Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Health debate -
Wednesday, 25 Oct 2023

Health (Termination of Pregnancy Services) (Safe Access Zones) Bill 2023: Committee Stage

This meeting has been convened to consider Committee Stage of the Health (Termination of Pregnancy Services) (Safe Access Zones) Bill 2023. The primary objective of the Bill is to protect persons' access to lawfully available healthcare services and to protect their decision to access termination of pregnancy services. In addition, the Bill will protect healthcare providers involved in the termination of pregnancy services. The Bill will achieve these objectives by prohibiting persons from engaging in certain conduct in safe access zones. In its pre-legislative scrutiny, the committee strongly supported the measures contained in the Bill in principle. The meeting will end not later than 12.30 p.m.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I remind members that they must be physically present within the Leinster House complex in order to participate in this meeting. In this regard, I ask that any member participating via MS Teams to confirm that he or she is on the grounds of the Leinster House campus prior to making his or her contribution. I also remind members that should a division be called, they must physically come to the committee room in order to vote.

I welcome the Minister for Health, Deputy Stephen Donnelly. There are a total of three amendments, tabled in the names of Deputies Cullinane and Shortall. I invite the Minister to make his opening remarks.

I wish to make a few brief points, two of which are slightly off the topic of the Bill. We had a bit if a ding-dong here last week on Committee Stage of another Bill. I want to retract the comments I made. I had not realised that the committee was not briefed that the pre-legislative scrutiny members did was being fully incorporated into a new Bill.

Everyone has a job to do so I retract that comment. Everyone is trying to do their best.

On the second point, which is not relevant to the Bill but relevant to termination of pregnancy services, I would like to update the committee. Members will be aware that the Act, as initiated, requires two consultations with a GP with a three-day gap between them. During Covid-19 we moved to what is being referred to as a blended model whereby one of the two consultations is essentially remote, via a phone call. Typically, the first consultation is a phone call with the GP but the second meeting could be the phone call. On the basis that this approach worked successfully through the Covid pandemic, I asked my Department and the HSE to do an appraisal to see if we could continue to operate that. I received a recommendation from the chief clinical officer and Chief Medical Officer that they were in agreement that this could be done. Last night, I authorised that this approach continue on a permanent basis. The Act will now operate in that way. That is obviously without prejudice to any further conversations based on the review that was done. However, that was an important step that was taken yesterday.

Is Deputy Cullinane raising a point of clarification?

It is good that the Minister raised the issue of the review and the changes being proposed, with which I agree. In terms of the report the Minister received following the independent review, I understand a working group was established. We have not had any contact with that working group and nor, it seems, has the author of the report had any contact with the Department or any officials regarding the implementation of the recommendations. If he is in a position to do so, will the Minister outline the work of the working group and when it is likely we will see movement on implementing the recommendations of the report?

I am not in a position to do so today but I will ask my officials to come back to the committee to provide a report on the steps that have been taken so far. I am in regular contact with the national women and infants health programme, NWIHP, which is taking the lead on many of the elements of this. There has been a big focus on making sure, for example, that services are provided in all the maternity units. That is one of the regular conversations I am having with the NWIHP. What I might do is ask my Department to put a report together for the committee.

I have been informed by the clerk to the committee that we have just received a note on the updated recommendation on the termination of pregnancy review so we have that note.

That is on the implementation. Good.

It will be circulated now. We have just received it. Is that agreed?

What is the note on?

It is a note providing an update on the recommendations of the termination of pregnancy review. There are six or seven now.

We had another interesting meeting on that issue in the past week, at which the author of the report made a presentation. I was not happy with the way some of our members were treated by some of those who compiled the report and were in the committee room. I registered that at the time. I am very reluctant to depart in any way, shape or form from what was authorised in a referendum and published beforehand because that would, without doubt-----

I know that and Deputy Durkan expressed that view but-----

I want to register that now.

