Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 11 Jul 2023

Vol. 1041 No. 6

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

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Deputy Róisín Shortall

There can be no justification for the kinds of protests we have seen or indeed any protests outside healthcare facilities. The experience of accessing termination services can be daunting enough without being bombarded by distressing images, pseudo counselling attempts or chants, or crosses, for that matter. Not only can these types of protests cause mental anguish but they can also act as a genuine barrier to accessing services, adding to an already long list of barriers to timely and local abortion services.

We must not lose sight of the impact of these protests or the threat of such protests on service provision and staff. In July 2022, Dr. Camilla Fitzsimons from Maynooth University published research on the experience of 75 termination service providers in Ireland. Eighty-four percent of these providers worked in primary care, while the remaining 16% worked in maternity hospitals. Forty-five percent of those surveyed reported protests outside their place of work, with 5% reporting daily protests. If anybody thinks these are unusual events, they are certainly not. They can be constant; daily in some cases.

With regard to legislation, 77% were in favour of laws to create safe access zones. This high level of support is unsurprising, given that the Irish College of General Practitioners called for safe access zones at its annual general meeting as early as May 2019. GPs who took part in Dr. Fitzsimons' research spoke of the intimidation, distress and upset caused to staff and patients. These concerns were also borne out and recorded in the O'Shea report, in which one rural GP expressed her concern for patients feeling stigmatised and judged. One of the most worrying insights of GPs related to the concern that protests have a chilling effect on potential providers. The prospect of getting involved in providing services scared people off.

Given the uneven geographical spread of services, with nine counties having fewer than five GPs providing termination services, this chilling effect must be urgently addressed to increase the number of GPs participating. In 2019, the Library and Research Service published a useful note on safe access zones in other jurisdictions. The research found that safe access zones were provided for in several countries, including Australia, Canada and the United States. In Europe, from the responses of the 30 parliaments that replied to the Library and Research Service's survey it was found that abortion services were available in all of their countries. Although none of the 30 countries had a specific ban on protests in the immediate vicinity of clinics or hospitals providing terminations – there are many reasons for this – Macedonia and Croatia had a more general prohibition on protests around hospitals, specifically where a protest would obstruct ambulances or disturb the peace of patients. While France did not have a specific ban on protests outside healthcare facilities, it was an offence to attempt to prevent the termination of pregnancy by any means.

It should be noted that since the research was carried out, there have been some developments in parts of Britain and Northern Ireland, where safe access zones are to be introduced in September. Nevertheless, it is clear that safe access zones are not that common in Europe. However, this should not be viewed as a reason not to act, because the context in Ireland is very different. It is only five years since the eighth amendment was repealed and the legacy of the long period before that must be taken into consideration. Research commissioned by the HSE and published in July of last year found the constitutional amendment and decades of disputes over legislation had "left a residue of symbolic effect that presented in the data". The data were collected on unplanned pregnancies and on abortions.

According to the authors of this study, the data pointed to the need for the normalisation of abortion through care provision practices, evolving discourse and tailored policy initiatives such as legislating for safe access zones. We all know that Ireland is no longer the socially conservative country it once was, but the scars of stigma and shame are not so easily forgotten, especially when there are still forces which want to drag us back to those days. That is why Ireland, in particular, needs these protections. Abortion care is a very new feature of our health service, unlike in most other European countries. Therefore, we must act now before anti-choice protests outside healthcare facilities become even more commonplace or increase in frequency. When it comes to legislating for safe access zones, we should not see ourselves as outliers in the EU but instead as leaders.

I would like to turn to the question of constitutionality. Some groups have argued that this Bill is unconstitutional on the basis it would restrict the right to protest. I do not disagree that it would but I do not believe it is unconstitutional. Obviously, the constitutionality could be challenged in the courts, but the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, made a compelling case for the constitutionality of safe access zones in its submission on the general scheme. The council argued that the rights of service users must outweigh the right to protest. Its view is based on Article 40.6.1° of the Constitution, which essentially stipulates that public morality is a ground for restricting the right to protest.

In the courts, public morality is informed by the social norms of the day, and in this case that is influenced by the repeal of the eighth amendment and the legalisation of abortion. These factors, along with the views of domestic and international human rights bodies that strongly endorse access to abortion, suggest public morality would favour safe access zones. The ICCL made another persuasive argument for the constitutionality of safe access zones. In instances where the right to protest could be weighed against the rights of service users, the council argued that the most pertinent rights are those of dignity, privacy and the protection of the person, and the proposed restrictions on protests are therefore proportionate. While I may not agree with the views of anti-choice protesters, I support their right to protest and express their views.

However, the proposed narrow and necessary limits on the right to protest proposed in the Bill are needed. In this context, the rights to privacy, dignity, bodily integrity and access to healthcare, and the right of medical providers to access their place of work safely, override the right to protest.

I refer to the one recommendation from the health committee that the Minister has somewhat addressed. During pre-legislative scrutiny, it became clear the Department had not adequately addressed enforcement of safe access zones, thereby limiting the effectiveness of the proposed legislation. The main issue identified during pre-legislative scrutiny related to recordings of warnings. The draft Bill did not place a requirement on the Garda to record warnings, nor did it detail the system that would be used to record them. A number of us still find it difficult to get our head around how this will operate in practice. That is why the health committee recommended that provision for a clear, practical and effective system of recording warnings be included in the Bill. However, while the Minister has made it a requirement to record warnings, it is still unclear how this will be managed in practice.

Section 4(2) states that gardaí must record the time, date and particulars of a warning, but it does not say where that information will be recorded. When we discussed this during pre-legislative scrutiny, representatives of An Garda Síochána did not seem to know how prior warnings could be recorded. Currently, PULSE is used for convictions. Will its use be widened to facilitate the recording of prior warnings? Will the Garda have access to this information remotely? Where, for example, gardaí arrive at a healthcare facility at which the 100 m safe access zone has been breached, what exactly happens in those circumstances? These are questions that need to be answered by the Minister as it is not entirely clear how prior warnings will be managed under the Bill. This important provision seems to have been glossed over, despite the health committee's clear view that it must be addressed to prevent recurring protests and offences. This will need to be teased out on Committee Stage. The Bill must be a priority for the health committee when we return in September. I welcome the confirmation given this afternoon that Committee Stage will be taken at the first meeting of the health committee in September, assuming Second Stage passes this week.

I again stress the point about warnings. It is a precondition of prosecution that a prior warning has been given. A situation may arise, for instance, where an individual protesting in Cork on a Friday is given a warning. If, the following day or week, the person protests in Donegal, in breach of the provision in the legislation for safe access zones, and is apprehended by a garda, how does that garda know whether the individual has had a prior warning? Nobody has been able to answer that question. There is a requirement to record the warning. Where will it be recorded and how will it be accessed on the second occasion a person breaches a safe access zone? We need clear answers on that on Committee Stage.

As I said, progress on the Bill has been painfully slow. I accept the Department needed time to review the provision in other jurisdictions and ensure the legislation is sound from a human rights perspective. However, there can be no justification for that taking up to five years. Nonetheless, we are pleased we have finally arrived at this Stage. The Bill represents an entirely proportionate response to what is an existing significant problem that potentially will become even more significant. Safe access zones have public support, with 85% of adults agreeing that individuals accessing and providing terminations should be protected from anti-abortion protests. That is according to polling carried out in February last year. However, the overriding impetus for this legislation must be the State's obligation to uphold individuals' right to access termination with dignity and privacy, along with respect. At present, we are failing in that regard. We must do better by patients and staff by guaranteeing access to confidential, private and respectful healthcare. I look forward to engaging with the details of the legislation on Committee Stage. I welcome the Bill.

