Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Jan 2018

Vol. 964 No. 3

Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution: Statements (Resumed)

Deputy O'Keeffe had concluded is contribution. We move now to the next Member offering, Deputy Harty.

I support the holding of a referendum on repealing the eighth amendment of the Constitution to allow Irish people to have their say on this very important and difficult issue. The recommendations of the Oireachtas all-party committee should be the basis of any proposed legislation to be put in place should the people decide to repeal the eighth amendment. Such legislation will be the legal mechanism that will govern termination of pregnancy in the future.

It is the Dáil's responsibility to present clear and unambiguous proposals in order that people can decide on the issue. There is a necessity for constitutional change whether that is complete repeal - repeal simpliciter - or the insertion of a clause which gives the Oireachtas freedom to introduce legislation free of constitutional challenge. It is a debatable but important legal issue on which the Government will have to make a judgment. However, repeal of the eighth amendment is what people want.

The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 put on a statutory footing the Supreme Court ruling in the X case of 1992 to allow for termination of pregnancy if there is a real and substantive risk to the life of the mother, including suicide. The Act does not make provision for the substantive risk to the health of the mother, however. It took 21 years for that limited legislation to be brought forward. To allow for any additional criteria for termination of pregnancy will require constitutional change. I believe there is widespread support for such constitutional change. Many complications can present during pregnancy which need to be faced up to rather than ignored. Substantial health risk to the mother can develop as pregnancy advances. It cannot be predicted but it is a reality. Fatal foetal abnormality is another reality which must be faced, as are circumstances where the pregnancy follows rape or sexual assault. A further reality is that Irish women can decide to terminate their pregnancies, either legally by travelling to abroad to avail of services in other countries or illegally by obtaining abortive medication via the Internet. Each year, several thousand women avail of these options and up to 170,000 women have availed of terminations since the introduction of the constitutional ban in 1983. These are the realities we face. As such, our present prohibition on abortion is ineffective and ignores the reality of what is happening in Irish society today. Ireland cannot continue to ignore these realities and pretend to have a prohibition on abortion except in life-threatening situations.

Ireland is now a modern European state which exists in a global world and it cannot be insulated from the outside world regarding how it thinks or behaves. Our moral code has to come from within ourselves and should not be imposed by institutions or organisations inside Ireland or abroad. Moral values should not be forced on anyone in this modern age. Ireland is becoming a diverse arid increasingly secular society with multiple nationalities, religions and influences, all tolerating one another and respecting one another's identities. Increasingly, political parties recognise that this is a social issue that requires them to give their members a free vote on the substantive issues on the holding of a referendum and on any subsequent legislation. On such a fundamental social, medical and moral issues, this is correct and it is what a modem democracy should be about. After all, the people will have the ultimate say on any constitutional change.

No one person or group has the correct answer to this issue. There is no correct answer. What is correct for one person or one situation is wrong for another person and another situation. We have to accommodate our differences and try to give people reasonable options and choices. The extremes of no abortion whatsoever versus unrestricted abortion without any limitation should not dominate the debate because neither is desirable or attainable. If this referendum is to have any true and lasting meaning, it must find a sensible acceptable middle ground which makes as much medical and moral sense as possible. In such circumstances, we must separate the medical from the moral. Many difficult medical decisions are made every day which have moral and ethical content. Difficult decisions relating to termination of pregnancy are not an exception. These decisions are very personal and should be allowed to take place within the doctor-patient relationship.

The Citizens' Assembly and the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution heard voices and opinions from all sides, particularly moral, medical and legal. Having been presented with the best available evidence, they made the following recommendations: abortion should be decriminalised; contraception should be made available free of charge and every effort should be made to avoid unwanted pregnancies; sex education, relationship education and education regarding consent should be provided in all primary and post-primary schools in order that men and women are as informed as possible about safe sex; universal high-standard obstetric care should be available, including anomaly scanning, pregnancy counselling and support in crisis pregnancies; perinatal hospice services should be freely available when perinatal death of a baby is imminent; termination of pregnancy should be permissible should an unborn child have a fatal foetal abnormality that is likely to cause death before or shortly after birth but not in cases of non-fatal foetal abnormality which are compatible with life; termination of pregnancy should be permissible when the life of the mother is at risk, which is already the case under the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act; and termination of pregnancy should be permissible when there is serious risk to the physical or mental health of the mother.

The risk to physical or mental health can change substantially during pregnancy. A woman may have a medical condition which presents no risk as the pregnancy commences but that can change as the pregnancy advances, quite suddenly in some circumstances. This is an issue which must be addressed given the huge medical uncertainty as to when the termination of a pregnancy can be advised. Is it when there is a 10%, 20%, 30% or 40% risk to a person's life? Where does one have to go before life is deemed to be at risk? These are difficult medical decisions which should be kept to the doctor-patient relationship and which must be addressed in any legislation.

The most controversial of the committee's recommendations is that, in view of the complexities of legislating for the termination of pregnancy for reasons of incest and rape, it is more appropriate to deal with this issue by making termination of pregnancy lawful without restriction as to reason up to a gestational limit of 12 weeks through a GP-led service or in a clinical context and to be determined by law and licensing practice in Ireland. This is the provision which is going to be most controversial. It is a provision I have difficulty with myself. However, I understand the reasoning behind it. How does one determine, within a short period in respect of a pregnancy, whether someone has been raped or is the victim of incest? The committee's solution to incidents of rape and incest broadens the availability of terminations without restriction as to reason up to 12 weeks. This is the issue most people will have greatest difficulty getting their heads around. I can see and I understand the medical reasons for the proposal but they will have to be explained in depth as the debate on a constitutional referendum advances.