I have given the Minister and members some leeway on this but I do not want to go back over the matter.

I am not going back over it. I want to register, right now-----

-----before anything else happens, that I am authorised to raise the issue in the way that I have and will continue to do, on the basis that anything that represents a departure from what we in the relevant committee - some of the members present were on that committee and will remember that - agreed four years ago and pursued for at least six months in a way that was very-----

One second now. My view is the same as everybody else's view. I am only one person so if people do not want to hear my view, that is fine but then that creates a problem.

Again, I will not allow members to go over the previous meeting. The Deputy raised the issue and the authors of the report responded to him. There is now a note relating to the matter and we will move on.

Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 4

Three amendments have been tabled by Deputies Cullinane and Shortall. Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 are related and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 7, line 4, after “writing” to insert the following:

“, or by any other manner and in any such system as may be prescribed by the Minister in accordance with subsection (6),”.

I am not sure if the Minister read the pre-legislative report the committee forwarded to him following its deliberations. One of the recommendations from the committee was that "a clear, practical and effective system of recording prior warnings be included in the BiIl." The Minister will see that this amendment and amendment No. 3 are related in that the latter provides that "The Minister may, following consultation with the Minister for Justice, prescribe by way of regulation the systems which shall be used to record warnings issued under subsection (2)."

I felt that the best way to come at this was to give the Minister the power, by way of regulation, to consult the Minister for Justice and as part of that, I imagine, An Garda Síochána. Throughout our scrutiny of the Bill, prior warnings were one of the issues that arose time and again. Essentially, the issue is the need to have a process for recording warnings given to individuals who protest in multiple locations. That is part of the problem here. If we do not have a record of warnings, that could be problematic in terms of the enforcement element of this Bill. It was pointed out to us during pre-legislative scrutiny by An Garda Síochána that it does not currently have a facility for recording such warnings. That obviously concerns us because there is no point in proposing a Bill that seeks to take action, which I agree with in terms of the intent of the Bill, if An Garda Síochána does not have the ability to enforce it.

I understood from the get-go that this is a very complex area to legislate for. We accepted that in all of the hearings we had with various witnesses but this was one of the clear recommendations to emerge from our work and I felt it was important to reflect that on Committee Stage by tabling this amendment. It is self-explanatory in terms of how I have presented it and how it was presented in the report submitted following the work the committee did on pre-legislative scrutiny.

I thank the Deputy. I understand both the rationale and the intent of what he is proposing. There has been very intensive back and forth between my Department, legal advisers, drafters and the Attorney General on many aspects of the Bill because we are trying to walk a very tight line between protecting people who are trying to access healthcare services and protecting the right of expression and to protest. It is delicate legislation; there is no question about that.

We looked at these three amendments from that perspective. I understand where the Deputy is coming from. I also read the committee's report and saw some of the proceedings and some of the concerns being raised. An Garda Síochána has indicated that it is not possible under the current configuration of PULSE to record these warnings centrally. This matter was raised by the committee. The advice I have is that it would not be appropriate for the Minister for Health, in consultation with the Minister for Justice, as per the Deputy's amendments, to become involved in regulating what I think we would all agree are operational matters for An Garda Síochána, in this case, by prescribing the systems to be used. While that may be something for the Garda Commissioner or Minister for Justice, the clear advice I have is that it would not be appropriate for a Minister for Health to regulate or have powers to regulate what are appropriate operational matters for An Garda Síochána.

The Bill, in line with the recommendation from the committee, includes provision for the mandatory recording of warnings. That is an important aspect of the legislation.

The legislation as it is currently worded allows the Garda to have the necessary flexibility to operate within the confines of the current systems and it also permits the future use of the central recording system, should one become available. To be clear, if a central system becomes available at an operational level, gardaí can record these centrally and achieve what it is that the committee was setting out to achieve. The advice I have, though, is that it is not appropriate for a Minister for Health to regulate for those kinds of operational details for An Garda Síochána.