Deputy Alan Farrell

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important Bill. In 2018, the people of this country voted to overhaul how we approach the issue of termination of pregnancies. We voted to give women control of their own bodies and their own healthcare. Five years on, we are still striving to provide an adequate system of healthcare for these services countrywide. This Bill seeks to fulfil and vindicate a long-standing commitment by the Government to provide for safe access zones at healthcare settings carrying out these procedures.

No woman seeking advice on a termination of pregnancy does so lightly. There is a complexity to life such that a great many factors influence pregnant women, and they must be discussed with the utmost sensitivity. I can only imagine the emotion involved for the women who engage with these services and the journey they go on to come to such a decision. It is not an easy one, nor is it one that many women would have envisaged taking. This underscores the importance of providing the highest degree of privacy, dignity and safety when accessing healthcare services relating to the termination of a pregnancy. The Bill seeks the introduction of a 100 m perimeter around such healthcare settings within which it will be prohibited that anyone may seek to influence or intimidate women attending. This does not represent a suppression of an individual's right to protest. Rather, it represents the protection of individuals' right to access healthcare without undue distress and intimidation.

I listened carefully to Deputy Shortall's contribution and I agree entirely with her on the question of constitutionality. We are not banning protests. We are just banning them from the vicinity of a facility. That is not a breach of the Constitution by any manner or means, although I fully expect it will be tested, which probably is not a bad thing. Many of us in this House will recall some of the materials sent to our offices during the 2012 legislative process and again at the time of the 2018 referendum. Some of that material was extreme and graphic in nature. No woman attending a healthcare setting should have to worry about encountering extreme or distressing content the like of which we saw.

In recent weeks, I received an email from a group I will not name protesting the idea of this Bill being brought to the floor of the House. A couple of days later, I got an email that included a map of Dublin city with little blue dots showing the location of all the healthcare facilities that provide abortion services. If you are opposed to legislation such as this, it stands to reason that you would want to know what you are talking about. However, I found it insidious that there is a group that has at its fingertips information, set out in a map, on every abortion service provider in Dublin city. I found it insidious because that information could be used to attempt to intimidate a service user. That is entirely unacceptable. The people spoke clearly in making their decision and the Oireachtas legislated for that decision. It is important for us to protect not just service users but staff of healthcare centres as well, who must also be made to feel safe in attending their place of work and must have confidence their work will not be interrupted through the actions of others.

I recognise that passion and belief can run high when discussing this subject and that there are those who will not support the Bill. However, we must ensure that, if passed, the appropriate measures are implemented to ensure adherence to safe access zones provision is upheld.

We must also require the relevant Departments to engage with law enforcement with regard to these matters and to provide clarity with regard to those procedural and operational processes my colleague mentioned.

On an unrelated subject, in my constituency of Dublin Fingal, we saw a number of protests at libraries that caused distress to staff and customers alike. This situation was made worse through a lack of clarity as to what the appropriate response should be. I therefore urge the Minister of State to ensure stakeholder engagement on the implementation of safe access zones is carried out.

I will end my contribution where I began. Fundamentally, as a country and as a Legislature, we have legalised these procedures. The people had their say and they spoke with exceptional clarity. It was a landslide. It was a decision to trust women to make the decisions that are best for them in their own situations. We must allow them to make those decisions with the respect and dignity they deserve.

I have a message for those who seek to impart their views to women approaching healthcare facilities: stay away, mind your business and leave healthcare to qualified, professional and sympathetic medical professionals because the people have spoken already.

Deputy Denise Mitchell

I welcome the opportunity to speak to this Bill today. It has been a long time coming. The idea of safe access zones was first raised back in 2018 as a measure to protect women seeking access to abortion. Since then, we have seen multiple protests outside hospitals and surgeries. This legislation is very much needed to stop women being harassed when accessing these vital services. Five years on from repeal, I am glad this is now coming to pass. It is timely given that similar legislation was enacted in the North recently.

Let me be clear; people will still have the right to protest but they will have the right to do so in an appropriate location. They will not have the right to harass women accessing services, which is vital. We saw this outside the Rotunda a couple of years ago, when graphic images were on display and people tried to stop women entering the hospital, heckling them as they passed. This legislation will finally penalise that type of behaviour. Those engaging in such behaviour lack empathy and have little understanding of the circumstances that might cause a person to access abortion services.

I congratulate both Together for Safety on pushing for this matter to come before the Dáil and my colleague Senator Gavan, who moved that group's legislation in the Seanad. While this Bill is positive, it can be improved. As it stands, it is unclear if warnings will carry over to different locations. If they do not, it will allow people to receive warnings at multiple locations without committing an offence. We want to see a clear, practical and effective system of recording prior warnings included in this Bill. More generally, there is still more to do to ensure people have access to vital services. In many areas, termination services are still not available nearby. The Government and the HSE need to make sure these services improve and that easy access to services is provided to all who need it.

Deputy Bríd Smith

I am sharing time with Deputy Barry.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Deputy sharing time equally? There are three speakers down for this slot.

Deputy Bríd Smith

I do not believe Deputy Gino Kenny is taking his time, so it is just the two of us.

Deputy Mick Barry

Deputy Smith can have much time as she wants.

Deputy Bríd Smith

That is what I like to hear. I am delighted this Bill is before the House. I congratulate the campaigners in Together for Safety, who have relentlessly pursued this issue, driving us all to keep coming back to it. While repeal was not an easy win and was hard fought for before being won, you could sit back and say it is done and dusted and we no longer have to worry about it. However, we were recently reminded during questions with Ms Marie O'Shea and her team at the Joint Committee on Health that protests against abortion providers, whether at clinics, GPs' homes or hospitals, act as a chill factor with regard to the provision of a very essential service. As previous speakers have said, the people have spoken. They voted overwhelmingly to provide abortion services at home to women who seek them. That those services are then subject to protests, often involving strong, brutal, insulting and inaccurate imagery and very strong and aggressive language, is just not acceptable. I know from experience, as will many in the House, that when you are in that situation, you are vulnerable and you want to get your treatment as soon as possible. To have to face a gauntlet of anti-choicers, many of whom are engaging in activity straight out of the fascist handbook, is just not acceptable. I am delighted we are attempting to do something about it.

I have a couple of questions. One is on the original Seanad Private Member's Bill. This Bill included a section that banned the harassment of abortion providers outside of safe access zones. In other words, it was not permitted to go to their homes or to harass them on the street. Today, many of us had to run a gauntlet across the road of far-right protestors who want to undermine trans rights. That has to be put up with because it is a feature of modern life. However, for women seeking healthcare and for doctors and others who are willing to provide that healthcare to be subject to harassment and violent attack is just not acceptable. We know this has been a feature in other countries. It is very much part of today's far-right movement. Such groups copy each other's behaviour and learn from it. They move from theme to theme in tandem, telling lies that match each other's. The worst aspect of this has been seen in the United States where - we can be thankful it has not happened recently - medical providers have actually been murdered at abortion clinics because of the absolute hatred and bile spewed by those who do not want women to have a choice.

It is very good that the Bill is before us but it has taken some time. I believe it has taken time because this and previous governments have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to deal with questions of women's reproductive rights. We see the same now with the abortion review. The Government is very reluctant to act on the abortion review and Dr. Marie O'Shea's recommendations, although we in the House more generally are not so reluctant. The Government has used all sorts of excuses to delay and it has buried its head in the sand and said it cannot or will not do anything about it. The movement outside of this House for full reproductive rights is very important.

I will move on to some of the detail of the Bill. As has been mentioned, the lack of a clear system for gardaí to record warnings issued to people who move from protest to protest to avoid arrest is really not good enough. We need to find a system, perhaps a new system outside of PULSE, through which gardaí will be obliged to record details of those who breach the limits of protest outside an abortion clinic or another venue where abortion is provided. Such people currently have the freedom to move around and they do so. It has been noticed that some of the same characters seen outside the Dáil today and in the libraries in Cork last week were also at Inch the week before and burning refugees out of their tents in Sandwith Street. These guys move around, co-ordinate and avoid repeated arrest. Central to what this Bill can do is the ability of An Garda to track who has been given warnings so that they cannot freely move from one protest to another, pretending they are not committing an offence.