The legislation must make provision for conscientious objection to participation in termination of pregnancy. Many obstetricians and general practitioners will have great difficulty with the legislation should it go through and there must be a provision for conscientious objection. According to the ethical code of the medical profession, a doctor who is unable or unwilling to provide a service is obliged to refer a patient to a practitioner who is willing to provide the service. Provision for conscientious objection is particularly necessary if termination of pregnancy is available without restriction up to 12 weeks. Also, it is not clear how a GP-led service would operate and what function general practice would have in the supervision of medical termination of pregnancy. This issue must be teased out.

I turn finally to male involvement in the decision-making process in termination of pregnancy.

As a male, I will never have to make the final decision regarding termination, but men are not absolved of responsibility. Some men are indifferent to the plight of their pregnant partners and offer no support. Some are very supportive and play an active part in the decision to continue pregnancy or to terminate it, and some are emotionally devastated when their partners opt for terminations against their wishes or without their knowledge. Men have an important role to play in the debate and in the decision-making in the termination of pregnancy.

This is a very complex medical, social and moral issue which needs to be resolved in a sensible and inclusive manner. The current constitutional provision needs to be repealed and legislation put in place to define the circumstances in which a termination of pregnancy is allowed in a legal manner. It is now up to the Oireachtas to make sense of all that and put an option to the people that they can accept or reject having been fully informed of the reasons underpinning each proposal.

I welcome the debate, the tone of the debate and the contributions of Members who have different views on what ought to happen in this case. I commend the previous speaker, Deputy Harty, on such a careful, reasoned and compassionate contribution to the debate. His contribution has been in the context and tone of many of the other speakers. Without a doubt, for many people, this is a difficult personal issue. It is an emotional, medical and legal issue and one that might have lifelong consequences for individuals. The work of the Citizens' Assembly and the committee on the issue has set the scene for what I hope will be a very thoughtful and positive debate on the eighth amendment.

I want to be clear at the outset that I opposed the introduction of the eighth amendment in 1983. I recall being the subject of some vociferous criticism from people who had the opposite opinion because I had a baby in my arms. People simply could not get their heads around the fact that woman who had children and who loved their children could also see circumstances where a woman's right to choose is important to her life, the life of other children she might have, the life of her family or to other commitments. I am really pleased the country is going to be asked to consider the eighth amendment and whether it should have a place in our Constitution. My position has not changed. I do not believe the insertion of the eighth amendment into the Constitution was in the best interest of women or babies. I would like to see its repeal.

Let me be very clear about the repeal. I go back to the original advice given by the, sadly, recently deceased Peter Sutherland who was then Attorney General. He strongly advised that the Constitution was not the place for a section like the eighth amendment and that no matter the intentions of people, once it went into the Constitution, it would have profound legal and social implications and so it has proved to be. I do not know that some of the people who argued for the retention of the eighth amendment ever wanted to see what happened to Savita Halappanavar happen. That was just one of a number of cases that recurred over and over again every couple of years and which brought into the public domain the private suffering this caused to many people. We do not fully know about it. We know some of the stories because friends, relations, families and neighbours knew. Although much of this was secret, much was very well known at local level. In a certain sense, it is absolutely amazing that the Joanne Hayes case and what happened in the Kerry babies tribunal has returned as a matter of discussion and debate. At that time I was living in Africa, working in development in Dar es Salaam. I met somebody who was working in the ESB walking along the beach in Dar es Salaam wearing an "I'm a Kerry baby" t-shirt. This was in the days before the Internet, easy communications, online newspapers and so on. Pat, my husband, and I wondered what it was about. When told about it, we could not get our heads around it. We drove to the Irish embassy house to see if they had any copies of newspapers so we could try to understand what it was about. We have many dark secrets in Irish social history which until recent decades nobody knew anything about. No one ever worked in an orphanage, and no one ever sold meat, fruit, vegetables or food to an orphanage or provided services.

When I was first elected to the House in 1992, the story of people like Christine Buckley, who spent much of her early life in Goldenbridge, came out. Most of the Members of the House then were male. They told me they did not know we had orphanages. I did not know how they did not know that but I had to take what people were saying at face value. From the introduction of adoption in Ireland in the early 1950s to when it broadly came to an end in the 1980s, with the exception of overseas adoptions, over 50,000 adoption orders were signed for babies who were adoptable. There were a lot more fostering arrangements and yet nobody knew about any of it. Of the women in the Magdalen laundries, nobody knew anything at all other than in recent times when we heard about the pain and suffering. I am not saying the eighth amendment caused that but the eighth amendment and the narrow and censorious attitude towards women who had children out of wedlock effectively destroyed much of their lives and the lives of the children were restricted unless they were lucky enough to find a good foster home or a good adoptive home. That happened for many people, including me. Never let us forget that is what all that sadness and pain in Ireland is rooted in.

We have been looking at the revolutionary generation from 1916 to 1922 and extraordinary women like Dr. Kathleen Lynn, who founded the first children's hospital. When it came to the 1930s and 1940s, perhaps because of the dreadful economic circumstances of the early years of independence, instead of going forward and recognising a broad framework of rights for the citizens of a newly independent Ireland, we went backwards and became a closed, almost theocratic type of culture. I hope we come to address this, perhaps on 25 May, because addressing it is long overdue. I want to be clear about this - I support the repeal of the eighth amendment and the proposal of the committee that abortion should be available up to 12 weeks with the support of medical representatives and GPs. It is an excellent idea. It is important that people have proper medical support, advice and information available to them.

It is also important that we take account of medical technology. It is approximately ten years since chemists began dispensing the morning-after pill. At the time, I received many letters. I do not doubt the bona fides of the people who wrote to me, namely, chemists who were concerned, appalled and outraged that the morning-after pill would be made available in chemist shops throughout Ireland. I was told that it was not acceptable and would never happen. In fact, it did. It happens every day. It is done in privacy. Chemists supply a very important service. GPs also supply a very important service in this regard.

