Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Yes. I welcome our guests and thank them for their contribution to the legislation. I am in two minds as to its effectiveness. We have to go back to the original provisions of the legislation, the constitutional provisions and the legislation as published. It was intended to address the issue whereby a service was available to women who wished to seek that service, at their discretion, under the assumption they could do so without appearing to be the target of anybody who feels they may be breaking the law.

I am not a supporter of abortion for abortion's sake and I do not think most people are, but what is at issue is whether women can access whatever services may require, or men either, for that matter, in all the public hospitals that are listed as providing the service, without being identified. I foresee a problem in that the legislation, in trying to help, may find itself to be counterproductive. By virtue of the exclusion zones, the identification of all such hospitals, centres, GPs and so on is going to be obvious to the protestor, and that is going to cause unnecessary pressure. I do not know how effective the exclusion zones will be, how they will be managed and whether they will be respected. In the US, they have not been successful; there have been constant pressures and attacks by groups of different mindsets. As a result, women have been frightened by what has been put before them in the sense of protests, and that is understandable. I accept what this legislation is trying to do, but I am not sure it will do what was intended.

I am not certain it is a good idea to identify areas where given services, such as terminations, are available because that merely does a favour for those who want to protest, and protesting may not be the only thing they want to do. It could have serious consequences for the people the legislation is trying to protect. My views on the subject are well known. I am not certain, again judging by the experience in the US, which I have studied, that it is a good idea to identify the locations. It is difficult to protect the people who need to use such services for whatever reason. I am concerned we will find it is not possible to protect people, in which case the legislation will be seen to be weak and the protestors will achieve victory, for how long I do not know. Whatever about the ready identification of hospitals and health centres where services under the legislation are available, I do not know how the enforcement of the 100 m ban can be applied, especially throughout the country and at different times. Instead, I would emphasise the need to ensure that services, as envisaged under the legislation and supported by the referendum, are readily available to those who have a need to avail of them as and when required.

Various reasons have been put forward as to why there should be changes. Some of the changes proposed might be for the better and others might not. I was a member of the original committee that examined the issue and I voted for the changes, simply to improve and protect the services available to those who might need to avail of them and to remove any stigma or identification of their situation in order that they could confidentially avail of the services as and when they required.

I will vote for the legislation. I am merely pointing out what I see as potential difficulties and I would like a response to them.