Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the doctors in the Public Gallery who are engaged in the provision of serves to women and have a very strong interest in this legislation passing, as do all of us who fought for many years to secure women's access to reproductive healthcare and rights to safe, legal abortion in our own country. It is so important we ensure this legislation is passed because, as I have said, its purpose is to ensure women will have safe access to healthcare services that women and girls so badly need in this country. It will also have the effect I spoke about earlier in deterring those who would seek to obstruct women's access to legal healthcare. It will have an encouraging and incentivising effect to ensure more doctors, healthcare providers and hospitals will feel empowered to offer this important service and join those who are already doing so but who, in many cases, may feel isolated in particular areas and who are facing intimidation. The Minister is aware, as we all are, that it will only be in a very small number of cases that we would ever expect to see the full power of the legislation used against those who persist in intimidating and obstructing women's access. This is not legislation that restricts the right to protest. It is really important that those who portray it as such go back and read what is in the Bill, in particular section 2, which clearly sets out a very high bar for any sort of Garda or policing intervention. I will speak in a moment about that.

The Labour Party amendment is an amendment to the Minister's amendment No. 4. I refer also to Deputy Shortall's amendment No. 2 and amendment No. 5 from Deputy Cullinane. All of the amendments in this group of amendments are seeking to do the same thing, that is, to ensure a review will be carried out in a relatively short and prescribed time and that it will not be open-ended. We say it should be 12 months and Deputy Cullinane says the process should be concluded within 24 months but we are all trying to do the same thing, namely, to ensure this is a time-limited review exercise. The reason is that we have waited five years for this legislation. We all know what we want to see it do and it will be apparent within a few months if it is having the desired effect of deterring protests, ensuring safe access for women and encouraging more medics to sign up. Those are the purposes this legislation seeks to serve and which we all want it to serve.

As I said, this is not about numbers of prosecutions, nor should it be, because there should not need to be many prosecutions. That high bar is there for a reason. In section 2, it is clearly provided that this is not a general prohibition on protest. It will not stop anyone from marching down O'Connell Street, or indeed Kildare Street, to express their view about abortion. Rather, it seeks to provide limits and restrictions on particular types of conduct and only where that conduct takes place within 100 m of a healthcare provider. The safe access zone location is very prescribed, as is the type of conduct. There are four types of conduct prescribed, namely, conduct which is likely to obstruct or impede people from accessing healthcare; conduct that is communication of material in a particular manner; conduct that is likely to threaten or intimidate; and the photographing, filming or recording by people.

There is, however, a further restriction and this is really the high bar, and I speak as somebody who has defended and worked in the Criminal Courts. There is the high bar of mens reaof intention or recklessness that is provided for each of these types of conduct. It is only going to be conduct that carries the restrictions if it is carried out with intent to influence the decision of a person around accessing termination of pregnancy services or being reckless as to whether such a decision is influence. It is, therefore, very restrictive and there are also warning provisions built in. Anyone who reads this legislation and comes to it with a fair and objective perspective will see it is very carefully calibrated. It is preposterous, therefore, to suggest that it would present some sort of slippery slope or set a precedent for curtailments of protest. I agree with Deputy Bríd Smith that it is outrageous to somehow conflate this legislation with any sort of law that might curb protests against, for example, the awful killings of civilians in Gaza. It is a completely different type of legislation. Deputy Smith is right in that it is much more akin to the legislation, which we all accept, that restricts behaviour within a certain distance of a polling station on election day. It is legislation of that nature. It is much more calibrated than the public order legislation that would otherwise be used and is being used currently by gardaí.

We need to ensure the legislation is effective. That is why we are all keen to see a time-limited review provision in place. That is why the Labour Party has put forward an amendment to the Minister's amendment, which simply proposes to replace the 18-month clause with a 12-month provision. This would time-limit the review process and ensure we will know in a fairly swift fashion whether the legislation can be said to be effective.

There are concerns. Deputy Shortall raised concerns around how the warning system works.

The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993 has a rather similar provision under section 8, where it is an offence for somebody to fail to comply with a direction to move on by a garda. That is a similar provision. The warning system will certainly have to be tested to see if it works. There may only be a relatively small number of situations where gardaí are issuing warnings and where that second step is carried out. We will see in a few months whether the legislation is effective in the other ways that we hope it will be, that is, to deter protests, to ensure women have safe access and, of course, to encourage more providers to start providing services.

The key purpose is to ensure safe access. All of us want to ensure that women have safe access to their reproductive healthcare. We have had a shameful history in this country of restricting women's access to reproductive rights, healthcare and even contraception, until relatively recently. This legislation, far from being restrictive, is facilitative of safe access. That is the best and only appropriate way to view this legislation. It is facilitative and ensures safe access to services without impediment, intimidation and obstruction. For far too long, our rights of access to healthcare have been restricted and impeded. We have been intimidated. I will not speak about my own personal experience over many years. Certainly, I have been subjected to some pretty nasty protest, as many have, seeking to impede my expression of view as a pro-choice activist for many years. It is time that we moved forward. Sometimes, during this debate this evening, it feels like we have stepped back in time, but the people spoke five years ago and they spoke by a two thirds majority to ensure women would have access to reproductive healthcare, and this legislation seeks to facilitate that.

See this speech in context