, on the record of this House, denied there have been a small number of protests. The number of protests are, as I have said, small. They are small because we do not have direct abortion facilities. We have something worse, namely, the corruption of the entire medical profession by stitching in abortion as a healthcare service. As a result, there is the situation that somebody who is protesting against the provision of abortion in a healthcare facility has no way of knowing who is going to avail of that. They also have no way of knowing who is going in to provide that service. I did not deny what occurs and I would not. I wish there was more witnessing, because if there was positive witnessing, it might lead some people to avail of the help that is there, save the lives of unborn children and reduce the abortion regret that is there for many women who have had abortions. It would be a positive thing if there was more public witnessing to the value of every human life and the availability of support and love to those who are feeling very unaccompanied, unsupported and who may be rushing in to have an abortion. I have not denied there are people who witness occasionally, nor have I denied there is anybody at all who is upset by it or who resents it.
The language the Minister used was that of a midwife who accepted people were being peaceful and the phrase he used was “feeling intimidated and harassed”, but if he uses the criminal law to prevent other people’s peaceful freedom of expression on the basis that no more than one person somewhere might say they feel intimidated and harassed, then I cannot but conclude he has no respect for human freedom. If he can put the law on me because somebody says they feel intimidated and harassed by my peaceful behaviour that is not targeted at them personally, then he has shown his lack of commitment to democracy. I really think the Minister would serve in any regime, fascist or Chinese Communist Party. He will enforce any law if he tries to enforce this. He has no respect for democracy. He has no respect for fundamental freedoms. What he is doing on this issue is worthy of a fascist or a communist regime. That is the reality. That is why I talk about corruption. I advise any civil servant who is upset about this to try to get out of Stephen Donnelly’s Department because they should not be implicated in something like this. This is something people will look back on as a low point in our democracy. It is the point a Minister got on board with a small number of abortion activists to try to crush people’s peaceful and respectful desire to dissent from the provision of abortion in healthcare facilities. The person who would defend the criminal law being used to harass and prosecute peaceful people, as the Minister’s supposed midwife said, is saying the peaceful person can be put on the wrong side of the law because somebody else says they feel intimidated and harassed. I am not asking the Minister to put that person’s name on the record, but how do I know they are not an abortion activist? How do I know they do not feel in their own mind that they perhaps should not be doing this and they resent the peaceful witness to the injustice of abortion? We do not know any of this.
The Minister is happy to use the law to punish the peaceful person, but what is absolutely sickening is the way he tries to invoke gender wars to do it by talking about six men. I am surprised he was not ageist to boot and did not refer to six old men, because it would be worthy of the kind of argument he has produced here. It is a sickening attempt to mischaracterise people who want to witness to the dignity of every human life and he should be ashamed of it because there are also women who witness publicly to the injustice of what is going on in abortion facilities. There are women who have had abortions themselves who witness. There are women who have suffered as a result of abortions who witness publicly. There are women who have suffered publicly as a result of abortions and who felt unsupported at the time of their unexpected pregnancy. They in some cases may have felt coerced, judged or expected to have abortions because Ireland’s abortion facility, especially under the Minister’s current approach, which smiles on telemedical abortions that reduce the amount of contact people have directly with doctors, is also a cover for coercive abortions, as the Minister well knows and as has been pointed out to him. It is only being pointed out to him in the public forum by pro-life politicians and pro-life organisations because he will not meet them to hear their concerns. In that sense, he is not a democrat; that is the sad reality. I am not saying he is not a democrat at all, but he is clearly showing an undemocratic side to the way he does his job here and it does not reflect well on him.
I feel sorry for any official who has to work for a Minister who does not respect the basic freedom of peaceful people to express their dissent on what is a life and death issue and who will set the law on them if somebody else says that he or she feels intimidated and harassed. One person's feelings, and we do not know who that person might be, will be enough to put the law on somebody else who the Minister admits is peaceful. He then tried to reduce the likeability of that person in the public mind by describing them as "six men". What contempt the Minister must have for his own sex, or is it gender, if he prefers to describe it as such. That is no way to make an argument. It does not matter whether it is a 17-year-old girl or a 68-year-old man who is witnessing peacefully and respectfully. The Minister should not in any way try to diss the person based on his or her age or gender, as he tried to do on the basis of gender or sex. That shows the games he plays. It shows the spin the Government engages in.