Can I interrupt the Deputy to ask if she is sharing time with Deputy Kelly?

How long have I left?

The Deputy has 28 seconds.

I will take a minute and a half if that is okay.

Last autumn, Dr. Rhona Mahony addressed the Labour Party in Athy. I spoke to her at length on that occasion. If one speaks to medical professionals, particularly women like Dr. Mahony, who work in large maternity hospitals, it is clear that the eighth amendment does not protect the best interests of mothers or babies as a result of the chill factor it imposes in respect of what medics can do, whether in routine or emergency situations.

Many people have been freshly appalled by the story of Joanne Hayes and the torture she was forced to undergo when, effectively, she was put on trial. Ultimately, that type of situation came about as a result of the climate of the era when the eighth amendment was introduced. I am of the view that the late Dr. Garret FitzGerald, a former Taoiseach, always regretted introducing the eighth amendment.

The social changes which have taken place in Ireland in the intervening years have been very much for the better. However, if we do bring about this change, and I hope that we do, Ireland must be prepared to provide a high quality service of advice and education for young people in schools and for people who have troubled pregnancies. We should remember that it is their choice to bring a baby to full term. It is a choice we must support entirely. Equally, and especially in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities, if they decide to have terminations, that is a choice that we, as a society, must fully support.

According to the CSO, the population of Ireland in 2016 was 50.49% women and 49.51% men. I believe in the Irish people. I believe in the equality of both sexes. I trust our people. As an Irishman, I trust Irishwomen. I believe that repealing the eighth amendment is all about trusting Irishwomen. I particularly believe that we must do so as a society.

I fully support the conclusions reached by the joint committee in its report, particularly its recommendation that the eighth amendment, or Article 40.3.3°, should be repealed and not replaced. I am of the view that repeal simpliciter is the right approach to take. I support the recommendation to the effect that if the eighth amendment is repealed, terminations be allowed where the life of a woman or her health, mental or physical, is at risk. I further support the committee’s recommendation in respect of cases involving fatal foetal abnormalities.

The decision to allow for terminations with no restriction as to reason up to 12 weeks through a GP-led service is correct. The joint committee’s decision not to accept the recommendation of the Citizens’ Assembly in respect of allowing terminations up to 22 weeks' gestation and on socio-economic grounds is also correct.

I thank the members of the joint committee, a number of whom are in the Chamber, for their work. I am not a believer in this new politics lark but I must make an exception in this case.

It is the way forward.

I commend, in particular, the chair of the committee, Senator Noone, on doing a very fine job. My colleague, Deputy Jan O’Sullivan, proposed that the repeal simpliciter approach be recommended when the committee made its final deliberations. I commend her on doing so. Deputy Jan O’Sullivan is someone who was politicised by the 1983 referendum and it is appropriate that she moved the proposal in question.

The Labour Party has supported repealing the eighth amendment for a long time. The party opposed the amendment in 1983. I recall the efforts of Mary Robinson, my colleague beside me, Deputy Burton, Senator Bacik and many others, among whom I include Eamon Gilmore and Deputy Howlin.

And Dick Spring. There are many others. We have a track record on trusting women.

The Constitution was never the place to make provision for such a complex and deeply sensitive issue. It was put in there to prevent this House and the Oireachtas in general ever having an opinion on abortion with which certain strata of society did not agree. The dark forces of society in 1983, about which we all know now, were never going to trust elected Members in respect of such an issue. This is something with which we must deal, once and for all.

The members of the joint committee have shown that the Oireachtas has the capacity to discuss this issue calmly and with dignity. I hope that informs the debate across the board in coming months. Whatever the decision about the referendum, when it happens, if there is a decision to change the Constitution and make provision for new legislation to allow for terminations as the committee has proposed, it is incredible and wrong for any Deputy to say that they would not respect the decision of the people, whatever it might be. I would like for Deputies who propose this to reflect on what I have said. If the people make a decision, the House is bound to honour it.

The decision to allow for terminations up to 12 weeks' gestation is the most controversial recommendation. I agree with it. I do not believe in late-term terminations. The committee has come up with a practical and workable solution. I do not see how, in any sound, objective or appropriate way, it would be possible to allow for abortions in the cases of rape or incest by taking any other approach. We cannot allow a situation where by gardaí, barristers and lawyers would be obliged to debate all details of such cases before a termination might be allowed. That would create an impossible situation.

We cannot continue to outsource the issue of abortion to other jurisdictions. Since 1983, women have simply disintermediated the eighth amendment. Once, it was through taking flights or boat journeys. Some 160,000 women have had terminations by disintermediating the eighth amendment - in other words, by simply going around it. We cannot continue to stick our heads in the sand. I have a duty to the 69 women from Tipperary, to whom the Minister for Health, Deputy Harris, referred, who had to take that course of action last year.

The latest form of disintermediating the eighth amendment is through the abortion pill, which is widely available online. Thousands of women take these pills without medical supervision. This is not appropriate. This situation is dangerous and must change so that they have access to medical supervision and they do not have to sit in a room, perhaps on their own, feeling lonely. As a legislator, I cannot stand over a situation where women’s lives are being put at risk because of this.

We must also respect international law. Amanda Mellet is a very brave lady I have met on several occasions. I can say now that, along with Deputy Billy Kelleher, I brought her to meet the Minister for Health. She is an incredible lady who had to fight for her rights and who was supported by the European Human Rights Committee.

We do not need to have more cases like that of Ms Amanda Mellet.

I want to ensure that medical professionals are respected and have clear guidance on how they can practise. It is not acceptable that medical professionals are left in limbo in this regard. It is not acceptable to see situations in which women are suffering and going through obvious miscarriages or are bleeding but in which medical professionals do not or cannot intervene. That is barbaric and wrong and we need to deal with it.