I agree with some of what the Minister said. The difficulty we have, as committee members, is that we can only do our job from our perspective. We made it very clear in the early stages of our work on this Bill that there were issues for the Joint Committee on Justice and other committees but we can only do our work. That is why, when I crafted the amendment, its purpose was that whatever regulations we were seeking to introduce, or that the Minister would have the power to introduce, it would have to be done in consultation with the Minister for Justice. I take the Minister's point that this is, in the main, an operational issue but it is fundamental to the delivery of the intent of the Bill. That is the problem.

I hear what he is saying in regard to the mandatory recording in the Bill and I understand the comments he has made. I will press the amendment but I will not put it to a vote, although other members have a choice to make on what they do. Given what the Minister has said, I still believe we need to do more. It might be the case in the future that we have a centralised recording system but that may not happen. What we do not want is to have a Bill in place and then find there are all of these loopholes and that we had an opportunity to fix those loopholes but did not take it. I am just putting that on the record.

I support the amendment. We talked about this issue at length during a few meetings, we put a lot of time into the pre-legislative scrutiny and we had two sessions with gardaí and a number with departmental officials. Many of us struggled with the idea that if somebody was protesting in Cork one week and breached the regulations, and then a few weeks later was protesting in Dublin, there might be no communication so gardaí could take action against the person protesting in Dublin. Where would they have got the information that the person had previously been cautioned in Cork? I think we all struggled to figure out how on earth that would happen. Maybe the garda in Cork records something in his notebook but where does that information go? We never got a satisfactory answer. Officials said that they were confident that gardaí could deal with this but, again, there is the question of practicality. If the Minister can explain it, that would be great, but I cannot understand how it would happen. He is talking about a mandatory record but what happens to that record? That is the key.

The Minister said it is not up to him, as Minister for Health, to regulate what gardaí do but he is, in effect, regulating it under that section. He is saying what gardaí have to do when issuing a warning, and the Bill states that “the member shall record in writing”, so he is regulating to that extent. The intent of this amendment is to pin that down and to have an agreed system in place so we know that the second intervention by gardaí will be on the basis of an awareness of the prior warning, however that should happen. It is an unanswered question that remains from a lot of discussion about it. I have a concern that the legislation may not be as effective as it should be because of the difficulty in that internal communication within the Garda.

I do not disagree with the rationale or the intent. It comes down to two issues. One is a practical point, which is that the gardaí themselves do not have a system for this. I imagine that this will evolve over time and they will have a system in time, and I imagine it will then be recorded centrally over time. However, regardless of anything we put into this Bill now, they could not actually do it. That is the first issue.

The second is the point that I have just made to Deputy Cullinane, which is that I have very clear advice in this regard. Of course, I take the point that we are giving the Garda powers, setting out the law and setting out offences. However, the very clear advice I have is that in terms of how warnings would be recorded, centralised and viewed, they are really more in the operational space of An Garda Síochána and it is just not appropriate for a Minister for Health to be in that space. As I said, I do not disagree with the sentiments and it is why we now have a very clear written warning being recorded. We listened very carefully to the committee proceedings.

When we come to the Deputy’s amendment, I have a counterproposal we can discuss, which is to bring in something on Report Stage. Whatever the time limit is, if we do a review - I am very open to putting in something that is slightly broader than what is proposed - this could, of course, be included. If it were identified that people were essentially gaming the system and receiving multiple warnings around the country which were not being recorded, that is something that could be acted on. That might be a practical way to keep an eye on exactly the concern that the Deputy has raised.