In the end, the Minister is siding with people who would happily restrict the peaceful expression of dissent. Insofar as he sides with that and uses his privileged, political, powerful position to do so, he is not being a democrat. He is no better on this legislation than if he were working as a minister or official in the Chinese communist party or a fascist regime because it is the hard left and the hard right that like to crush peaceful dissent and not democrats. He is not being a democrat with this legislation. He was warned about this and people pleaded with him. We tabled modest compromise amendments. We pointed out the flaws, the lack of evidence, the fact that the Garda said the legislation was not necessary, and the fact that hospitals in Limerick and Cork stated there was no problem here. We pointed out the Minister's ideology in pushing this legislation. He is on board with people and activists who want to crush dissent. That is not democratic, and he is not being a democrat with this legislation. To that degree, it is the low point of his ministerial career.
People will look back, when this legislation is eventually repealed, although I do not know when, and say, "My God. The woke reality that seized this Government, and even Stephen Donnelly's Ministry, was out to crush dissent and limit people's freedom of expression." It may be that what will happen is the legislation the Minister is creating, and God help gardaí, as if they do not have real problems to deal with, means he will no doubt hassle the Garda to try to enforce it to try to deal with a problem that does not exist. When the day comes that this legislation is repealed, people will look back on how the Government of the day, in what was a democratic country, sought to create legislation to crush what the Minister admitted here today was peaceful dissent. It is amazing that today he brandished a piece of evidence from an unnamed person, who complained about peaceful dissent and urged him to go ahead with legislation that would crush that peaceful dissent. How he could possibly think that anybody out to crush peaceful dissent in 2024 in Ireland, a democratic country, is on the right side of history is beyond me.
The Minister is a tool of the woke agenda. The woke agenda is out to pretend that those who are not-----
I remind the Senator that we are on amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 7, which are to do with the right to protest. They have nothing to do with woke agendas or anything like that. I am trying to be fair to everybody.
That is fine. However, if the woke agenda is not about crushing the right to peaceful protest, it is not about anything.
We are on amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 7.
These amendments are about securing the right to peaceful protest on a life and death issue. Many people who do not share my views on abortion, and are closer to what is the Minister's public view at least that it is nothing to be regretted, and nothing to be described as being better if it were rare, have a problem with the legislation because they are at least democrats. They would say that they are not on board with peaceful people, even if they are men, being targeted by the Garda. That is not just because gardaí are busy trying to deal with real challenges in our society but because this should not be the business of the Garda when it has told the Minister we do not need this legislation, and the hospitals in which these services are provided have said there are no problems they are complaining of. Yet, here the Minister is - the tool of the woke.
As I said, the woke are the people who claim they have a grievance and are oppressed, but are actually the ones who are out to oppress. That is what wokeism is. It is when those who are out to oppress wish to silence dissent. They do not even believe in the free expression of the contrary view. That is the classic woke thing. You claim you are a victim, and turn your alleged oppressor into the oppressed by seeking to silence them, cancel them, and deny their right to have another point of view. That is the wokeism at the heart of Government policy in a number of different areas. I thought the recent referendum results were a wake-up call to the Government to start dealing with the real problems in this country, including those in healthcare, and trying to get control of a very badly organised migration situation, but no. It is still on the woke agenda. It is still trying to attack problems that do not exist and oppress people it admits are peaceful. The Minister is not a democrat when it comes to this legislation.
The Senator is now in the realm of repetition. He has made all those points.
I will conclude on that. The reason I quoted Pastor Niemöller was because he pointed out that when we do not speak up for other people's rights, even the rights of those we disagree with, sooner or later, the protections we ourselves need are gone. As I said, those who do not share my concerns around the substantive issue here should reflect on what they are supporting here today, which is an attack on peaceful protest, as the Minister admitted.
I remind all Members we are on amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 7, which relate to the right to protest.
I thank the Cathaoirleach. I am minded that we are speaking to some specific amendments. What I heard a great deal today, and in previous debates I listened to around these issues, is that this feels like a rehash of almost a decade ago. I will be clear on the record that I trust women and pregnant people every time to make their own decisions.