I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath, who I know well, to push for a May date for the referendum. That is incredibly important. My wife and I have never had a chance to vote on this issue. Everyone under the age of 53 deserves the right to vote on this issue. Obviously, a May date, given the ambitions and the travelling plans of young people, is what my party favours most.

I want the debate that will ensue in the coming weeks and months to be respectful. I respect the way in which the committee did its work. I respect the way in which this debate has been conducted in this House. Broadly, in society, we need to have a respectful tone for everybody's opinion. Everyone's opinion is equal. Everyone has their own opinion and we have to respect it, whatever that is.

Ultimately, for me, this issue of the referendum is a simple choice. While it is a complex issue, it is a simple choice for me, namely, do we support and trust women? We in the Labour Party certainly do. We will support fully the holding of this referendum and the conclusions of this committee in the coming weeks and months.

I will be sharing time with colleagues, if that is okay.

When I was preparing to come in here to speak on this issue, I found it difficult - as did Deputy Jonathan O'Brien, to whose contribution I listened - to put on paper and then deliver a pre-written speech. It is something to which many Members of this House will have given serious consideration before they have come in here. I was taken by the Deputy's contribution.

This issue has been debated for two weeks in my parliamentary party. Having seen the work of the committee, I was taken with the contributions of the members of my party who attended that committee and the work they put in. It was extensive in terms of time, but also in terms of the preparation, the consultation and the feedback they gave the party.

As Deputy Kelleher stated, the report of the all-party committee on the eighth amendment was not unanimous; it was a majority report. When one looks through the report on the various issues on which they voted, the votes varied. There was a divergence of views on some issues.

It is important to acknowledge the manner in which they conducted themselves. In his contribution, Deputy Kelly spoke of respect and dignity and, on looking in on the proceedings of that committee, that was in evidence. To my colleagues on this side of the House and all colleagues who participated, I commend the work in which they have been involved.

I want to make reference in particular to my party leader, Deputy Micheál Martin, because in some regards his actions have changed the way in which this debate is taking place. By that, I specifically mean that for quite some time, Deputy Martin has afforded members of our party a free vote on matters of conscience and that needs to be acknowledged. As I stated at our parliamentary party meeting last night, with that freedom of conscience and that vote that goes with it, there is a responsibility on all of us to clearly understand the issues, to read the reports, to engage and to ensure that we understand why we are making the decisions we are making and that we have clarity of thought. That is why, despite media interest ringing round asking different members what way they would or would not vote, some of us decided that was not the time or place to make decisions. We decided that it was incumbent on all of us who had a responsibility to make a decision to make it following due process, having taken the time to read the report, having discussed it with colleagues and having listened clearly on it. For me, the opportunity to do that is in this House.

The committee, in its majority report, is clear in its finding. I suppose the two findings that have dominated and set the scene are clearly the repeal and the recommendation that the law should be amended to permit termination of pregnancy with no restriction as to reason up to 12 weeks. Many of us have listened and have looked at the detail. We have listened and we have seen correspondence, both to the committee and to many of us directly, regarding traumatic situations women have gone through in the past and are going through today as we speak, and I am mindful and conscious of that. It is in that context that we read the report.

However, from my standing - this is my personal position - I have read the report, which has constantly addressed the issues that face those women but I still come back to the point that the issue of an abortion or termination is still of a life. I am not able to turn away from that and the protection that was offered in the Constitution to recognise that life or to remove that from the Constitution, leaving the Constitution silent or mute on the issue of the protection of a child and a life. I have striven with this for quite a while to make sure that I was clear in my own mind. I am aware that all of us who will contribute to this debate come with our own life experiences. That is what informs our opinion - how we have been brought up, who we have met, what has happened to us. All our own life experiences feed into it but from my point of view, it is difficult to see a situation where a protection that currently exists in the Constitution is to be withdrawn and that the life of the unborn child is to be regarded as silent or mute from a constitutional point of view. That is why I do not support repealing the eighth amendment as recommended by the committee.

We have all had correspondence from people talking about the very personal issues, whether it was fatal foetal abnormality, rape or incest, but the recommendation of the committee goes beyond that. To be fair to Deputy Kelleher, he explained that clearly, but from my point of view, the recommendation that the committee makes is a step too far and is not something I believe I can support. I did not say this lightly. I have reflected on it but I cannot see that the life of the unborn child, as recognised in the Constitution, can be removed. I, furthermore, do not support that recommendation.

As I say, it is a very personal decision. For many women who are listening, it is not what they wante to hear. However, having taken the time - I refused to respond earlier - to read the report, to read correspondence from others on all sides of the argument who contacted us setting out all cases, for me personally, the decision has come down to the fact that the life of the unborn is vulnerable and without its protection in the Constitution, all of these laws are possible. I believe it is important that somebody stands up and recognises that. I have a clear conscience on it.

What I am doing, for me, is for the right reasons. Many Members in this House will not agree with it but, having listened to the debate and read the reports over Christmas, I am quite clear that I am not in a position either to support the repeal of the eighth amendment as recommended or to support the recommendation that is made in the committee's report as I have outlined.

It is important that I, as a Deputy, put on the Dáil record my position on the upcoming referendum on the eighth amendment. I believe that following the Citizens' Assembly and the joint committee report, there is a requirement for a referendum to allow the Irish people decide on the future of the eighth amendment. The Constitution belongs to the Irish people and there is ample evidence that there is need for the citizens to make their views known on the eighth amendment and, therefore, a referendum is needed.

The majority recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly and the joint committee are to repeal the eighth amendment.

