Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent) | Oireachtas source

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.

See this speech in context