The other issue I will cover is the suggestion made by previous speakers, although not today, that this is somehow a great encroachment on the right to protest. I will point out the model we used to argue for restriction zones during pre-legislative scrutiny. There is a thing called the Electoral Act 1992.

Under that Act, it is stated that no one shall interfere, obstruct or impede an elector, that is, anyone going to vote, coming to and leaving the vicinity of a polling station, including the curtilage. We should take note of the word "curtilage" because there has been quite a bit of argument about what it means. An Garda Síochána drilled down very carefully into the definition. There is a curtilage of 100 m around a polling station within which people cannot go to hand out leaflets or talk to constituents or voters who are going into that polling station. No doubt many people in this House have experienced the speed and the accuracy with which An Garda Síochána will move in and tell people who are distributing leaflets on behalf of a candidate to get outside that 100 m zone. This is the proactive measure we have to apply when dealing with those who want to spew their hate and bile against women and the providers of abortion outside clinics that are looking after women's reproductive rights.

For that reason, what constitutes the curtilage and the exclusion zone and the limitations of thereof needs to be clarified and emphasised and has to be enforced with vigour by An Garda Síochána. The argument was made here last week when what they call a pro-life protest took place recently in town. The protestors gathered near the Rotunda Hospital. The question was asked whether that protest would be illegal under the legislation. First of all, I want to reclaim that language. These people are not pro-life; they do not care if women die. That is why they opposed the repeal of the eighth amendment. They are anti-choice. When they attend rallies with banners and images that are offensive, untruthful and intimidating to women seeking abortion, they should not be allowed to do so under the provisions of that law and within the 100 m curtilage. Far-right protestors who gather at the Garden of Remembrance and target women and their right to choose. We have seen them alongside representatives of the Catholic Church. A number of Deputies have their photographs taken with leading fascist anti-choice individuals on those protests. Not long ago, these people were arrested for burning the tents in Sandwith Street. By their friends ye shall all know them. They like to portray these protests as religious events that involve people quietly praying. However, the reality is far from that. These protests are nasty, intimidating and often violent. I and others in this House who have been fighting on behalf of the pro-choice movement for years have been on the receiving end of violence. I have been punched in the face and threatened by those who do not want women to have a choice. It is no wonder that women find it intimidating when they are seeking healthcare or that abortion providers find it extremely intimidating. Hence, barrister Marie O'Shea answer to a question that these protests are effectively creating a chill factor in the context of the provision of abortion. This is happening right across the world but it is a new phenomenon in this country. Thankfully, because of the result in the referendum to repeal the eighth amendment, we have the option of receiving abortion care at home.

It must be especially intimidating for GPs and providers of the service in rural areas where the population is lower. There are fewer people to see or stand up to the kind of intimidation to which I refer. It is also difficult for GPs who provide a service from their homes when their children, going to and from school, have to pass these protests or have to deal with the abuse that ensues. It is really important that we deal with this matter in the correct way. We need everybody in the House to recognise that this is not an attempt to clamp down on the right to protest. It is an attempt to allow people to protest, if they must, against the provision of healthcare for women but to do so without intimidating or abusing women or those who are providing their care. We want to see this legislation move forward swiftly. We thank those who have been campaigning for a long time to see it come to fruition.

Deputy Mick Barry

I wish to speak in support of the Health (Termination of Pregnancy Services) (Safe Access Zones) Bill 2023. The Bill needs to be seen in the context that there is related legislation. I refer to the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) (Amendment) Bill 2023, the Second Stage of which was taken on 31 May. The latter Bill would allow access for people who struggle to get access at the moment. Safe access and access go together. The Bill before the House should not be seen as a stand-alone measure. I will be backing it, but the other legislation to which I refer must go through quickly as well.

Since January 2019, we have seen protests organised outside GP clinics and hospitals where abortions services are provided and elsewhere. We have seen silent gatherings and people praying. We have seen props that include white crosses. We have seen placards with very graphic images on them. We have seen the distribution of anti-abortion leaflets. We have seen people entering surgeries to make complaints. We have seen - and this is not by any means uncommon - loud, abusive demonstrations targeting professionals who are providing a health service and women with crisis pregnancies. This is not by any means uncommon. The following was stated by a respondent to the abortion rights campaign publication Too Many Barriers: Experiences of Abortion in Ireland after Repeal:

It’s hard enough for people seeking abortions to make the decision and go through with it with the stigma that already exists. To subject these people to the vile verbal abuse and intimidation those who protest spew at them is untenable.

Those are important words. In July 2022, Dr. Camilla Fitzsimons from Maynooth University published research material that draws on international and domestic experience. In it, she referred to protests as being intimidatory, upsetting and even a form of gender-based harassment. Gender-based harassment is an important part of this. Deputy Bríd Smith made an important point. The same far-right forces have been involved in many of these protests. They are pointing the finger at asylum seekers and refugees. They are engaging in harassment and intimidation and targeting people in the LGBTQ+ community, those working in public libraries and other groups in our society. They are at the core of many of these protests.

The legislation before the House has been slow in coming forward. These protests began in the first quarter of 2019. I do not mean anti-abortion protests. We have known about those for years. Targeted protests outside GP clinics and hospitals are a new phenomenon. It was not a secret that they were taking place. The Minister, Deputy Simon Harris, said on the public record at the time that we needed to move quickly with the legislation in order to be able to deal with this issue. We are more than four years on from that. It is welcome that we are debating this issue now but the introduction of the legislation has been far too slow.

On the question of whether this legislation impacts on the right to protest, I want to be very clear. The Bill is very specific and proportionate. It refers to an area of 100 m around a service provider's location. It also refers to people who are entering and exiting the building not being harassed, intimidated or put under pressure.

It does not have an impact on the right to protest, even for those who wish to protest against abortion, or some of the other issues I referred to earlier, other than within 100 m of the place in question to protect women. It does not, therefore, have an impact, in any real sense, on the right to protest more generally. This is a point that needs to be made clear.

I return to the issue of the sister legislation to this Bill which I mentioned earlier. The Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) (Amendment) Bill 2023 was passed on Second Stage here on 31 May 2023. What does it provide for? It would decriminalise abortion. It would end the patronising three-day wait. It would allow for abortion after the 12-week cut-off currently there. It would provide a workable definition of "fatal foetal abnormality". It is also linked to a clear call and demand for services to be provided by the HSE throughout the State, rather than the extremely limited and patchy services now present in some parts. We should pass this legislation before us and pass it quickly. We should also pass the other legislation I have referred to and pass it quickly as well.

I congratulate all those who have campaigned for this legislation to be introduced, including the Together for Safety campaigners and all those women's rights activists around the country who have taken up this issue and campaigned so hard on it. Unfortunately, they have had to campaign over several years rather than a shorter timespan, but better late than never in this regard.

Deputy Emer Higgins

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation. I am glad we are debating it before the summer recess because we have waited long enough for the Bill. We first started discussing safe access zones in the wake of the eighth amendment referendum in 2018, some five years ago. In the interim, while we have seen some women finally receiving access to necessary and essential healthcare, we have also seen, regrettably, some women being subjected to what I believe to be unforgivable intimidation, obstruction and threatening behaviour during a traumatic period in their lives when they are seeking a termination.

I attended the meeting of the Joint Committee on Health in May when it was discussing the report on the review of the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018. Having been present, it was clear from the report and the testimony of the expert witnesses that several elements of our abortion services need to be improved. I will focus on safe access zones because that is what this Bill is concerned with. At that committee meeting, we heard shocking testimony about protests outside GP surgeries in particular. Witnesses used the phrase "coercively controlling somebody's reproductive rights". They used this phrase when it came to intimidating behaviour in or outside a medical practitioner's office. It is appalling that this is still happening now despite how our nation voted and to think there is a campaign of intimidation and almost emotional blackmail going on in some places aimed at women in crisis situations and seeking healthcare. It is often as well aimed at service providers themselves, including GPs, nurses and receptionists. All this must end and end now.