This will be the core question put to the people in the referendum. If the eighth amendment is repealed, the suggested legislation would legalise the provision of abortion up to 12 weeks' gestation on request. I understand and acknowledge that there are deeply held views on both sides of this debate. I respect those who feel strongly that abortion should be legalised in Ireland, even though I do not share that view. I am continuously questioning my views on this issue. I have followed the debate as closely as I can and have consulted with my colleagues, family and friends. For me, the fact remains that every abortion ends a human life. This fact is profoundly contrary to my conscience, which is convinced that all human life is entitled to dignity and to the basic right to exist. Abortion undermines all human rights by ending the life of the voiceless. I will therefore vote against repeal of the eighth and the legislation allowing abortion on request.

I am deeply troubled about instances of life-limiting conditions, or fatal foetal abnormalities, and crisis pregnancies due to rape. I am also conflicted about the legal difficulties that women and medical personnel face when a termination of pregnancy is requested. I hope that advances in medical science and supports in wider society will reduce the circumstances in which abortion is deemed necessary, but there will always be cases that will haunt me, and I accept that this is a consequence of my decision. I will always be troubled and conflicted by these realities that some women face and I understand that my position may deeply disappoint some people.

All human life is fragile and in need of protection by society and our laws. Pregnant women and children and families are not supported enough in our modern society, which prioritises the economic contributions that humans make, not the dignity that all deserve. I hope the debate will be conducted with respect and compassion for all. Every citizen must be allowed to make his or her decision freely and according to his or her own beliefs. For many citizens this decision will take some time to consider. It is important we as public representatives, campaigners and the media facilitate a healthy and fair debate. I do not think there is a single position on the abortion debate that is 100% satisfied with its view. Doubt will always haunt the big decisions we must make as adults.

I would like to say to colleagues that I have always approached, and continued to approach, the issue of abortion and the right to life in a compassionate and responsible way and I genuinely respect all opinions on a matter that is very personal to thousands, if not millions, of people. I thank in particular all those who have been in contact with me in recent weeks, particularly since the publication of the report - people with very different and divergent views on this matter, all of which I respect. I am not saying I have the answer to everything or that I am right about everything. I hope the debate continues in what has been in the main a very respectful and adult fashion because this is a crucially important issue.

This debate is taking place in the absence of any Government proposal or indeed any real view given by the Taoiseach or a number of his senior Cabinet Ministers. While this is a debate on the Oireachtas committee's report, it is not a debate on the proposal that will come from Government. I further acknowledge that my party has had a conscience vote on this matter since 2013. I commend in particular my party leader on his very honest and forthright views which he put forward last week. Where there is a free vote within in a party, it means just that - that people are open to express their own views on what is, whatever way one looks at it, a life-and-death issue. I take this matter extremely seriously and I have had many discussions with my family, friends and constituents. I do not mind saying I have had a number of very difficult days and discussions on this.

I have read the report in detail. It makes a number of very important recommendations on the areas of sexual health and relationships education, including access to contraception and education. It highlights very clearly under-resourced psychiatric services for pregnant women and the real need for greater investment in mental health services, particularly for those who are pregnant, including those with crisis pregnancies. It also highlights very clearly the lack of education in many of these areas and the lack of uniformity across our schools as to how sex education is taught, the increase in sexually transmitted infections, STIs, and various other elements that relate to health, including sexual health, in this country. The report is not silent on this and that should not be forgotten.

The fundamental issue dealt with in the report is Article 40.3.3° and the committee's recommendation simply to repeal it and take the protection that is there, imperfect as it may be, completely out of the Constitution. I am aware of many of the heartbreaking cases that have come to public attention in recent years. It is really important, though, that as a country we not only protect and provide for the life and health of the mother, but also do our best, as it is incumbent upon us, to protect the life of the child. It is not an easy balance to strike, particularly in cases of fatal foetal abnormality and crisis pregnancies, but these protections are best enshrined in our Constitution. This is why the recommendation from the committee simply to remove Article 40.3.3°, repeal the eighth amendment and leave it solely to the Oireachtas to legislate in the future is something I am deeply uncomfortable with and cannot support. There would be no barrier to any future Oireachtas, as far as I can see, restricting the provision not simply to 12 weeks, but to 16 weeks, 20 weeks and so on. This is a big issue for me.

Regarding referendums, changes to Bunreacht na hÉireann are sovereign to the people. If we are simply to repeal the eighth amendment, it would mean that people would have no say in the future on this. However, as a democrat, I will put it to the House this way: I certainly do not fear a referendum. A referendum on this issue will happen and, as a democrat, I will accept fully the vote of the people in such a future referendum. I have no difficulty in saying that. However, the irony is that the people would be asked to give away their rights and give away a right within the Constitution by voting it away in a referendum. While this is an extremely complex and personal matter, and one to which I intend to return when the Government actually publishes its proposals and when it has received the relevant legal advice, the simple removal of Article 40.3.3° and repeal of the eighth amendment is not something I can support.

I am very happy to have the opportunity to state my position on the eighth amendment on the record of the Dáil. I have always believed that standing by my principles and speaking from the heart will never send me too far wrong, and that is how I have approached this issue from the very beginning. This is a very contentious and polarising issue in Irish society and has been for decades. As an Irish citizen, I have put politics aside on many occasions in the past and reflected honestly on this issue. I have spent much time in recent days and weeks reflecting upon this issue as we move towards a referendum and pressure is put on politicians from the public that elected them to office to take stances and state their positions. Following such periods of reflection, I have always come to the same conclusion: I am pro-life. I believe in the rights of the unborn as stated in our Constitution and believe these rights must be protected at all costs. However, as a public representative, I also have a responsibility to my constituents. The people who have voted for me in numerous local and general elections, and whom I have the honour to represent, are well aware of my beliefs in this regard. Therefore, I believe I have a mandate from the majority of my constituents to be a pro-life politician. I am opposed to the outright repeal of the eighth amendment as I believe the rights of the unborn as stated in our Constitution must be protected. I am opposed to unrestricted access to abortion up to 12 weeks' gestation. This is not to say that I do not respect or accept the work which has been carried out over many weeks and months by representatives of all parties and none in the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. This is not to say that I do not respect or accept the views of my colleagues, my constituents, my family and friends or anyone who considers himself or herself pro-choice.

