Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

We have to get a composite of the discussions we have had. Then we will decide as a committee whether further meetings are needed or not. It is at that level at the moment. We were going to have a private meeting after this session. I do not know if that will happen now. Many of the members have left to attend to other matters. We will discuss the issue in private session at our next meeting and we already discussed it here in the private session prior to the meeting. We see it as still very much a work in hand. Part of my frustration as Chair is that first of all, we do not deal with a lot of legislation. Part of the difficulty has been that when we brought the witnesses in first, and even this morning, this is still under active consideration. It is very difficult for a committee to scrutinise legislation on the basis of the heads of Bill because the meat of a Bill is contained in the actual sub-headings. We have been dealing with headings. The meetings have been really useful. However, it has not been ideal.

We brought the witnesses present today in first, then we brought the Garda in. The Garda did not seem to be fully aware of the engagement with the Department of Health; they said there was not a huge amount of engagement. The witnesses today have stated that there was. Those are some of the challenges that the committee has faced so we may need to re-engage with the Garda again. Are the witnesses happy with the engagement from the Garda and the Department of Justice? I think it has been useful that the witnesses outlined some of the sites where there have been protests. There is a view, probably a minority one, that this is not really an issue, that legislation is possibly not needed and that we are being over the top in pressing the need for this legislation. That is a viewpoint that is out there so it is really useful to hear the fact that the Garda say there has not been a huge number of complaints but the HSE forum shows a number of complaints. The Garda might not necessarily be aware of that. The Attorney General's intervention has been useful but if we had had that intervention prior to the witnesses' first meeting it would have been better. We spent nearly an hour at the first meeting talking about curtilage and the boundaries. As committee Chair I would still have concerns about these. At a previous meeting, I raised the issue of the boundaries and I gave the example of St. James's Hospital

We talked about the entrance to St. James's Hospital and the huge boundary around the site. Someone might use electronic images or banners on houses that are overlooking the site. The same applies at St. Vincent's University Hospital which has a huge boundary area as well. Is it acceptable that people attending hospitals for services have to walk by protests and so on? Attending hospital can be upsetting enough for people as it is.

On the warnings, when we talked to the Garda I raised the issue of the fact that a garda may be monitoring a protest outside a hospital or a site, ensuring that people maintain the required distance but what happens when there is a shift change? There are practical considerations that need to be resolved. The fact that the members have been able to raise concerns has added to the potential of the legislation. I would like to think that it has been helpful to the witnesses in drafting it. The involvement and the submissions that have been made from many groups on both sides of the debate have been useful as well. We have taken on board all the views in the written submissions. The committee has yet to decide where it goes from here but I think the engagement has been very useful.