I suppose this is more of a comment that is probably going to go nowhere. I find it bizarre that, in 2023, gardaí did not have a way of knowing that this guy was in Cork and then he went to Kerry to protest in two different places on the same day. It is bizarre that they do not have a way of communicating that to each other. That means any bowsie could be doing anything, like robbing something in Cork and then robbing something in Kerry, and not getting caught because gardaí do not have a way of telling each other what is going on in regard to people who are breaking the law. I find it bizarre. If they do not have it now and they get it in the future, is the Minister saying that this legislation will then enforce the use of such future equipment, warning system, communications system or whatever it is called? It is weird that they do not have that possibility now.

The line that I and my party have taken all along is that it should not be necessary to receive protection when seeking services that are legally available in the State. The inclusion of a right to protest as an answer to everything is not something we should go too far down the road with. It is correct that everybody has the right to protest. I know all about that; I did it myself. However, the point is that nobody has the right to protest to deter other people from going about their lawful work or relying on the services that are available within the State. The right to protest has to take equal cognisance of the right not to protest and to allow those who do not wish to protest to go about their work, thus not bringing the country or the system to a halt.

I have always held the view that if a woman wants to go to hospital to have her toenails attended to, she is entitled to do that and she does not have to cross any barrier or get any protection from anybody. She is entitled to that. These services are legally available in the State. If she goes to seek advice on pregnancy, she is entitled to do it, and that is there and provided for in the legislation before us. Pretending that we are in a state of siege and that we have to seek special protection in the way designated is, to my mind, a weakness and an overreliance on the right to protest being the superior right. It is not the superior right.

All of us, including the Minister, are in agreement that a centralised recording system would be better. His point is that he does not want to get into a situation where he is involving himself in the operational matters of the Garda. However, it is a little more straightforward and not as complicated as he makes out. It is central to the effectiveness of the Bill we are bringing forward. If we are bringing forward the legislation and the Minister has the power to give the Garda the powers in this Bill but there is a flaw that could be a problem, we obviously have a duty to point it out. We are talking about people who might protest at premises A in Cork and who might end up the following day or a week later in premises B in counties Kerry, Cork or Waterford. That is one problem. There is another problem whereby even at the same premises, if a garda changes shift or a different garda comes and offers different warnings, the whole situation could quickly become a mockery. That is the problem.

I am taken by what the Minister said about the potential of an alternative amendment to that proposed by Deputy Shortall to the effect that we could have a more extensive review and this warning system would form part of it. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw my amendments. I will do so if the Minister gives a clear commitment that this issue will form part of a review and that there will be discussions between him and the Minister for Justice on the possibility of putting in place a centralised system over time, however long it takes. There could be engagement with the Garda in that respect. It would be desirable and important. If we can build this issue into the alternative amendment and process that the Minister will talk to us about in a moment, I would be happy to withdraw my two amendments.

I thank colleagues. I think we can do as Deputy Cullinane proposes and we are moving into it now. I was going to suggest a Report Stage amendment to provide for a review. We can discuss the timeframe but it would have to include an assessment of how the legislation is working in respect of the warnings. That is something that has been identified by the committee. It has been explored at length by the committee and I would be happy to pursue that.

Deputy Bríd Smith asked about central recording. This is not my area so if I have this wrong, so be it. My understanding is that the PULSE system records many things centrally but it does not have a facility specifically for warnings. If somebody commits an offence in Cork, the guards in Dublin will be aware that an offence has been committed but will not be aware that a warning has issued. That is something the guards can look at. It would be a bit like the Minister for Justice beginning to regulate for electronic patient health records. That is something that falls within the remit of health. I hear the Deputy. If she were to walk into an emergency department in Cork and then come back to Dublin to attend her GP, the GP would not have a record of her health files. It is an issue in health that we are trying to solve.

The whole reason we are introducing the legislation is to protect women's right to access abortion services. The Minister is not comparing like with like. We are talking about a situation where a person tries to stop somebody else accessing services in Cork and then does the same in Dublin. It is not about that person accessing services; it is about stopping somebody else doing so. I do not accept the comparison. I find it bizarre that the Garda does not have a way of communicating this information or that we cannot compel it to find a way. We should tell the Garda that this is in the law and it must find a way to do it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 7, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:

“(6) The Minister shall, within one year of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas, and the relevant committee, evaluating the effectiveness of the system for recording warnings issued by the Garda Síochána pursuant to subsection (1).”.