I believe safe access zones prohibiting this intimidating behaviour around facilities carrying out terminations would go a long way towards protecting women and service providers. I commend Together for Safety and all its campaigning for everything it has done to keep safe access zones on the political agenda and for continuing to shine a spotlight on women's experiences. In the run-up to the referendum on the eighth amendment, much of the discussion centred on trusting women. As we look at how we can improve the services currently available, I think this discussion still boils down to trusting women. We must trust women to make the decision that is best for them and trust the women who have made that decision, as difficult a decision as it may be to terminate a pregnancy, have thought those decisions through. When people decide to intimidate through protest to try to change a person's mind, they are saying loud and clear they do not trust women to make the right decision.

It is not just protests that are intimidating. We have also seen billboards and posters in prominent positions outside maternity hospitals and healthcare settings calling on women to rethink abortion. They are outside hospitals where women are inside and going through traumatic experiences of everything from miscarriage and pregnancy loss to hearing news of fatal foetal abnormalities. These billboards and posters are in places where women are going in looking for help, assistance and access to healthcare. As they enter and leave those premises, these women are confronted with, and there is no doubt about this, intimidation and, quite frankly, veiled hatred in terms of protest, billboards and posters. This is happening at a time when these women are undoubtedly already suffering physically and, most likely, emotionally too. This is a blatant attempt to cause upset and trauma and to heap more emotional turmoil on women in difficult situations. This is why I want intimidating billboards and posters and similar material to be cracked down on within these safe access zones and to be treated just as seriously as physical protests.

I am a big believer in the right to protest. Working here, we witness protests and protesters when we come out every day. I am proud we live in a country where people can express their views so freely. This is everybody's right. With every right, though, there is a balance of responsibility. For me, this line is firmly drawn when protests cease to be peaceful and become unreasonable, intimidatory or threatening. This is the definition of protests outside healthcare settings. Protests seeking to stop women from accessing necessary healthcare are unreasonable at best and threatening and intimidating at worst. I welcome that this legislation will so better protect women in this situation. The reality is these protests can continue. This legislation will not apply outside the 100 m safe access zone. That is okay because we want people to be allowed to protest. The safe access zones will, however, protect women seeking abortions from coming face-to-face with those seeking to undermine and degrade them. I just wish it had not taken us five years to get to this stage. Now we are here, I hope we can enact this legislation as soon as possible to protect women and, ultimately, to trust them to make the decision that is right for them, free from outside influence and intimidation.

Deputy Mark Ward

Sinn Féin supports this legislation. People deserve unhindered access to abortion healthcare services. This is not a new issue. In fact, Sinn Féin's Senator Paul Gavan was the primary sponsor of a similar safe access zone Bill drafted in conjunction with the Together for Safety group. This Bill passed every Stage in the Seanad, but as we have seen before with other Opposition legislation, the Government has been slow in progressing it further.

I thank the Together for Safety group and progressive Senators for their advocacy and for keeping this issue on the agenda. Together for Safety contacted TDs last week in advance of this debate and I will refer to some of the words used by the group. It stated that every day that passed without the legislation would be a day that people going to medical appointments would be harassed, distressed, abused and recorded and doctors would worry about their safety and the safety and privacy of their patients and staff. The group went on to say that people just want to be left alone and that five years is long enough. This perfectly sums up this debate: people just want to be left alone.

The public voted overwhelmingly for safe abortion access in 2018 and this Bill will add to the safety that women deserve. Abortion is healthcare and no one should be subject to abuse when seeking healthcare. We have all seen the horrific imagery these so-called protesters use to abuse pregnant people. This must be put to an end. This Bill is not perfect, however, and it can be improved. I have several questions. Can the Minister clarify if an individual who gets a warning at one site can move to another site, get another warning there and then move on again? An Garda Síochána has stated the force does not have the appropriate facilities for recording these warnings and so an individual could receive multiple warnings across different locations without the Garda knowing. What guarantee can the Minister give that will stop individuals from evading the penalties for repeatedly breaching this legislation?

Sinn Féin wants breaches to be recorded properly and to be carried over to different locations.

Again, it is five years since the public voted for these services but there are still issues with access. The independent review of the Operation of the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018 highlighted significant geographical barriers. It highlighted the underdevelopment of regional services and barriers such as the three-day wait. We want to see these addressed in a systemic way. We need a clear plan from Government on how it intends to progress these recommendations. There needs to be real engagement with service providers. The report to which I refer set out some commonsense steps that should be taken. Services need to be mapped and the longest travel distances need to be identified. Women should be able to access the services they voted for.

An Ceann Comhairle

Next is Deputy Fitzpatrick. He is sharing time with Deputies Canney and Tóibín.

Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick

I understand the impulse that many in this House will feel to vote in favour of the Bill. Nobody, whether they are pro-life or pro-choice, wants to see anybody harassed by strangers because they have decided to terminate a pregnancy. The idea of introducing exclusion zones against pro-life advocates in the vicinity of termination facilities is copied from similar measures in countries like England and Germany to ensure that women entering abortion clinics are not subjected to unwelcome influence by pro-life activists who might engage in what is termed "sidewalk counselling". However, the Bill will not achieve its intended outcome. In fact, it will criminalise the expression of a single ethical world view across sprawling zones of this country. While there are no reasons to oppose exclusion zones on the grounds that they violate fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of expression or freedom of religion, supporters of exclusion zones argue that there must be a balance of rights. This is the debate that is at play abroad but it does not fully apply in Ireland.

It must be stressed that we do not have the same abortion clinic systems that exist in countries like England and Germany. The Irish abortion system does not operate out of specific abortion clinics but rather within GP clinics, hospitals, and family planning centres, and is paid for by the taxpayer. Just 0.05% of all GP visits relate to terminations of pregnancy. A pro-life campaigner outside a hospital or GP clinic has no way of knowing who is going in to have an abortion and who is not. This means that we have not seen the type of activity in Ireland which accentuated the decision to introduce exclusion zones. The Irish situation is simply different. Importing the same model wholesale into Ireland strikes me as unworkable and it pushes against the upholding of civil liberties.

The idea that we urgently need legislation to stop people from exercising their constitutional rights falls flat when one examines what is happening. In Ireland, the most common sort of pro-life activity has often been older people in small groups praying silently outside hospitals. Supporters of exclusion zones have pinpointed these small groups as creating terror. Yet, they are not harassing anyone. I know of a group that chooses to say the Rosary outside University Hospital Limerick. Its members offer intentions for the sick, for healthcare workers and for the unborn child. I know of a group of people outside Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda who took part in a quiet protest. They did not hand out leaflets or harass anyone. In fact, the UL Hospitals Group had to come out in December 2021 and state that it had not received a single complaint from any woman, partner or staff member in respect of to anti-abortion protests. It leads me to believe that this legislation is nothing more than following a generic trend abroad where circumstances are entirely different. Further to that, because this legislation singles out one particular world view it is inherently discriminatory and paints pro-life people in a negative light. This is undemocratic.

Of course, if there were to be any cases of harassment or the blocking of entryways, these are already crimes and should be prosecuted. This was why the Garda Commissioner, Drew Harris, advised the then Minister, Deputy Harris, in 2019 that exclusion zones legislation was unnecessary due to Garda powers under existing public order laws.

