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

I welcome the witnesses. I should point out that I am not an aficionado of zones. The original intention was that the particular facility and services would be available to women in accordance with the constitutional amendment and the Act, as published, before the amendment. To me, the identification of the location of various services would make it very easy for people who want to protest to identify where the services are taking place, and this could have a very serious effect and intimidate women who might have a delicate health issue at that particular time. I do not know how that is going to work, for example, where there are blood pressure issues leading to possible sepsis, which we have all dealt with in our constituencies over the years. In terms of any interference with the right of the patient to access services, the onus falls on those who are authorised to provide the service in the first instance and those who enable the service to be freely available in accordance with the law. Not so long ago, we had a long discussion about the services available under the law in another context. The services are available under the law, and they might be made unworkable by various people saying they are not going to do that.

I heard the master of the Rotunda on the radio recently indicating that the hospital does not have a problem regarding the availability of services and that there are plenty of people ready and available to provide the services that are required. My question is about the identification of the locations where State services provided by law are interfered with by people who do not agree with it. That is fine in theory but, in practice, it can have serious consequences. In some of the cases I have dealt with that have made national headlines, it was a question of an instant response or nothing. If it was not possible to respond to the patients requirements in the fastest possible time, then the whole question of the availability of the service was void. Could the witnesses comment first on the extent to which they know of the number of locations where possible intimidation happens? I realise that protest and freedom of speech are allowed, but sometimes the protests go beyond that and dispossess the other person of their entitlements to achieve what they can achieve under the law. That is not freedom of speech, it is intimidation. It is overturning the law in a serious way.

The first question is the number and location of instances where the witnesses are aware there was intimidation. Will An Garda Síochána be in a position to adequately police these locations when they are identified in a more public way?