What we have just been discussing is also at the heart of my amendment. We all want this legislation introduced as quickly as possible. We want it to be effective in protecting women who are accessing services. The Minister said a few minutes ago that there is no system in place to record a warning. If there is no system in place, how does this legislation work? Deputy Smith was talking about other offences. Let us take theft, for example. Theft is an offence so there is no need to record that. It is recorded as an offence. For some reason, and I do not understand the thinking behind it, this legislation includes a requirement for a prior warning before an offence is committed. That is a very unusual situation in law. The proposal is that people get one chance and on the second occasion, an offence is committed. It is hard to understand why that is the case. Going back to first principles, why is it not an offence to protest on the first occasion against people who are accessing services that are legal in the State? I struggle to understand why an initial warning is required before it becomes an offence on the second occasion. There are many logistical problems associated with that because there is no system. If there is no system, my concern is that this law will not be effective. How is this law operated? How does the Garda operate this law if it has no means of identifying that there was an original warning? It is a strange way to go about it. I do not know what the rationale is for requiring an original warning.

We want to get this legislation through. My concern is that it will not be effective and that is why I am asking that a report on its operation will be produced. My fear is that in 12 months, or even in six months, we will be saying that we made a mistake with this legislation and it is not operational from the Garda point of view because there is no means of recording. I do not want to hold up the legislation or other aspects of it but this issue goes to the core of the Bill. I have concerns about whether what is proposed is workable. At a minimum, I am suggesting a report after 12 months. I look forward to the Minister's response.

I thank the Deputy. She has raised two issues. One is the mechanism of the warning and why an offence is not immediately committed. The second relates to the issue of a report. I propose to table an amendment on Report Stage that is broader than the amendment she has proposed. This amendment is specifically targeted at the effect of the warnings. I am going to propose a broader review to look at the totality of the effect of the legislation when it is enacted. We can include the warnings in that review. I will take advice on the issue but if members feel strongly about it, we could probably specify in the amendment that a review is to include an assessment of the operation of the warning system, which I know is an issue that members have spent a lot of time on.

The reason for the warning is to find a legal mechanism to balance the right to protest and the right to access services. It is a new mechanism in this context. There has been considerable discussion and the exchange of many ideas as to how this might be dealt with between my Department, legal advisers, drafters, the Attorney General, the Department of Justice and the Garda. The system has been proposed for the following reason, as I understand it. How do we facilitate legitimate protest that passes through safe access zones while at the same time giving the Garda the powers it needs to move in very quickly and decisively on the kind of situations we have all been made aware of? Those are situations of women being harassed on their way into medical service facilities. This mechanism allows the Garda to immediately move and tell protestors they are in contravention of the law because they are in a safe access zone and engaging in the prohibited behaviour. It allows the gardaí to issue a formal warning, which is recorded, and allows them to tell the protestors they have to stop.

No offence has been committed at this point. This is important when we come to the second bit. If they continue, they can essentially be charged. They will have committed an offence. As with many things in Ireland, we rely on the discretion of the gardaí to do this in a sensible way. Our belief is that what does is immediately give the gardaí the powers they need to act in the areas - in all the examples we have been given. There are obvious examples. In these cases, the gardaí can move in.

Contrary to that, imagine a pro-life or pro-choice march gathered at the Garden of Remembrance, where some of these marches gather, and they decide to walk to Molesworth Street. They will walk by the Rotunda, the family planning centre at the top of Parnell Street and inevitably they will walk within 100 m zones of GPs. We are not demarcating on the streets where these safe access zones are so you will have very legitimate protest - pro-life or pro-choice. Remember the legislation is neutral as to which it is. If we did not have the warning system, people marching could be guilty of an offence for simply having walked past the Rotunda with signage saying, "We demand access to termination services" or "We demand you stop access to termination services". As I understand it, the warning system is in place for this reason. The gardaí have discretion. Nobody has committed an offence, which is important.