I turn now to what the implications of setting up these zones would mean. As I have explained, the abortion system in Ireland is fundamentally different to many other countries. In other countries, exclusion zones apply only to specific designated abortion clinics. But the Bill will mean setting up 100 m exclusion zones around every single GP, hospital and family planning centre in the country, regardless of whether they are carrying out abortions. This would blot out large parts of the country, particularly in areas like Dublin city centre, where pro-life views cannot be safely expressed. If a woman and her pregnant daughter were having a private conversation within 100 m of the front door of a nearby GP clinic, whereby the mother advises her daughter that she should rethink having a termination, the mother could fall foul of this law. Similarly, would the large-scale, annual, pro-life public event March for Life be prohibited from passing down certain streets in Dublin because there is a GP clinic in the vicinity of 100 m, which may or may not provide abortions? Within university campuses, there is commonly a family planning centre. Would this shut down not just casual conversations between students but also debate within lecture halls on the topic of abortion?

The unintended consequences of this legislation are significant and deeply concerning. I fear we could see a situation with this Bill where the far-reaching consequences of it are not thrashed out here in a serious way and we are left with an unwieldy law which has the effect of crippling certain citizens’ fundamental rights. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the Bill.

Deputy Seán Canney

I also have grave concerns and reservations about aspects of the Bill that I hope the Government will listen to and address in the form of amendments in due course. The effect of this legislation will go far beyond what the Government has sketched out with regard to its intended impact. Proponents of the Bill say that its purpose is to stop harassment, which we can all agree is wrong. However, the type of activities which supporters of exclusion zones claim are happening seem to have no serious evidence basis.

Sensational claims were made in the Seanad in February 2022 that rural GPs who have their offices in their homes have been subjected to unacceptable protests at their homes. There is simply not a shred of evidence to suggest that this has happened. In December 2021, UL Hospitals Group, clarified that it had no record of anti-abortion protests and had received no complaints from patients or staff. Limerick was often held up as the epicentre of pro-life protests. The type of activity going on in Limerick involves a small group of mostly women praying near the hospital. It is hardly the crime of the century, and such activity should not be treated as a crime.

The activities specified in this Bill that would be illegal within the exclusion zones are already offences. Blocking access to a healthcare premises is already a crime under section 9 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994. Intimidating or harassing any service provider or a person attempting to access the service of a healthcare provider is already illegal under sections 8 and 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997. A more subtle type of unwelcome activity by a third party has also been cited as a reason for introducing laws of this nature. Supporters of exclusion zones have looked abroad for examples of how these laws operate in practice England, Germany, Australia and elsewhere. However, the situation in Ireland is fundamentally different from that in the countries to which I refer and that undermines the very need for these exclusion zones.

Although I have concerns about the exclusion zones in principle, the impetus abroad for introducing them around specific abortion clinics may make sense. It makes sense because in the countries in question abortion happens in single-purpose clinics and a pro-life activist could reasonably assume that a woman entering an abortion clinic in these countries was going in to have an abortion and might try to intervene by offering her a leaflet, for example. The situation in Ireland is not comparable, however. As the vast majority of abortions are happening in GP clinics, there is no way to know why a woman is entering a GP clinic or whether it is for an abortion. Only 0.05% of visits to a GP relate to an abortion. A pro-life activist near a hospital or a GP clinic will not be able to know that a woman is entering the building for an abortion in the same way as it could happen abroad. This tells me that the real impact of the exclusion zones will be to shut down people who express pro-life views within one of these designated zones. I do not believe that the significant scale of the intended exclusion zones is truly appreciated.

Yesterday, the Taoiseach said that exclusion zones would apply to hospitals, as well as to GP surgeries in some cases. This is not what is in the Bill. It is clear that in all cases GP clinics, whether it is to provide abortions or not, will be the subject of 100 m exclusion zones. This radius would extend well beyond the boundaries of GP clinics and, in many cases, would encompass public streets and nearby buildings.

In other countries that have exclusion zones they apply to abortion clinics where abortions are happening. These are limited by number. By contrast there will be thousands of designated premises which will become exclusion zones.

The impact of this legislation would be to blot out entire areas of the country, particularly compact areas like Dublin city centre, and criminalise the expression of any viewpoint which may be inferred to influence someone's decision have an abortion. This will include large-scale public events like the annual March for Life passing through a major street like O'Connell Street. I have been provided with a map which clearly demonstrates the wide-ranging scale of exclusion zones in Dublin city centre. For example, with a zone around the Rotunda Hospital at one end of the street and a 100 m zone around two medical centres close to O'Connell Bridge, it would be illegal to walk the length of O'Connell Street holding a pro-life sign.

The impact of this legislation would be that the expression of any viewpoint or activity which could be inferred as influencing someone's decision to have an abortion would be criminalised in a vast amount of public areas. This would even include criminalising certain private conversations. It would include prohibiting one from handing out a leaflet outside Trinity College which might contain pro-life information. It could even shut down debates in the college on abortion from either perspective.

The Bill requires a serious rethink even if Deputies still feel it calls for a vote. I ask that they consider the far-reaching consequences of its proposals which go far beyond its stated intention. Some of these issues could be dealt with through amendments, although I would still have considerable reservations about what the legislation is truly trying to achieve.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

There is a saying that the past is a foreign country but for many people in Ireland today, this Dáil is becoming a foreign country - a Dáil that they no longer recognise as representing their own views. This Dáil is the most draconian Dáil in generations. Unfortunately, there is an authoritarian streak running through the political establishment in Ireland and it is shocking citizens across the country. The Government is trying to implement a number of Bills which are significantly reducing people's human and democratic rights. The Government is trying to implement the hate speech Bill that censors people's views. The Government has produced a Bill under which person can be sent to jail for speaking. The Government is looking to criminalise citizens who speak respectfully on issues that they disagree with, which is the opposite of what a liberal democracy means. A liberal democracy is built on the idea that the competition of ideas is the engine of the democratic process.

The Government's censorship Bill deletes the right to respectfully but robustly challenge the convention of the establishment bubble here in Leinster House. That Bill is so poorly worded and no one, not even the Minister who wrote the Bill, is sure of exactly what the definition is and how the act will land people in jail. If I ask a child what something means and they give a circular definition back I could probably accept that. I would not accept it from an adult and I certainly would not accept in a law that seeks to criminalise people on that circular definition for speaking. The Green Party's Seanadóir Pauline O'Reilly has stated in public that all legislation is about the restriction of freedom and that this is exactly what we are doing here. However, that is not true. All legislation is not about the restriction of democratic freedoms. Legislation should be about the defence of democratic freedoms.

The Government is pushing Ireland into an outlier position. Internationally Ireland is gaining notoriety right across the world for the authoritarian streak that is happening here. We are becoming infamous in this respect. I did an interview at RTÉ recently and basically the interview only happened because all the international media are identifying Ireland as this hotspot of reduction of human and civil rights at the moment.

During the Covid crisis we saw another example of the authoritarian nature of the Government. The Government created two tiers of freedom. People were free to go about their business if they had a Covid pass but were restricted from public spaces if they did not, despite the fact that both cohorts were getting Covid and spreading Covid at the same time. Just a couple of years ago because of Government policy young people were being beaten off the streets by police in riot gear for having a pint while at the same time thousands of older people were dying in nursing homes because the State had pushed thousands of patients out of hospitals and into nursing homes without checking them for Covid.

This Bill is another example of that tendency towards authoritarianism in this Government. It simply restricts the human and civil rights to protest. The right to protest is one of the most important rights that we have especially in Ireland. As an Irish republican, I recognise that the civil right to protest was critical in the attainment of equal rights for people in the North of Ireland. The unionist parties and the RUC, like this Government and many on the hard left, also sought to ban public protest and to jail people and beat them off the street for protesting. It is incredible that 50 years after those civil rights marches from Coalisland to Dungannon as well as on Bloody Sunday, Sinn Féin, North and South, is joining the Government to ban the human right to protest. I should not be surprised. Sinn Féin used to stand against the section 31 censorship. However, a few weeks ago in this Chamber yet again Sinn Féin supported the censorship aspects of the hate speech Bill.