Everyone is entitled to their views and their opinion on this subject. I am hopeful that all sides respect the views of one another and that respectful debate takes place over the next few months.

I firmly believe in democracy, which entitles everyone to his or her opinion and viewpoint. I am a lifelong believer in democracy and that is why I became a politician. I believe in democracy down to my very bones. This is why I firmly believe the Irish people are entitled to have their say on this matter for the first time in nearly 35 years. The Government has committed to holding a referendum on the eighth amendment. This is now a reality and I support the people's right to have their say in a referendum on any matter. However, if the question is put that we should have an outright repeal of the eighth amendment and replace it with legislation for unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks, I cannot support that. This is my long held personal and political stance and one I did not reach lightly. Ultimately, I will respect the result of the referendum as the will of the people of Ireland.

If I am truly honest with myself on the eighth amendment, there are areas of it about which I have great concern. The situation whereby women purchase unregulated and illegal abortion pills over the Internet must be seriously looked at. This is a dangerous practice that requires the Government's attention when drafting any legislation. If we can provide more adequate supports and resources that would assist the women in this position, outside of unrestricted abortion, we must seek to do that. I also have concerns about rape and incest. The women in such harrowing situations are obviously very traumatised and require the State's support at every turn, but there are two lives to be considered in such instances, and there are many well documented cases of people who are grown adults and human beings who walk among us today who support the rights of the unborn and are against abortion. This shows us that termination is not always the answer. I also have concerns surrounding babies who are deemed to have a fatal foetal abnormality. I do not like using that term, but it is the term which is most commonly used.

I am on the record as stating if appropriate medical personnel conclude that the mother’s life is at risk, and if appropriate medical personnel also conclude, beyond all medical doubt, that the foetus will not survive, and both parents are in agreement, then as a last resort abortion should be considered in this case, if deemed medically necessary, but this is not a black and white issue. The word abortion is repugnant and abhorrent to me. The eighth amendment is the only protection of the unborn in our society and for that reason it has to be retained or, if amended, there must still be the right to hold it in the Constitution.

Nobody in this Chamber knows what anybody else is dealing with, or has dealt with in the past. As politicians in this room, we all know that nobody ever knows what is really behind a hall door, no matter where it is in the country. In this country, we have abdicated responsibility in the area of supporting women in a crisis pregnancy or an unplanned pregnancy and instead the Irish solution has been to let somebody else sort it out.

I am proud that Fine Gael in government is not happy with that stance, and even though there are differing views within the party and within the House, all of which I respect, we as an Oireachtas are going to tackle this issue head on and let the people decide how we support women in the area of health. Let the decision be between the woman and her doctor, because I trust women to make a decision on what is in the best interests for them or their family.

We all know the statistics of women who have taken abortion pills or who have left the country to have an abortion. Behind every statistic we look at is a woman, a couple or a family going through one of the most stressful and difficult times of their lives, a time that will never leave them. We have exported this problem for years and our solution is to import an illegal solution. The UK has been a safety valve for our problem for far too long. As legislators, we have a duty of care to these women, whatever their decision may be, to support them through those difficult weeks or to medically intervene where needed. I am not comfortable thinking any woman, this evening, yesterday, 20 years ago or tomorrow, might take an abortion pill at home in fear, who feels isolated or on her own or, if it goes wrong, afraid to go to an accident and emergency department. That is not a comfortable position for me to be in.

There is a history in this State of, like the three monkeys, hearing no evil, seeing no evil and speaking no evil. If we do not talk about it, it is not happening, or we like to think it is not happening. However, we clearly know, as we stand here today, that ten women, following on from the 170,000 that went before them, are travelling to have their medical need met. We have covered our ears, we have closed our eyes and we have shut our mouths because that is the easiest way to pretend it is not happening.

I am the proud mother of two young beautiful girls whom I nurtured when I was pregnant and continue to nurture. I want the best for them throughout their lives and for them to be able to make clear and conscious decisions for their future. I did not come to my decision easily. I am very uncomfortable with abortion but as somebody in the position I hold, and which I am proud to hold, I have a duty of care to women and their families to make sure they feel their country is there for them at their time of need. For this reason, I support the committee's recommendations and repeal.

On several occasions in the past week I have attempted to put together the correct words to adequately respond to this report. It has been an agonising and most difficult experience. The process put in place by the previous Government involved the provision of a citizens' assembly to review and make recommendations surrounding the suitability or otherwise of the eighth amendment. It was then for the Oireachtas to examine those recommendations and report accordingly. The Oireachtas committee was formed and approved, and it set out to examine and consider the assembly's recommendations. In doing so, it considered the professional expert evidence, advice and consideration of relevant medical and legal opinion. Thus, having assimilated, asked questions on, scrutinised and considered all the information that emanated from that process, it made its own recommendations in the report before the House.

All members of the committee, whether they were part of the final consensus or not, have to be thanked and commended on taking upon themselves such a body of work on behalf of the rest of us. We, because of their work, are now in a far more informed position to reflect on the suitability of the eighth amendment in the Constitution for the Ireland we live in today and, consequently, ask the Irish people to do likewise.

Politics is a challenging career. It is a very demanding profession. It can and does place a great strain on one's life, particularly family life. As technology and advancements in communication methods improve, one has the opportunity, at least, to strike a balance. As we all know, there is an innate decency in the Irish people who, in the main, recognise hard work, effort and commitment. The greatest reward in politics I believe is to enter government to enact policy to support the people via electoral success. Those who went before us created and provided the foundations for that democracy. They achieved our independence and gave the Dáil its powers, and ensured the generations who came after had the opportunity to realise their various wishes and aspirations. Those aspirations were, and are, evident in the 1916 Proclamation, the declaration of independence in 1919, the Constitution of 1937 and the Republic of Ireland Act 1948.