Obviously, within the area of the Oireachtas, there is full exemption, as there should be. We have tried to find a way of facilitating legitimate protest on either side of this argument while trying to close off any loopholes.

One of the things that was explored was whether we should specify that you are not allowed to engage in this behaviour targeted at a specific premises - for example, if it is targeted at the Rotunda or a specific GP practice. The challenge arose as to what would happen if people said they were not targeting any specific area but were simply marching between the Rotunda and the Irish Family Planning Association, which is about 200 m away from the Rotunda. Are they at a single place or is this just a march in a loop? All of these things were pored over over a long period of time. It is tricky. The reason is that the gardaí can immediately move very clearly on the things we know we are trying to stop - the kind of behaviours from which we are trying to protect service users and providers - while making sure people do not inadvertently commit an offence by having a legitimate protest. Remember they could be marching through or engaged in behaviour in a safe access zone not knowing they are in a safe access zone - 100 m from any GP clinic. This allows the gardaí to say, "Look, you're in a safe access zone. You haven't committed any offence but you need to stop". That is the rationale.

I understand the difficulties in legislating for this area. A lot of premises are involved, particularly in a city. I understand the challenges there. To return to the key point, if there is no way a garda in Dublin can know that Mr. X protested in Cork, how can a prosecution be brought against him when he is protesting for the second time?

I take the Deputy's point and I take the committee's point on this in terms of the central recording. Even without the central recording, if Mr. X or Mrs. X arrived at a premises in Dublin having protested at a premises in Cork, the gardaí can immediately move in and say, "You are engaged in prohibited behaviour within a safe access zone. You need to stop or you will have committed an offence and you will be charged".

That is a warning.

That is the warning. Now they essentially have to stop immediately and if they do not, they will have committed an offence and may be charged and that is recorded. It will be a bit of a Pyrrhic victory for whoever is trying to do this because they will very quickly be told, "You have to stop and if you don't stop, you'll be charged."

I still have a difficulty seeing how any person male or female who is protesting can be prosecuted. They may stop when they are told to stop by a garda. It is necessary that a prior warning be given for their activity to constitute an offence on the second occasion but who knows whether it is the second occasion? That is the point.

The Minister has spoken about a review. Could he provide a bit more information on that? It would be good to have a review of the operation of the Act anyway as it is good practice but on this specific issue, we need to know whether there are difficulties with this - certainly within 12 months. It will also be helpful from the point of view of putting pressure on An Garda Síochána to put a system in place. If the Minister could give an undertaking that he will do what is requested with regard to this amendment and that we get that review within 12 months, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

I suggest that 12 months is too soon given that it takes a few months to do this work. You would probably be looking at the operation of it within six months. I would suggest a two-year period to give it time to see what is happening and then to give time to do the actual research and report back to the Oireachtas. If colleagues feel strongly about it, we can explicitly reference to include the warnings. We can find some language that it is explicitly in there as well.

That may well entail the law not being in operation for a two-year period at least. Many of us have doubts about the workability of this legislation. Nobody has been able to answer the question regarding how gardaí know whether this is a first, second or tenth warning. If there is no means of knowing that within An Garda Síochána, this is a serious matter and we need to know about it as quickly as possible and put pressure on An Garda Síochána to act as soon as possible.

The wider review is fine and I accept that the timescale for that should probably be two years when all the parts are working but regarding the operation of the warning system, it is reasonable that within 12 months, we would hear what the situation is and whether that problem has been resolved because it is a problem at the moment and it needs to be resolved for this Bill to work.