I believe one of the reasons that Ireland has become so authoritarian in recent years is that the Government and the so-called Opposition are simply on the same page on many issues. Today on a rake of issues there is hardly a cigarette paper between the Government, Sinn Féin and the Trotskyite hard left parties on many issues. To many people this feels stifling. To many people this feels like a political cartel. Aontú is the only political party in this country pushing back against this oppressive uniformity that is happening.

Censorship and protest bans used to be the tools of right-wing dictators. The left used to be a bastion of free speech and democratic rights but shockingly that has flipped in recent years. In many ways the Government and the Opposition are proof of that. If a government such as this one is willing to delete the right to life of tens of thousands of the most vulnerable living human beings, deleting the right to protest and the right the right to free speech is not an incredible jump for it.

I personally do not agree with some of the protests that happen outside of hospitals. I personally do not agree with small white coffins being used outside maternity hospitals. I have always asked people to demonstrate, protest and speak in respectful manner. However, the right to protest and the right to free speech are not just for the people the Minister agrees with. The right to protest and the right to free speech are fundamentally also for the people he disagrees with. If he does not hold that tenet firmly, then a democratic process does not work whatsoever.

There are many concerns with this Bill. Some people protest outside a GP's surgery on Saturdays, for example, when the surgery is closed. They do this purposely not to interfere with any patients who use those GP services. They do it to inform people of what is happening behind those walls. However, the Bill will delete this simple act of letting people know what is happening. It is as if the Minister is trying to hide what is happening. What would happen to a mother who offers financial help and support to another mother who is about to have an abortion for economic reasons? We know that the vast majority of abortions in this State are for economic reasons. They are for-austerity abortions. It is incredible that the parties that call themselves pro-choice implement economic policies that make mothers feel that they have no choice. It is an incredible situation but that is happening at the moment. If a mother or any citizen were to offer economic support to a mother in that case, they would be banned from doing so by the provisions of this Bill.

Recently in Britain, a woman was arrested for standing silently in prayer outside an abortion clinic. A police officer went up to that woman and asked her what she was thinking. In answer to that, she said she was involved in silent prayer. In that scenario, she was arrested for that. Are we really coming to that situation here that people standing silently are to be arrested for the thoughts going through their minds outside an abortion clinic?

We are not talking about banning freedoms in small area. Dublin has dozens if not hundreds of these types of locations and 100 m zones would literally seal off significant sections of city from conversations - maybe one sister banned from having a conversation with another sister because of this law.

The Minister is not banning on the basis of evidence. An Garda Síochána came before an Oireachtas committee on this and said there was no evidence in relation to the current situation around harassment and intimidation. They said they already had the legislation. The Commissioner, Drew Harris, said existing laws were adequate to deal with protests outside GP centres and hospitals that provide abortion. Certain hospital groups, in retort to TDs who blatantly told lies here in this Chamber around this issue, said they themselves had not received any official complaints from service users, their partners or accompanying support persons or staff about protests outside hospitals.

The truth is this is an evidence-free Bill. It is ideological and yet another step on the well-travelled road of this Government deleting human and civil rights. There will be a more enlightened generation in this country. Martin Luther King said the arc of history bends towards justice. Unless the Minister reverses the direction in which he is going, future generations will look back on his actions with horror.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I speak on this legislation for different reasons. My views do not coincide with the views of many of the other speakers we have just heard, but for a different reason.

I believe if the State passes legislation giving effect to any service for anything, in any way, shape or form, the public have a right to access that service by right, not at the behest of somebody who wants to protest and not because somebody wants to exercise their right to protest. I strongly object to the notion that freedom of expression carries everything with it and gives everybody a right to do what they want to do because it is a liberal ethos. It is not.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

General Eoin O’Duffy had the same views.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

It is not and if the Deputy wants to read his history, go back to the 1930s in central Europe and read carefully what was said. Again and again it was spoken about and where did it lead? It led to conflagration of the most awful type ever known on the face of this earth. It is not true to say freedom of expression should come first or foremost and we can express hate of one another. Deputy Tóibín mentioned hate. Hate speech is an appalling thing.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

It is appalling.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

There was a war in Rwanda. It started because some serious religious person decided he hated everybody all around him. He set up a radio station and preached for six months or so before igniting the cauldron that came about.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

That is incitement to violence. It is illegal already.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

You are on the wrong end of the argument. Five hundred thousand people were beheaded.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

Incitement to violence is illegal.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy, please. Will you let Deputy Durkan speak?

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

Half a million people lost their lives in order to prove a point. What point? Freedom of speech, freedom of expression and that one person had the right to hate another openly, which obviously draws a response. That is where the problem is not being addressed by the Members opposite.

I have some reservations, though I will vote for the legislation. I have a different reason for having some worries about it. I believe whatever services are available within and approved by the State, whether for people’s health or under any legislation, the legislation is there for the public. It should not be for somebody else to say they want to know why a particular location is being used or that they have the right to know. We have heard this from people in other areas. We do not have the right to know other people’s business. It is as simple as that. There is no right anywhere I know of whereby somebody can ask why somebody is attending a certain clinic or doctor's surgery or hospital. There is no right to know. That is a private matter for the individual concerned and that individual has every right to go to or from a hospital, doctor’s surgery or anywhere else in the State of their own volition. It is their business only and they should not have to ask somebody if it is all right to attend a particular location for x, y or z. We do not have the right to know everything and we do not have the right to hate.

The sooner we come to grips with the situation we have seen in this country and others about the right to hate, the better. How many times have we seen people kicked, beaten, stabbed, shot and so on to death in our cities and on our streets because people hated one another? I do not see any reason to give imprimatur to such activity. We need to speak out vehemently about it because this cannot go on.

My only worry concerns identifying the locations people are attending, whether a doctor’s surgery, a solicitor’s office or anywhere, and the idea that somebody has the right to know what they are going there for. It is none of their business. The individual has the right to privacy and that has been proven again and again. I cannot understand why we have got this mixed up with the right to live in one’s country, avail of its services and do so with no apology to anybody and at will.

We had many tragic and heart-rending situations in this country before the original legislation was passed five years ago, which we dealt with in the repeal of the eighth amendment and the long debate and committee inquiry which went before it. One of the things that impressed me at the time was the notion put forward that there would be a mad rush for women to have abortions at every hand’s turn and everybody would want an abortion. That is not what the women before the committee said. They came forward with tragic situations, concerns about life, health, mental health and about generally not being able to avail of what was required at the time to protect their lives. They found themselves isolated, in the eye of the storm and with nobody willing to help. They were traumatised. The committee was quite correct in identifying the ways to ensure some modicum of recognition was given to their situation, and it was.

The point I emphasise is this. Women have a right to access the services anticipated in this Bill. I am concerned about the fact the location at which they might attend such services will be identifiable to a greater extent than is necessary. I do not think it is necessary at all. It is their private business to attend whenever they want and as required by themselves. It is part and parcel of our duty in this House to support and protect such women. I have another issue on the support and protection of women which I will deal with at a different stage.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sure you will. Deputy Gould is next.

Deputy Thomas Gould

This is a very important Bill to speak on. We are five years on from repeal, which was a step forward for women’s healthcare and those seeking a termination of pregnancy. Unfortunately, we must avoid the situation we see in America where those seeking healthcare are subject to intimidation, lies and harassment. The people of this State recognise that abortion is a healthcare issue. Healthcare should be delivered without prejudice, without judgment and, especially and absolutely, without harassment. Further protections must be included in this Bill to strengthen it, such as a recording of warnings to individuals to ensure they are not receiving multiple warnings at multiple locations without the knowledge of the gardaí. This was raised by the gardaí at pre-legislative scrutiny. When we are on the ground and identify the issues, this should be reflected in the final legislation.