What is interesting about Senator Mullen's contributions so far today are the repeated references to referendums but not to the pertinent referendum that is tangential to this issue, namely the referendum to repeal the eighth amendment, which I am glad to have campaigned for and to have seen such a resounding victory in. I noticed the Senator talked about a drubbing, thrashing or routing in recent referendums, but he did not talk about the reverse figures in the one specifically relating to this issue, when there was a vote in favour of repealing the eighth amendment.
With my professional hat on, I worked in health and well-being and on health inequalities across the city and regionally. When I returned from England, one of my first jobs was working for health and social care in Belfast delivering sex and relationship education programmes in the community, in the areas of highest deprivation, to prevent unwanted teenage pregnancies, and provide information and access to sexual health and reproductive services. At that time, we did not have reproductive services, or only had them in very limited discreet and distinct circumstances, in the North.
I am glad to see this has changed.
After that, I worked in the LGBT sector and dealt with health inequalities. Of course, one of the key health inequalities experienced by queer communities relates to sexual health. There is a disproportionate impact of HIV and other STIs. I was working with numerous partners in the community, voluntary, statutory and independent sectors on sexual health and well-being. I experienced the protests in the North, and I imagine they are very similar to the protests we have here in the South.
It is a campaign of deliberate harassment and intimidation to prevent women and pregnant people from accessing lawful services. I have had holy water thrown at me. I have been aggressively confronted. I can look after myself, but I am worried about the vulnerable women and vulnerable pregnant people who are trying to access services and who may not access such services because of the fear of harassment and intimidation. This is replete across the provision of services in the North and I imagine it is very similar here in the South. Clare Bailey MLA, my party's former leader, passed buffer zones legislation in the North. This was underpinned by the European Convention on Human Rights, which may be useful reading for some in this room because the framework is very similar in terms of our legislation here. The balance between Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the convention in respect of rights was specifically examined and the Supreme Court in the UK ruled unanimously in this regard. It stated that restrictions are prescribed around those rights because legitimate aims are being pursued in respect of access to services being legitimate, people being able to access their workplace without fear of harassment and qualifications being in place to prevent disorder, protect health and limit some rights and freedoms.
This legislation has been operational since last year and the sky has not fallen in. People are still able to protest in other ways to make their voices heard around their objections, either consciously around abortion as a whole or concerning specific access to these services. Scotland is beginning the process of introducing such legislation, and I am glad it is a Green Party MSP bringing it forward. Canada, Australia and New Zealand have also had laws of this type for several years. Test cases have been taken to challenge these laws, and we are clear about the balance of rights.
A specific text I wish to read that I think would be useful for Members to hear comes from the judgment issued by the Supreme Court in the UK. I think it will reinforce what we are thinking in terms of this legislation. The court ruled on several aspects, but I think these elements are relevant to this discourse:
... the context is a highly sensitive one in which the protection of the private lives and autonomy of women is of particular importance. Secondly, women who wish to access lawful abortion services have a reasonable expectation of being able to do so without being confronted by protest activity designed to challenge and diminish their autonomy and undermine their resolve. Thirdly, the Bill only prevents anti–abortion protestors from exercising their rights under articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention within designated safe access zones. They are free to protest anywhere else they please. Fourthly, the women and staff protected ... are a captive audience who are compelled to witness anti–abortion activity that is unwelcome and intrusive when they visit premises where abortion services are provided. Fifthly, the Bill is intended to implement the UK’s obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
That is quite clear; it sets a trajectory for us. I know others may try to legally challenge it. I was reticent to contribute to this debate today because I think people are trying to filibuster and slow this legislation down, but I hope we will move forward quickly. We are quite clear that the will of this House reflects the will of the people and that this legislation on buffer zones will be passed.
We have spoken to the amendments concerned with protests outside the Oireachtas, a situation which is protected very clearly within the Bill. There is a dark irony to an argument around allowing people freedoms being made from the perspective of a tradition that has deprived people, including women and gay men and women, of freedoms in our country and did so successfully for a very long time. There is also a dark irony to being lectured by individuals from that tradition on the need to respect people's freedoms.
This is only the second time I have been described as a Nazi and a fascist. The first was time I was described in that way was when Deputy Mattie McGrath felt I should be put in front of a Nuremberg-style trial for rolling out the Covid 19 vaccines.
On a point of order, I did not so describe the Minister. I said his behaviour would have been compatible with such regimes, which is true.
I thank the Senator. I take his point. I call the Minister.
