Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I respectfully disagree with the previous speaker. It is my belief that the stigma arises from a profound disagreement on when life begins, which is obviously informed by religious communities but not only by them. That disagreement goes a lot further than religious communities.

The Bill has three particular provisions. The first is to outlaw engaging in conduct that is likely to obstruct or impede another person from accessing relevant healthcare premises. The second concerns communicating material in a manner that is likely to influence the decision of another person or likely to influence the decision of a person in regard to availing of or providing termination of pregnancy services. The third is to outlaw threatening or intimidating a person who is accessing or attempting to access a relevant healthcare premises. I do not have a problem with that. I completely agree that seeking to intimidate or obstruct somebody accessing a medical facility should be outlawed. What I would say is that it is very clearly already contrary to the law in Ireland, and I will deal with the other provisions later in my contribution. Section 9 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 states, “Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, wilfully prevents or interrupts the free passage of any person or vehicle in any public place shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine”. Therefore it is already outlawed.

As a matter of fact, the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 goes further and states that a person who has been convicted may be barred from a premises, but this is limited to catering premises. Interestingly, this Bill, which the Minister is introducing today, does not have any provision for barring people, so people can be convicted every week if they choose to. If the Minister is serious about this, he should just extend the scope of the barring provisions in the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act because it is already covered by it. Likewise, the idea of harassing somebody is outlawed under section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, which prohibits harassing somebody. Harassment is defined as "acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other” or “acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.” This is already covered but for the idea of seeking to change somebody's mind.

Before moving on to that, it is important to point out what the Garda Commissioner was reported as stating in 2019. The Irish Timesstated:

Garda commissioner Drew Harris has said existing laws are adequate to deal with protests outside healthcare centres that provide abortion care.

In a letter to Minister for Health Simon Harris, the commissioner said it was his view that existing public order legislation is adequate to deal with the kind of protests witnessed at hospitals and clinics to date.

[...]

In the letter, seen by the Irish Times, the Garda commissioner says the introduction of such safe-access legislation would be “redundant” because of the existence of current laws and the fact that “no incidence of criminality has been reported or observed.”

This begs the question as to why we are passing redundant legislation. We seem to be doing so for no reason other than that we strongly desire to fight the culture war and bring this culture war to Ireland. It appears to be a case of saying "Let's have it on; we have nothing better to do in this place". There are no greater problems to be legislated for than this culture war, which appears not to exist in Ireland for a variety of reasons. Of course, this is primarily because the legislation provides that there are not abortion clinics or other healthcare facilities. Rather, it is a service provided in healthcare facilities. It seems to be a solution chasing a problem, rather than trying to find a solution to a problem.

There were reports of protests. In 2021, based on a study carried out by NUI Maynooth, the Irish Examinerstated that protests were reported outside Limerick Hospital on 17 days in February and March, when the country was under a level 5 lockdown - the Minister will remember those; it was when he kept us all safe and when houses could not be built. However, later that year, in December 2021, UL Hospitals Group said it had not received any complaints from patients, their families or staff relating to safe access to University Maternity Hospital Limerick despite a number of politicians calling for safe access. They did, however, concede that people had been praying outside the hospital. It was stated:

A hospital source said they were not aware of any such protests taking place: “Certainly not intimidatory... there might have been one or two women outside the hospital saying prayers with rosary beads occasionally, but they would only be there for a few minutes and then leave, they were certainly not intimidating anyone”.

On the basis of this, legislation has been proposed in the Seanad and, spurred on by that, I suppose, in order to be at the vanguard of the culture war, the Bill before the House has been brought forward. Section 2(2) states:

... a person shall not, in a safe access zone-

(a) communicate material to the public or a section of the public in a manner that is likely to influence the decision of another person in relation to availing of, or providing, termination of pregnancy services, or

(b) otherwise engage in conduct directed at the public or a section of the public in a manner that is likely to influence...

That is entirely subjective. It is almost impossible to mount a prosecution based on something that is likely to influence somebody because one would have to prove that beyond reasonable doubt, which is next to impossible. If that was not difficult enough to achieve, there is an exemption in section 3, which states:

(2) Nothing in section 2(2)shall prohibit a person from engaging in lawful conduct that occurs inside a place of religious worship.

[...]

(5) In this section, “place of religious worship” means a building- (a) that is used for the purpose of religious worship, and

(b) to which the public have access whether as of right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge ...

I do not know whether the Minister is aware of it, but there is a chapel in the National Maternity Hospital just across from us on Merrion Square, so it is a place of worship. The chapel is located in the building, since the hospital is one building. There is the exemption straight away. There is a church in the maternity hospital in Limerick where masses are said weekly, as they are in Holles Street. As such, it would appear that section 2(2) does not apply to either as the legislation is drafted. There is a church in St. Vincent's hospital, where the Government is proposing, if it ever gets around to it, to build a new national maternity hospital. This appears to be legislation that adds nothing to the Statute Book.

I wish to be clear in that I do not condone and I do condemn unequivocally anyone who seeks to intimidate someone who is accessing a medical facility for any purpose. Regardless of whether it is a purpose with which the former agrees or disagrees, he or she does not get to have that choice. People have a right to access medical facilities. I do not condone, and have no sympathy for, people who seek to intimidate or obstruct others going to such buildings. The legislation on our Statute Book already covers that clearly.

As regards disseminating information or merely praying, it must be proven that it is likely to change someone's mind and it has to regard a building where there is no public worship. There is public worship in all of the buildings I have mentioned. It is a nonsense, a waste of time and a tokenistic effort to be involved in some kind of a culture war that, thankfully, is unnecessary in this State as of now. For these reasons, I oppose the Bill.

See this speech in context