Research by the Houses of the Oireachtas in 2019 found that in analysis of studies on abortion clinics and protests in the USA and the UK, there is repeated evidence that women felt an emotional and negative response to the protests. In October 2021 a person attending one clinic under the NHS was quoted as saying:

She watched me driving around and looking for a space, then approached me and was saying "do not kill your baby" and something about god. It made me feel emotional and scared. I was already worried and unprepared to be approached. I was crying and it affected my mental health. I was scared to go in.

That is what we must ensure does not happen. People accessing healthcare should be able to do so without fear. It is a simple request that we must now follow through on with the fast progress of this Bill to enactment. We should be clear to those who think this Bill restricts their rights that termination of pregnancy is not the only service offered at these clinics. The people who stand outside these clinics have an opinion that does not match what the people of Ireland decided on and they must recognise that. It is not right to stand outside clinics. We have allowed robust debate; healthcare should be at the forefront of all our decisions.

Deputy Carol Nolan

The abortion-supporting groups which campaigned for the Bill before the House today know that no harassment is taking place outside GP surgeries or hospitals where abortions are happening. They know that if any harassment were to happen, gardaí already have sufficient powers to deal with such a situation. There is a skyrocketing abortion rate in Ireland and that is a fact. Yet the Government spends its time caving in to the demands of the most extreme elements of the abortion-supporting lobby. On the Minister’s watch, for every seven babies born today, one will have his or her life ended through abortion. This is a national tragedy of epic proportions. So much for safe, legal and rare, which we were told. Is that rare? Women facing an unplanned pregnancy are being kept in the dark about the support available to them should they decide to keep their baby. The Bill before us today is entirely about politics and nothing else. It has nothing whatever to do with protecting women from harassment or intimidation. If it were about safeguarding women, the Government would have adopted an evidence-based approach. Instead, the Minister ignored the advice of An Garda Síochána and conceded to the calls for exclusion zones from pro-abortion activist groups such as Together for Safety. The Bill on exclusion zones does something else that is truly awful; it criminalises help. In 2019, representatives from the group Be Here for Me gave a presentation to the Oireachtas Life and Dignity group in Leinster House. At that briefing Alina Dulgheriu said that “a just and caring society doesn’t criminalise people for offering help to vulnerable mothers.” She told her own story and said:

The day I made my way to the abortion facility was the darkest day my heart has ever known. All I needed was help until I gave birth. A lady and a leaflet. That’s all it took. Right there at the steps of abortion centre. From all that darkness, at last I felt hope, I felt for the first time that my child was wanted, not only by me, but also by complete strangers. For the first time, I felt that I was not walking alone on the day I was meant to end the life within me - my child. I cannot express the joy and how fulfilled I felt as a woman, as a mother, to be given the chance to have my child.

The Minister never met with women like Ms Dulgheriu to hear their stories or the other view point in all this. It is unconscionable how the Minister has misled the public by claiming to engage in the widest possible consultation before making decisions. That is not true. Coercive abortion is a reality in this country. It is a fact. Under this Bill, if a mother intervenes to plead with her young daughter, or the daughter of any age, outside an abortion facility not to give into the pressure from her boyfriend or husband to have an abortion, she would face six-months imprisonment and massive fines, just for trying to protect her daughter and grandchild. What a travesty and attack on natural justice. As well as trampling on basic civil liberties, this Bill is a betrayal of women facing an unplanned pregnancy and their unborn babies. I call on all of my colleagues in this House to do the right thing and to vote against this draconian and deeply unjust Bill.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

During last week’s debate the exclusion zone Bill did not receive any of the scrutiny it deserves although it will have a dramatic impact on civil liberties. Most speakers went on long tangents. One even went off talking about something that happened 30 years ago. Supporters of the Bill have claimed it strikes a balance and is proportional but is it? By whose yardstick? The Government claims it would impede on people’s right to protest because pro-life protesters will still be tolerated outside Leinster House. Is it not great? However, if protests are being restricted to a single controlled area dictated by the Government, independence is completely undermined. The Government is choosing who protests and where they protest. From a map I have been provided with, it is clear the exclusion zones blot out a tremendous area of Dublin city centre and elsewhere. Pro-life protests would be prevented from marching from one end of O’Connell Street to the other. That is quite simple. I proudly marched O’Connell Street the Saturday before last with a pro-life group and I compliment Niamh Uí Bhriain and her organisation for holding it. Denying this is not the intended outcome of the law is simply not good enough. That is the unintended – or more likely the intended – intention of this Bill. Thousands of people attend pro-life marches each year, including many elected representatives. Protests and marches should be citizen-led and should not merely be tolerated as long as they conform to arbitrary restrictions by the Government. That would not happen in Ceauescu’s time for God's sake. Who does it think it is? I know it is getting carried away with itself.

If a march was to enter one of these exclusion zones dotted around the country participants, innocent citizens, would face up to six months imprisonment. Placing restrictions on citizens’ ability to express their views as they please is characteristic of an authoritarian regime. I said that. Where is the Government going to put all these people? It cannot put the criminals and the drug dealers in jail. For the love of God, please, will someone have some common sense here? I know the Minister does not have it. He does not express it. He made huge promises when the repeal legislation was brought in about it being safe, legal and rare. Now it is one in every seven. It is horrific.

Deputy Gould was talking about a lady whose story he had listened to. The review of that legislation was a sham review where not one person who decided to save a life rather than end a life was interviewed. Not one person was spoken to by the so-called independent person. It stinks to high heaven. For all the talk of stopping harassment, it seems to me this law would only enable harassment, namely, harassment by the gardaí of ordinary people expressing their pro-life views in their own country.

One third of voters opposed abortion five years ago and many others are sorry they did not because they were misled and blatantly lied to by the Government. It did not bring in any of the safety measures it said it would and it wants to take away the three-day waiting period which is the only bit of protection the vulnerable unborn has. Shame on the Minister.

The idea that this law is being introduced to stop people from engaging in actions such as blocking doorways or harassing people is totally untrue. There is ample legislation to stop people from doing that. The Commissioner and all the other gardaí have told the Minister that there is no need for this legislation. It is on Statute Book but the Minister is in a mad frenzy – a bloodlust – where he cannot get enough abortions and he cannot get enough services and he is going to force all the hospitals to deliver them and he is going to stop anybody from saying anything. This is some democratic country he has been elected in. I think he was elected on the 15th or 16th count?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should not make those sorts of charges against the Minister. They are not appropriate.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

They are fact.

An Ceann Comhairle

They are not fact.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

When you speak the truth it is difficult-----

An Ceann Comhairle

No. Please-----

Deputy Mattie McGrath

A Cheann Comhairle, we were told porkies. I am taking other Members' time now, but-----

An Ceann Comhairle

I heard as well as anyone else what we were told-----

Deputy Mattie McGrath

Yes.

An Ceann Comhairle

-----but it is not appropriate to make those personal charges against the Minister.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

Was he elected on the 15th or 16th count or was he not? What is wrong with saying that?

An Ceann Comhairle

I know nothing about that. Anyway, go on.

Deputy Michael Collins

When the Minister addressed the Seanad on 10 February 2022, he acknowledged that introducing a law to create exclusion zones outside abortion facilities would push up against civil liberties, yet he persisted in bringing forward this Bill before this House. In the same intervention in the Seanad he publicly admitted that he was rejecting the advice of An Garda Síochána that a Bill such as this was unnecessary. In rejecting the advice of An Garda Síochána, he thanked the abortion-supporting group Together for Safety for informing the development of legislative proposals he was bringing forward. It should be pointed out that Together for Safety, the group on which he relied so heavily for guidance in producing this Bill, is the same group that alleged that intimidatory anti-abortion protests were taking place outside University Hospital Limerick along with other places. That led to the unprecedented move of University Limerick Hospitals Group issuing a public statement clarifying that no such protest had ever taken place outside that hospital. The Minister has stood back and allowed the pro-life movement to be demonised, besmirched and vilified while knowing full well the charges that had been levelled against ordinary, decent people who happen to hold a different view to him on abortion are completely baseless. The Minister knows full well that if the kind of harassing or intimidatory incidents that have been cited were to arise, existing public order legislation would be sufficiently robust to deal with them. He and his Cabinet colleagues know that is the case. Yet he has demonstrated an obsession with introducing exclusion zones while turning a blind eye to Ireland's skyrocketing abortion rates.