I thank the Acting Chair. I think we can all see on the record of the House exactly what was being proposed. Anyway, the first time I was compared to or linked in some way to Nazism and fascism was when I was rolling out the Covid vaccines. This is the second time now, when we are just trying to ensure that women can get access to health services without being intimidated.
I also wish to make it very clear on the record that Senator Mullen may have understood and thought I was adding some of my own words to the text of the letter I read out. He seemed to take great exception to it being pointed out that it was six men who were standing under the window. That was direct testimony from the midwife. I am not making any allegations in terms of the male–female mix of those who protest. The words I used were taken directly from the testimony of the midwife. Sadly, and genuinely regrettably, yet again we see again that the Senator has called into question one of our midwives, as he has the Government, the Department of Health, the HSE, doctors and nurses and GPs right across the country. Just so there is no misunderstanding on the record, the reference to it being six men was read out directly from a letter I received from one of our Dublin midwives. I thank the House.
Amendment put.
Vótáil.
Will the Senators claiming a division please rise?
Senators Sharon Keogan
and Rónán Mullen
rose.
As fewer than five Members have risen I declare the question lost. In accordance with Standing Order 61 the names of the Senators dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Seanad.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 6, lines 12 and 13, to delete “, within that 100 metres”.
I second the amendment.
Amendment put.
Vótáil.
Will the Senators claiming a division please rise?
Senators Sharon Keogan and Rónán Mullen rose.
As fewer than five Members have risen I declare the question lost. In accordance with Standing Order 61 the names of the Senators dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Seanad.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 6, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
“(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 second the amendment.
This amendment provides that in page 6 and between lines 15 and 16, the following words be inserted: "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.”
It should seem obvious to everybody that if there is one place where there should be a hermetically sealed right to protest, it is an institute of higher education, but even there, these days, we see the woke prosecution of trying to close down freedom of speech in certain areas. It has not been so bad in Ireland so far but you certainly sees it in the context of the horrific events that are going on in Gaza, leading to protests on campuses in America which involve one side trying to close down the other's right to have a differing point of view.
With universities, going back to our own tradition in Ireland, we had John Henry Newman, now Saint John Henry Newman, who established what was originally the Catholic University and, through various iterations and change, leading to what is today UCD. People may remember from our schooldays that among the examples of English prose to be studied was Newman's The Idea of a University. John Henry Newman associated with a particularly visionary approach to higher level learning, an approach which emphasised the creation of a forum where people could seek wisdom, engage with ideas and so on. That is and should remain a vital part of what goes on in universities and institutes of higher education today, and yet we see it under threat in various ways. These days there are student protests going on in Trinity College Dublin. I do not need to get into the ins and outs of those but I think everybody would agree that students have a right to protest respectfully and not, obviously, a right to damage property or to endanger other persons. Clearly, we would recognise that it is almost mandatory in student life to be involved in protests.
In my own student union days in Galway, I remember leading a protest on student accommodation. I thought you only had to organise the protest for the media to come along. I did not realise you had to send out a press release in advance to alert the media to what you were doing.
The protection of that right is especially important. The fact is university campuses sometimes encompass hospitals which are sometimes part of their setting. The provision of bona fide healthcare goes on side by side with the training of doctors and so on. It is possible to imagine a situation whereby, in a campus, a student debate for and against the right to abortion, or the supposed right to abortion, could well be taking place within 100 m of a facility where abortions are being provided. The question is whether students in that context could be prohibited from having such a debate?
I do not know whether this occurred to the Minister or to the Department but it was certainly drawn to his and to the Department's attention that this right to the free expression of ideas, so important at third level, could well be compromised unless there is a saver clause in this legislation. The Minister has not to date indicated a desire to consider that problem and to make provision for it. Notwithstanding the caution in the wording in my amendment, which I stress is modest and suggests that to be protected such "debate, protest advocacy or dissent [must] not be directed at a specific relevant healthcare premises or persons accessing a relevant healthcare premises", the Minister has not seen fit to indicate he will accept it, because were the Minister to accept there is a need to carve out a particular freedom here for debate, lawful protest, advocacy or dissent in a university, it would be not to accept the almost absolute principle that you are entitled to crush dissent when it comes to abortion.
