Tomorrow we are due to debate the Second Stage of the Health (Termination of Pregnancy Services) (Safe Access Zones) Bill 2023. This legislation has been rushed through pre-legislative scrutiny and will be likely to be unconstitutional. Exclusion zones around abortion clinics exist in other countries, which provide the model for this proposed legislation. The logic behind these zones is to ensure that women entering an abortion clinic are not subject to potential harassment from protestors outside. However, because the Irish abortion system does not operate out of specific abortion clinics, but rather within GP clinics, hospitals and family planning centres, importing this same model wholesale into Ireland strikes me as unworkable.

To ensure anonymity when availing of such services, this legislation will not highlight the specific service sites where termination of pregnancy services are actively provided. Therefore, we must place a 100 m exclusion zone around each premises, irrespective of whether they are performing abortions or not. Would then, for example, the large-scale, annual and public event, March for Life, be prohibited from passing down certain streets in Dublin because there is a GP clinic in the vicinity of 100 m, which may or may not provide abortions?

From the perspective of a person who is minded to protest abortion, the proposals have sweeping consequences which raise questions of personal rights under Article 40 of the Constitution. The explanatory memorandum to the Bill states that: "It is not intended to be a general prohibition on expression or assembly or protest in relation to termination of pregnancy services." However, the Bill subsequently makes provision for enforcement and the creation of offences in relation to such conduct. As there is no way to identify whether someone who is entering a maternity hospital or GP clinic is there to have an abortion, this proposed legislation will effectively discriminate against people of a particular ethical viewpoint who are simply assembling in a public area, which may happen to be within one of these 100 m zones. Will the Taoiseach explain how the Government can claim to uphold civil liberties while bringing in a law overtly discriminating against citizens who are expressing their views on a particular issue and who unwittingly happen to be within one of these expansive exclusion zones?

I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue. There is a long-standing Government commitment to ensure safe access zones around healthcare facilities and providers of termination of pregnancy services. That includes hospitals as well as GP surgeries in some cases. The introduction of safe access zones is supported by clinicians providing the service. Safe access zones are designed to protect the freedom to access termination services without impediment and to provide privacy to people accessing health services, as well as the service providers, their staff, in the course of their duties and responsibilities.

The Minister for Health secured Cabinet approval to legislate for the designation of safe zones last July. The Bill was approved by Cabinet last week and will be introduced in the Dáil for debate later this week. It required striking a careful balance. We need to respect the right to protest and people have a right to protest, whether we agree with them or not, but we also need to protect the right of patients not to be intimidated when they go to see their doctors or when they enter hospitals to seek treatment. We have struck the right balance and any prosecutions will depend on the individual circumstances. There are defences set out in the legislation and it may yet be challenged on constitutional grounds. That is a possibility with any legislation but we think we have struck the right balance and the Attorney General advises us that it is constitutional. We had pre-legislative scrutiny and engagement with stakeholders and we think we have struck the right balance between respecting people's right to protest and to protest peacefully, while not doing so in a way that intimidates patients seeking to see their doctors or have a particular procedure done.

The Taoiseach's reply has not allayed my concerns regarding the practicality of the Bill or the prohibition on expression. The Minister for Health, Deputy Stephen Donnelly, acknowledged in February 2022 that “We are pushing up against civil liberties when we do this.” We have already seen buyer’s remorse in the Chamber from Deputies who voted in favour of the hate speech Bill, but afterwards expressed concerns about the far-ranging consequences of some of its provisions. I am concerned that we, as a House, could sleepwalk into voting for an extreme Bill which seriously undermines civil liberties because of a desire to follow trends abroad, where their situations are very different to ours.

As part of preparing this Bill, which took a long time to prepare because we wanted to get it right by balancing the right to protest and civil liberties concerns with the need to protect patients and allow them to avail of healthcare without being intimidated, we consulted the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties. There was also extensive consultation at pre-legislation stage. We believe we have got the balance right but, like I say, it is a debate that we will have in the House and in the Seanad too.