No one in this House wants to see the harassment or intimidation of anyone in society - that should go without saying - but the Bill before us today is not about addressing that issue. No one should want to see any group of individuals singled out and criminalised for exercising their right to peacefully assemble, but sadly, that is what the Bill before us is about. Charging a group of young people or a group of inoffensive elderly people for peacefully and quietly praying outside an abortion facility is a heavy-handed, disproportionate and authoritarian-style law to bring forward. That people would face prosecution and penalties or fines of up to €2,500 and six months' imprisonment for holding a silent pro-life vigil is an outrageous attack on civil liberties. Article 40.6 of the Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions and the right of citizens to assemble peacefully. The Bill before us is, I believe, in serious breach of that article of the Constitution. The wording of the Bill is so broad and ill-considered that, if given effect, it would ban debates on abortion on university campuses, given that most third-level campuses maintain health clinics. Under the Minister's Bill, as he will know, any pro-life advocacy or postering would be prohibited within 100 m of all health facilities. That would have a chilling effect on freedom of speech, not just on university campuses but in countless other situations throughout the country.

In the haste to bring forward this Bill to appease radical abortion supporters, the Minister has introduced a reckless and unworkable Bill that, if voted through, will trample on civil liberties and do immense damage to trust in government and the institutions of the State. The motivation behind the Bill has been clear from the get-go. It has nothing to do with public safety. It is about silencing pro-life opposition to the Government's abortion law and nothing else. That is abundantly clear when you take a close look at what it proposes. I urge Deputies to vote against this extreme and oppressive Bill.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

I am glad to get the chance to talk on this very important Bill. I am totally and absolutely against what is proposed. I do not think it is necessary in the first place. We do not have these kinds of demonstrations, that I know of, on my side of the country, in our county. In a lot of places we have practising GPs whom people go to daily. People cannot get to their GPs. How will these zones be marked for people who do not know where those GPs are? Someone could be within such an exclusion zone unwittingly. Are we going to mark these places or what? This is shocking and not needed.

I am frightened when I read these figures. Back in 2018, there were 4,577 abortions. In 2020, there were 6,577. In 2019, there were 6,666. Last year, in 2022, we had 8,156 - 8,156 little babies. They all had a heartbeat, and that is what is sad about the whole thing. These little babies have a right to life, and all they wanted to do is to be let live. I am sorry there is not more emphasis on education given to young girls first of all on the availability of contraceptives and on being careful. Education at secondary schools is very important. We should place our emphasis on that. Consider what the 8,156 little babies could contribute to our country in the years ahead. That is what is sad about all this, that we are not making a better effort to ensure these little babies get the chance to live. I am lucky enough to have six grandchildren. I had one recently, a little girl. Isla Healy-Rae is her name. I am very proud of her and look forward to seeing her grow up like the other grandchildren I have. They are very important.

The Minister wants to write his name into history. There is no need for this. Look at what he is not doing for home help. Look at what he is not doing by way of providing GPs. Look at the waiting lists in our hospitals and our nursing homes. Then there is the CAMHS debacle that so many vulnerable people suffered in south Kerry. The Minister says it did not manifest in any other area. That is a lie. The Minister came in here with some story two or three weeks ago. There are people affected in other areas. He need not put down his head at all because I am telling him the truth. What he told was blatant lies.

An Ceann Comhairle

Again, it is not in order to accuse-----

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

Stop the clock, please.

An Ceann Comhairle

-----the Minister or anyone else of telling lies.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

Can we go back with the clock?

An Ceann Comhairle

I will give you the extra time. Go on, Deputy.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle.

This is a most important debate. I would like in my short contribution to think of no one else except the unborn people. I am not just calling them babies; they were people. They would have been people if they had been born and not aborted. There were 8,156 abortion procedures in 2022. Only 22 of those were performed due to the risk to life or health. Four were emergency situations, and 88 were carried out due to fatal foetal abnormalities. The majority of terminations, 8,042, were conducted in early pregnancy under the provisions of section 12 of the Act. Where did what the Minister sold to the public go? He said this would be so rare it would be only in special cases and would not promote abortion. What the Minister did has promoted abortion. The figures stand up in that regard.

Not only are the statistics extremely concerning, but to me, they are shameful, in that this is not what I believe people wanted or were looking for, but it is what they got. They got it because the Government and Opposition were hell-bent on it because, in many cases, they wet a finger and saw which way the wind was blowing. Those politicians did not lead. They followed the wind and the media. They followed the newspaper editorials that said this was what Ireland desperately needed to become more modern and European and to move out of the doldrums. I do not think it is what we need.

In our own way, our group of Deputies represent many people, too, including people who would not agree with what the Government wants to do now.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

Hear, hear.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

It is good there is someone who will stand up for those people. Most importantly, we are standing up for unborn persons - the babies who would grow up to be wonderful people. One of the most hurtful days I ever had in this Chamber, and one of the lowest times I have ever had, was the day we tried to pass an amendment on pain relief. We were beaten in everything else and we knew we were not succeeding on behalf of the pro-life movement, so we wanted to ensure that a baby who was going to be aborted would be given pain relief. In my lack of wisdom, I thought no one would want to go against that. We were admitting defeat, so we put up our hands and asked that these babies that were going to be aborted to please be given pain relief. It was only when the votes were counted and I saw that only a handful of Deputies had voted for our amendment that it occurred to me that the only reason no one else supported our amendment was that Deputies did not recognise the unborn as babies. They were not people, and that was why other Deputies would not vote to give pain relief. That goes back to what the whole debate was about. I believe they are people, and until the day I die, I will believe that God brings you into the world and God takes you out of this world.

An Ceann Comhairle

Thank you, Deputy.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

I do not believe that men or women in suits or dresses should have the right to interfere in that process. Of course, there are certain cases-----

An Ceann Comhairle

Time is up, Deputy.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

-----where people have health issues, but those 8,156 abortions were not because of health issues. They could not have been. The statistics do not back up that. The Minister was wrong then and he is wrong again now. I am sorry to say that. He knows I am saying it in a respectful way. I do not mean any personal harm to him or anyone else on the other side of the debate, but I just-----

An Ceann Comhairle

Thanks, Deputy, but we are way over time.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for his indulgence.

An Ceann Comhairle

Next is Deputy Cronin. After a minute, I will have to ask her to propose the adjournment. Is that okay?

Deputy Réada Cronin

Yes. I had not expected to speak on this Bill until Thursday.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a problem. We can move on to someone else.

Deputy Réada Cronin

No, I will speak for a minute. I was ready to speak on it last week and have been ready in case the opportunity arose today. It is worth mentioning that this Bill has been shunted around the Dáil schedule in the same way the issue of addressing safe spaces for women accessing healthcare has been shunted around by the Government.

For too many generations, Irish women were confined to the valley of the squinting windows and the republic of the twitching curtains, where they were constantly managing the miracle of making themselves pregnant. I heard a Deputy say that perhaps we needed more education for women. Maybe we should have more education for men and young boys as well.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

Hear, hear.

Deputy Réada Cronin

We did not make ourselves pregnant. We were not that good at all. When it came to fertility, there seems to have been nothing that mná na hÉireann could not do without men. However, women in Ireland have found our voice and we certainly made sure that it was heard at the referendum on the eighth amendment so that future generations would not have to put up with this nonsense.

Sinn Féin supports this Bill, but we would like it to go further. Women must be able to avail of abortion services if that is their personal choice. It should be available to them locally and be geographically convenient to where they live.

Debate adjourned.