Our newest colleague, Senator O'Hara, mentioned a few minutes ago that he thought people were somehow out to filibuster today's legislation. Whenever I hear somebody suggesting that somebody else is trying to filibuster, I think they must be going to guillotine the legislation, and that is what is happening here, despite the fact that we have pointed out numerous times in this House that the use of the guillotine is bad practice and undemocratic in instinct and approach. I can assure the Minister and everybody else that I am here to make my point today, not to speak at any more length than is necessary. On a life and death issue it is important to make the point, however. I was quite reconciled to this debate ending and, with no indication coming that the Minister was going to accept amendments, expected that this debate would end today in the normal way or perhaps go on to a future date. It is no fun for anybody to be presenting carefully reasoned amendments when the Government of the day simply is not interested in dialogue or listening in any way. Legislation that is out to prevent peaceful protest against the ending of innocent lives is itself to be guillotined here today. The Minister wants to talk about dark ironies - there is the dark irony. The guillotine is already falling, 10,000 times a year in our country, thanks to politicians like you, I am sorry to say. Now the debate on this legislation, in which amendments would seek to protect peaceful and respectful dissent, is itself to be guillotined. There is the dark irony.
I believe the issue of the guillotine was decided on this morning's Order of Business. If the Senator can speak to the amendment, please.
No doubt of it. Thank you. All I know is when the Order of Business is decided, it is decided at the behest of the Government because the Government has the majority of seats in here. I am not saying there is anything procedurally-----
Senator Mullen, you and I know how the procedure of the House works. The majority ruled in favour of it this morning on the Order of Business, so if you can go back to speaking to amendment No. 5, thank you.
I just want to reply to what you are saying there because I am not suggesting there was any procedural incorrectness. The incorrectness-----
The Senator is not speaking to the amendment.
The incorrectness of the guillotine is that it is antidemocratic in that it seeks to foreclose debate before amendments have been properly discussed or in some cases even voted on. I am simply-----
That point has been made. The point I am trying to make is that the Senator must speak to the amendment. We can have a debate another day about the guillotine and its use. Today you are speaking to amendment No. 5.
Thank you. It was you who pointed this out to me. I did not need to be reminded that this was procedurally in order. I never claimed otherwise. What I am saying is that it is undemocratic to pursue this and all the more ironic when what we are talking about here is crushing dissent against legislation and policy which involve the destruction of innocent life. That was my only point.
The Minister also saw fit earlier to suggest there was some kind of a dark irony because some people who were against freedoms were now seeking to protect freedoms. The only freedom the Minister is talking about here is the freedom to destroy innocent life. Those who oppose that particular freedom see themselves as defending a much more fundamental freedom, which is the freedom to have the same opportunity the Minister himself had when he was given birth and allowed to live. I think it was the late Ronald Reagan who said he had noticed that all the people who described themselves as being pro-choice had already been born. It was a typical Reagan observation and one that the Minister would perhaps do well to recall.
Let us focus, as the Acting Chairperson says, on the proposed amendment. It simply seeks to insulate, at a time when we see so much cancel culture and so much unfortunate dispute on third level campuses, mainly abroad, but it could happen here too. It is not that long since Mary Kenny, the distinguished journalist, found herself cancelled when she had been invited to speak at an event to mark International Women's Day. Those who opposed her gender-critical views managed to secure her cancellation as a speaker at an event in the University of Limerick. Sadly, there is cancel culture out there and what we should protect always is the dispute between ideas and the ability of that dispute to go on.
What my amendment, seconded by my friend and colleague, Senator Keogan, seeks to provide is that in third level institutions, the places where people develop their ideas, sharpen their wits and test their ideas against one other's support and objections, and consider and reconsider their position, classically, there should be absolute freedom or as near as possible to absolute freedom to exchange ideas. I call on the Minister one more time to recognise that at least in this respect, there should be a carve-out in order to protect the free exchange of ideas in our third level institutions.
Do any other Senators want to speak on this? No. Minister? No. Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes.
Amendment put.
Vótáil.
Will the Senators claiming a division please rise?
Senators Sharon Keogan and Rónán Mullen rose.
As fewer than five Members have risen I declare the amendment lost. In accordance with Standing Order 61 the names of the Senators dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Seanad.
Amendment declared lost.
As it is now 3.15 p.m., I am obliged to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Seanad of this day: "That Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby received for final consideration; and the Bill is hereby passed."
Question put.
Vótáil.
Will the Senators who are claiming a division please rise?
Senators Sharon Keogan and Rónán Mullen rose.
