Mal O'Hara (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach. I am minded that we are speaking to some specific amendments. What I heard a great deal today, and in previous debates I listened to around these issues, is that this feels like a rehash of almost a decade ago. I will be clear on the record that I trust women and pregnant people every time to make their own decisions.

What is interesting about Senator Mullen's contributions so far today are the repeated references to referendums but not to the pertinent referendum that is tangential to this issue, namely the referendum to repeal the eighth amendment, which I am glad to have campaigned for and to have seen such a resounding victory in. I noticed the Senator talked about a drubbing, thrashing or routing in recent referendums, but he did not talk about the reverse figures in the one specifically relating to this issue, when there was a vote in favour of repealing the eighth amendment.

With my professional hat on, I worked in health and well-being and on health inequalities across the city and regionally. When I returned from England, one of my first jobs was working for health and social care in Belfast delivering sex and relationship education programmes in the community, in the areas of highest deprivation, to prevent unwanted teenage pregnancies, and provide information and access to sexual health and reproductive services. At that time, we did not have reproductive services, or only had them in very limited discreet and distinct circumstances, in the North.I am glad to see this has changed.

After that, I worked in the LGBT sector and dealt with health inequalities. Of course, one of the key health inequalities experienced by queer communities relates to sexual health. There is a disproportionate impact of HIV and other STIs. I was working with numerous partners in the community, voluntary, statutory and independent sectors on sexual health and well-being. I experienced the protests in the North, and I imagine they are very similar to the protests we have here in the South.

It is a campaign of deliberate harassment and intimidation to prevent women and pregnant people from accessing lawful services. I have had holy water thrown at me. I have been aggressively confronted. I can look after myself, but I am worried about the vulnerable women and vulnerable pregnant people who are trying to access services and who may not access such services because of the fear of harassment and intimidation. This is replete across the provision of services in the North and I imagine it is very similar here in the South. Clare Bailey MLA, my party's former leader, passed buffer zones legislation in the North. This was underpinned by the European Convention on Human Rights, which may be useful reading for some in this room because the framework is very similar in terms of our legislation here. The balance between Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the convention in respect of rights was specifically examined and the Supreme Court in the UK ruled unanimously in this regard. It stated that restrictions are prescribed around those rights because legitimate aims are being pursued in respect of access to services being legitimate, people being able to access their workplace without fear of harassment and qualifications being in place to prevent disorder, protect health and limit some rights and freedoms.

This legislation has been operational since last year and the sky has not fallen in. People are still able to protest in other ways to make their voices heard around their objections, either consciously around abortion as a whole or concerning specific access to these services. Scotland is beginning the process of introducing such legislation, and I am glad it is a Green Party MSP bringing it forward. Canada, Australia and New Zealand have also had laws of this type for several years. Test cases have been taken to challenge these laws, and we are clear about the balance of rights.

A specific text I wish to read that I think would be useful for Members to hear comes from the judgment issued by the Supreme Court in the UK. I think it will reinforce what we are thinking in terms of this legislation. The court ruled on several aspects, but I think these elements are relevant to this discourse:

... the context is a highly sensitive one in which the protection of the private lives and autonomy of women is of particular importance. Secondly, women who wish to access lawful abortion services have a reasonable expectation of being able to do so without being confronted by protest activity designed to challenge and diminish their autonomy and undermine their resolve. Thirdly, the Bill only prevents anti–abortion protestors from exercising their rights under articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention within designated safe access zones. They are free to protest anywhere else they please. Fourthly, the women and staff protected ... are a captive audience who are compelled to witness anti–abortion activity that is unwelcome and intrusive when they visit premises where abortion services are provided. Fifthly, the Bill is intended to implement the UK’s obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

That is quite clear; it sets a trajectory for us. I know others may try to legally challenge it. I was reticent to contribute to this debate today because I think people are trying to filibuster and slow this legislation down, but I hope we will move forward quickly. We are quite clear that the will of this House reflects the will of the people and that this legislation on buffer zones will be passed.