The Constitution is the legal document that sets out how Ireland should be governed. It lays out the powers of the Legislature, the oversight of the courts and, most importantly, as others have referred to, the people's sovereign right to amend it. Society itself, let alone Irish society, has changed greatly since 1937. Each generation has learned from its predecessors. No one generation has had the monopoly on solutions to societal change. Our generation at this juncture has a huge responsibility to meet what could be described as the greatest possible societal challenge.

It is faced with seeking to separate, equate or measure the health, life and death of women and the unborn. This is a challenge that has tortured the minds of this nation. It is a challenge we thought was met by the amendment and Article 40.3.3°. We all cherish the lives of women and children and we would want our Constitution, our courts, our Dáil and our people to be proud of that. Unfortunately, that utopia has not materialised so far in the way one would wish. We must now again seek to address these matters in a way that is balanced, respectful and real. I am prepared to meet that challenge as best I can. I would rather if I did not have to do it in my lifetime, to be honest, but nonetheless I will face that challenge. I doubt many people in the electorate will relish the prospect either of an upcoming referendum on the matter.

I was the beneficiary of a loving and cherished childhood. My character was shaped by my family, community, schools, church, various cultures and sport. It was later enhanced in work, marriage and parenting. That combination has made me what I am today. I am no more perfect than anybody else here but I have a value system. I like to think I can tell the difference between right and wrong. All Members of the Dáil are or should be republicans, respecting the views, rights and aspirations of everybody, among other things.

I am also a proud member of the Fianna Fáil Party and I acknowledge, on matters of conscience, that Fianna Fáil afforded its members, irrespective of one's position or rank in the parliamentary party or outside it, the right to a personal position. This was intentional and the surprise in some quarters that all our members do not have the same position on whether the eighth amendment should be repealed or altered, or whether the Oireachtas should be afforded the privilege to legislate on the matter, is difficult to comprehend. The difference of opinion in Fianna Fáil is merely reflective of the difference of opinion within society and all political parties, organisations, communities and even families. If our detractors believe such differences afford the opportunity to divide us or create a rift while undermining us, they are wrong. Our republicanism will outshine those efforts. Not only has it been evident within our parliamentary party, but it will be evident at every crossroads in the country when our cumainn sit down to discuss it also. The correct forum for Members to respond to this report is in this Chamber. Here, the record will indicate the context, thought process, logic, reason and detail of one's personal and individual decision. It cannot be misinterpreted or misrepresented here and it will not be disputed.

I should make it clear that terminations in every circumstance are traumatic and unimaginable for me. These are terribly difficult decisions for any woman to make. Nobody would make such a decision easily or lightly. The debate on this matter has often painted women in a very negative light and it is time that stopped. We must stop at least the name calling and judgments. It is time to protect and assist women. Having read the report it is clear that repealing the amendment is essential to providing adequate health care for women. It is also essential for doctors to do their duties as they see fit.

Since becoming a Deputy I have been present as the State offered apologies to the women of the Magdalen laundries and, more recently, to Joanna Hayes, the woman at the centre of the Kerry babies case. I have only been a Deputy for seven years but I have come to realise the horrors inflicted on women - particularly and crucially, pregnant women - in this State. I cannot think one thing and state another. I cannot stand by and allow similar mistakes to be made as we saw in the past. I have heard stories, as many Members have and recalled during the course of this debate, of women who were the victims of the most heinous acts of rape and incest. I have heard incidents of where women and couples received the most tragic diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality. While every effort, support and assistance for mental and physical health should be afforded at every opportunity to seek to allow a pregnancy to continue, I do not accept it is my right or anybody else's to force such women to carry a pregnancy they do not want or where a baby will not survive outside the womb.

There are people who say they want change in cases of rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormalities but do not agree with repeal. I ask them, honestly and earnestly, to offer an alternative solution. They should be mindful that the report tells us that the Oireachtas committee examined this matter for four months and could not find a solution, despite having the best medical and legal expertise. It could not be done while retaining the eighth amendment or involving legislation. Legislating for cases involving rape and incest is not possible as a woman would have to prove she is a victim of heinous crimes. It would be unfair for some people to give the impression they have compassion for these women, while seeking to further traumatise them in this way. There is an absence of alternative solutions and knowledge that legal certainties cannot bring proof of rape or incest. The State has been exposed in violating human rights in the Mellet and Whelan cases and there is a dreaded fear about the unregulated provision of abortion pills from the Internet, which in time could replicate the sort of trauma and terrible tragedy that befell the nation on the death of Savita Halappanavar. It is the sort of vista facing us if we do not deal with the matter now.

It would be much simpler for me if I did not go into great depth, was not of inquisitive mind and did not take my job seriously. It would be easier if I did not study this or take on board the medical expertise from obstetricians and legal experts who have studied the Constitution and know about legislation. I must accept the findings of the committee. The Government must now bring forward its considered verdict as to how best to formulate the question of repeal for the Irish people. It is the duty and obligation of the Government, via the referendum commission, to adequately and appropriately inform the Irish people of all the relevant professional, expert, medical and legal advice necessary so as to ensure that an informed electorate can give their verdict. This electorate is not necessarily divided in an urban-rural way or by young and old. This electorate will be adequately armed to ensure a respectful debate and discourse. That will maximise the potential that the result for the nation and its Dáil can be respected and acted upon.