As fewer than five Members have risen, I declare the question is carried. In accordance with Standing Order 61, the names of the Senators dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Seanad.
Question declared carried.
I understand that the Minister wishes to say a few words.
This is a significant and memorable day. This legislation delivers on an important programme for Government promise, namely to establish safe access zones for women and service providers right across the country. Safe access zones will now become a reality in our country. Once this Bill is signed into law by the President, it will protect service users and providers. It will allow women in Ireland to access legal health services without fear of intimidation or harassment. It will ensure that our friends, colleagues and family members are treated with consideration and empathy at a time when they most need our care. It will ensure they are afforded the dignity and privacy they need and deserve to make their own decisions.
It is important to recall that today is the work of many hands. Numerous people contributed to this Bill, and it is not possible to list them all. However, I thank everyone who has been involved. I thank the various cathaoirligh for the way in which they have chaired the debate with fairness and impartiality over recent months. I recognise, as we all do, that there are diverse views in this House on this issue and in bringing forward legislation in a democratic society, it is important that we hear them all. I thank the Members of this House and those of Dáil Éireann for their time for their thought-provoking contributions in scrutinising this legislation. It has certainly been a noteworthy few months in Seanad Éireann.
I take the opportunity to express my appreciation to our colleagues in the HSE, the Office of the Attorney General, the Department of Justice and An Garda Síochána for their considerable input into this process. I wish to place on the record my appreciation for the considerable contributions of the Together for Safety team; the genesis of this legislation lies in its innovative work in this area. Most importantly, I thank our healthcare providers right across this country. I refer to the nurses, midwives, GPs, hospital doctors, health and social care professionals and healthcare assistants all over Ireland who are making sure that women can get access to the best possible legal and safe services.
Today is an important step in terms of women's healthcare. It was one of the promises, as I said, in the programme for Government, but we are going much further in terms of women's healthcare in this country. I had the great privilege last week of launching the second women's health action plan in the Coombe Hospital. We launched our first women's health action plan in 2021, and we set a very ambitious and somewhat audacious goal which was to drive a revolution in women's healthcare. The reality is that our country has a very dark history when it comes to women's healthcare and their reproductive rights. More than that, we had a situation until very recently whereby the most common of healthcare conditions for women not only were not being provided for, in many cases they were not even being recognised nor was the requisite training provided to our healthcare professionals. I refer to women seeking help with endometriosis, women seeking perinatal supports and women with menopause. The idea that not only did we not have specialist services to deal with menopause but that it was taboo to even talk about menopause being a thing was extraordinary.
I applaud the efforts of a great number of people in respect of this legislation. Within in my Department, officials have worked night and day on the women's health agenda. We have had the women's health task force front and centre, which meant that these services were devised by women for women. We engaged in a listening exercise right across the country. I refer to our healthcare providers in both public and private care, the very strong support in the Oireachtas and from civil society, the National Women's Council and more. There have been many ideas tabled in this Chamber. As colleagues may be aware, we had a Private Members' motion recently on scalp cooling for people going through cancer care. It was a Green Party motion that asked for that to be expanded and it is one of the measures we included in our women's health action plan last week.
On nearly all of the measures we set out to launch in 2021, we have met or exceeded them in terms of menopause and endometriosis services, perinatal and mental health, eating disorders, bereavement services and many more. The credit for that goes to our healthcare workers. The impact that these services are having cannot be underestimated. I will give colleagues just one quick example. I recently opened the 16th see-and-treat gynaecology clinic in the country in Sligo. There are five more such clinics to come, which will mean that we will have 21 in total. Up to that point, women referred for an outpatient gynaecology appointment in Sligo waited four years just to see a consultant. They would then referred for diagnostics and back to the consultant for assessment and onwards for procedure. The whole thing took approximately five years. They are now being seen in four weeks, and all of the services, that is, the consultation, the diagnosis, the assessment and any minor procedures are happening on the same morning.
This Bill, which has now passed, is one important step - and it is only one step - in what we are doing, which is making sure that Ireland is one of the most advanced countries anywhere in the world when it comes to modern, progressive, safe and expert women's health services.
A number of Members wish to come in. We have one minute left, so I will give everyone one minute because we have a Minister outside the Chamber waiting for the next item, which was agreed by order of the House.