It may not be a problem. Remember that the purpose of this is to give An Garda Síochána the powers to stop the harassment of people using the service and the service providers. This Bill most definitely does that. I take the Deputy's point. There is a secondary point about people receiving multiple warnings around the country but I am very confident that the primary purpose of this Bill will be fulfilled with what we have.

We can get hung up on one year or two years. When you think through the implementation of the Act, you have to have enough warnings given. We have all been given examples of the kind of behaviour we want to see stopped but it is not happening every day. It is reasonably intermittent. You would want enough of it to have happened, you would need the gardaí to have intervened on a number of occasions and you would probably also want to see what happens if an offence was committed or several offences were committed. How did that progress? I do not think they would be able to give us anything terribly useful within 12 months. It is really a judgment call. There is no right or wrong to it.

In responding to some questions, the Minister accepted the complexity of this issue. It was quite obvious from our deliberations that An Garda Síochána had some concerns about this Bill even as a concept fairly early on.

There was engagement with the Office of the Attorney General and legal advice. I imagine there was engagement with the Minister for Justice and certainly with An Garda Síochána. Preparing this Bill and getting to the point we are at was not straightforward. That means we need to make sure we are taking the right course of action. I tend to agree with the Minister's analysis, even with regard to my concerns about an offender in multiple locations. I still have some concerns but I am somewhat comforted by what the Minister has said. Given all those complexities, we need to have that comprehensive review of the Bill.

The Minister gave a timescale of two years. I accept what he is saying about the committee needing to give the Bill enough time to bed in to see exactly how it is operationalised, how it impacts and how it works or not. Time will then be required to write up a review, which might be a bit unreasonable within 12 months. That is not my amendment but Deputy Shortall's. We are talking about the Minister tabling a Report Stage amendment, which I assume is what he will do anyway. Would it be possible to provide for a timescale of 18 months rather than 24 months? I think two years might be a bit too long. Based on all those concerns and the complexities of the Bill, and accepting that 12 months might be a bit too soon, I believe two years might be seen by some as too long. As Deputy Shortall said, we could potentially waste two years, although I hope not. If it becomes clear that there is a problem and the legislation is not working, it will be two years before we have a report on its operation. Is there any flexibility regarding that two-year period?

Absolutely. I am not hung up on two years at all. I really do not mind what the period is. I think it needs to be long enough that we can actually get some information on this having been used and short enough that, if there are issues, we know about them. We will take advice but I am not hung up on one year, two years or 18 months at all. I would say it should be the earliest possible period that facilitates getting something useful in a report so that we can continue to discuss it.

Hopefully, everybody can reflect on this and consider the value of having a specific report on the operation of this aspect of the legislation. That is essentially about getting numbers. Those numbers should certainly be available within a 12-month period. There is obviously a case for having a wider review. Two years is probably reasonable for that. I ask the Minister to consider having a specific review and coming back to us with those figures with the data on the operation of the legislation. Hopefully there will be figures. We can then review the issue. I also think keeping a focus on the Garda getting a system in place is an important aspect of having that 12-month timescale. The Minister might consider those points. I will withdraw the amendment on the basis that he has given an undertaking to come back on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 7, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:

“(6) The Minister may, following consultation with the Minister for Justice, prescribe by way of regulation the systems which shall be used to record warnings issued under subsection (2).”.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 4 agreed to.
Sections 5 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

I thank the Minister for Health, Deputy Stephen Donnelly, for attending today's meeting. The committee looks forward to the coming into effect of the legislation as soon as possible.

I thank the Chair.

Is there any indication of when it will come into law?

We hope to have Report Stage as soon as possible, so certainly in this term, after which it will move to the Seanad. It is a priority to get this legislation enacted.

Will it be before Christmas?

It will certainly be through Report Stage. It is then a matter for the Seanad rather than me to facilitate time for the Bill. We will be ready to go straight away and will certainly seek the earliest possible time from the Seanad.

I thank members for their co-operation.

Top
Share