I propose a change to the Order of Business. I wish to request that we delay by 50 minutes. I am not sure if the Standing Orders allow us to do that with Private Members' business.
It is up to the Leader of the House to propose a change to the Standing Orders. Even at that, I am stretching it but the Member is entitled to his contribution. I ask that the Senator would keep it to one minute.
I will keep it short. I am delighted to see this Bill pass the Report and Final Stages. I am very proud the Green Party played its part in securing the programme for Government commitment so that on the entire island of Ireland we will now end the campaign of harassment and intimidation against women and pregnant people who wish to seek reproductive and sexual healthcare services. I am delighted to see the Green Party is doing something similar in Scotland. The future should be that women and pregnant people will be able to access those services without fear of intimidation and harassment.
It is a sad piece of legislation, following many others sad pieces of legislation. We live in a country where many older people and people with vulnerable healthcare situations are worried about having to go to hospital. They are worried about what will happen to them if they go to hospital and are worried about the fact this Government is unable to manage our healthcare system properly despite the relative wealth and strength of our State.
The Minister has got an easy win for himself by caving in to an activist group and by attacking the peaceful expression of dissent on abortion. He has nothing to be proud of here I am afraid. He has shown himself not to be a democrat. He has praised his officials for working night and day on an agenda to deprive the basic freedom of witnessing the dignity of every human life born and unborn. There is nothing safe about safe access zones. There is nothing safe about what happens to the unborn child in an abortion situation. I would encourage Uachtarán na hÉireann to consult with the Council of State and to see about testing this Bill in an Article 26 reference. If that does not happen, I encourage peaceful protesters to challenge this legislation. People should continue to witness respectfully and not to be intimidated by a Government that wants to silence people. Perhaps the courts will in due course judge whether this legislation is, in fact, constitutional. That is for another day.
Shame on all involved here. I encourage the voters in the coming elections to express their disquiet about this undemocratic legislation to Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Green Party, Sinn féin, and other left wing candidates. Praise to Aontú and the Independents who are at least standing up for people's freedom of expression.
I wish to respond to what Senator Mullen has said. Older people and vulnerable people should not be afraid about going into our hospitals. We have an excellent healthcare system in this country. I join with the Minister in thanking all healthcare professionals. When it comes to healthcare, they are the ones to whom we should be listening first.
This is significant legislation. Unlike Senator Mullen, I believe the Minister deserves credit because we have been experiencing a revolution in women's healthcare. These areas have been neglected in the past and the Minister, Deputy Donnelly, has made them his priority and has been delivering on them. This legislation followed extensive debate and consultation. The Minister listened in this Chamber, so I reject the points made by the previous speaker. It is important to always hear a diversity of opinion, as the Minister said. I join with the Minister in congratulating his team on all of the work, specifically on women's healthcare. This is an important commitment we have delivered on.
I welcome the passing of this legislation. I thank the Minister for bringing it forward. I also commend my colleague, Senator Paul Gavan, on the work he did with the Together for Safety campaign in first initiating safe access legislation in the Seanad. It is a good day for women. Women should be able to access healthcare without intimidation and without fear of threat. It is their business what they do with their bodies. This is a good day for women's healthcare.
Well done to the Minister. I thank those from the Together for Safety national campaign and those in the Gallery who have been with us throughout this process. I also thank the officials in the Department, and of course Senator Paul Gavan for initiating some of the legislation on this. It is a great day for the Senator and his team, and for the women and pregnant people of Ireland who will have this legislation going forward.
I thank the Minister for bringing forward this legislation. It is a very important day for women and for women's healthcare to know that people who are going through such a traumatic experience and a difficult decision are now free from intimidation to make those decisions for themselves. It is a momentous day. I also thank the Minister's officials and the Houses of the Oireachtas for seeing this through.
To tell the truth I am a little disappointed. I thank my colleague, Senator Rónán Mullen, and all the Independent colleagues in the Dáil who put down amendments to this legislation. I would like to see the Minister being a Minister for young pregnant girls and women who find themselves pregnant, to encourage them to have their children, and to put in place policies that will make their lives better. I would like the Minister to be that champion for those girls and for those young women as well. Perhaps the Minister will look into his heart and find that is something he might be able to bring forth as the Minister for Health. What can the Minister do to make better policies to encourage young women to keep their babies and to grow their families? What policies can be put in place by this Government to support families and support young women who find themselves pregnant?