I sincerely hope the debate on this issue, the forthcoming referendum and what may follow will not be politicised. I attended an ICTU conference on housing last Tuesday. I had been asked by my party to inform the conference of our policy and resolutions should we attain office in government. Yesterday, I spoke in favour of a Fianna Fáil motion on the pay inequality issue for young teachers, its effect on their morale, the ability to do their job and to meet the demands of society, and the costs associated with that for them. My ability to work on behalf of my constituents will not be diminished because of my opinions on this issue. I remain committed to working in the Dáil on behalf of my constituents and I will not take kindly to political opponents in my constituency or elsewhere seeking to use this issue alone as a reason to influence voters when there are elections to the Dáil. That is a cheap politicisation of a complex and personal matter, and I believe it will not rest easily with reasonable people.

In conclusion, I again acknowledge the work of those who took it upon themselves to act on our behalf and in our best interests in placing this report before the Dáil. I encourage all Members to make their views known. Each of us has only one vote in the referendum but it is seldom a responsibility of this magnitude is placed on people who are lucky enough to be Members. It is time to show the methodology and reasoning that went into forming one's opinion and conscience on this issue. We owe that, to ensure the electorate and general public are as informed as we were, by whatever means necessary, so they can make a decision they can stand over and be happy with. I, like the rest of the Members who have signed up to this democratic process, will abide by the people's final decision.

Ireland is changing. When I was growing up, the Catholic Church was the predominant institution. For young people today, that institution is greatly weakened. In 1983, the Catholic Church was a very powerful institution. Ireland is a very different place from what it was in 1983. Social issues that dominated the country for so long, such as divorce and gay marriage, have become commonly accepted.

In the 35 years since the referendum, women were shamed terribly by the State and the church. The history of those 35 years has been barbaric and an affront to women's health and rights. There has been a litany of abject failures that have imprisoned women and let women die for the sake of religious and political fundamentalism. The movement for choice is as powerful as it ever was. Women will no longer tolerate the hypocrisy of being second class citizens in this State. This movement has largely never been able to challenge the Constitution in respect of a constitutional right to choice. It has been a prisoner of that concept.

Those who trivialise and demonise a woman's right to choose ultimately do not trust women to choose. I trust women to make the decision on what is right for them and their families. Only women can make that choice. Over 100 women in the constituency I represent travelled for an abortion last year. At present, women can be sent to jail if they are in possession of the abortion pill. If that sounds outlandish, in the North women in possession of abortion pills and people who prescribe them can be dragged through the courts and sent to jail. That is absolutely barbaric.

The eighth amendment belongs to the past. A woman's right to choose belongs to the present and the future. I appeal to those who are yet to decide. They can transform this debate and empower everybody on the side of the debate for getting rid of the eighth amendment to the Constitution. It is time to give women and citizens a chance to make that decision on our Constitution. The party I represent has a proud history of representing women and this issue. It is an issue that can be divisive, but it is time for this generation to make the decision and have a referendum once and for all on giving women the right to choose.

I find it incredibly difficult to speak about this subject. It is important when speaking about it not to hurt or offend anybody, and I will try to speak in a way that does not do that. I have been an elected representative for a long time. One thing I have always tried to do is not judge anybody on anything they have done. All of us have experience of people coming to our constituency clinics who are condemned by the world for their actions. I have always tried, and I do not claim to have always succeeded, to leave judgment outside the door and try to assist another human being.

I hope that nobody would engage in the innuendo that people are taking a stand on this issue to get votes. I do a great deal of work for Travellers and I guarantee that it is not a great vote getter. I have tried to assist all the disability groups over my years in politics. As some people know, I have done a great deal for prisoners, not only those in prison due to the Troubles, but also to help the families of people in prison who have been convicted of other crimes. I have been criticised for doing so. I do not mind. It is not popular. However, I believe no human being on the earth is beyond consideration and assistance irrespective of what they have done in the past. In anything I say, therefore, I am not making a judgment on anybody. Regardless of the circumstances in which a person comes to me, I respect the person's confidentiality and make no judgment. There is a saying in Irish, níl a fhios ag aon duine cá luíonn an bhróg ar an duine eile, which means one never knows where the shoe is laid. Time and again that saying has struck me in my career.

There is one thing on which there is probably general agreement across the House, and it is something I could never understand when the then Minister, Senator Reilly, introduced the Protection of Human Life During Pregnancy Bill, and that is the outrageous possible penalties in that legislation. I accept it is unlikely they would ever be imposed on a woman, but the fact that those outrageous penalties were in the law was wrong.

No constitutional change is needed to amend that Act and put an end to the possibility of a woman who procures an abortion receiving a sentence of 14 years' imprisonment. Such a possibility is both an abomination and totally wrong. I agree that severe penalties are required for those who provide illegal abortions because such procedures put women's lives and health at risk.

On this issue, like in all debates, each side could conclude it is right. Those on the pro-life side would say that the eighth amendment has saved a considerable number of lives. The nub of the issue is whether we accept that an unborn child is a human being. As a public representative, I have been grappling with that over the past 20 years or so. If we do not accept it, the issue should be resolved in favour of the pro-choice side. However, if we do accept it, we must consider the principle, which is very dear to me, as a public representative, of not countenancing the taking of any life as legal. That is the nub of the issue and for people to dismiss it is unfair. My knowledge and reason tells me that a 20-week-old baby in the womb, although being nurtured by its mother, is an independent human being. The day of the elimination of the law permitting capital punishment was one of the best in my time in politics. When I was first elected to Dáil Éireann, there was a law under which a person could be executed for killing a garda. We have moved on and the Constitution now prohibits the death penalty. I have never agreed that the State should have the right to take a life in those circumstances, although some argued that such people had done terrible things. The dilemma is that if I believe and know and all scientific evidence indicates that an unborn child is a human being, why is no consideration being given to the position of such a child? As Maolra Seoighe said from the gallows, "Tá mé chomh neamhchiontach leis an leanbh sa mbroinn"; "I am as innocent as a child in the womb." The Members present in the House would find it difficult to believe that in an unborn state they were not themselves.

I know children and I have grandchildren. It is amazing that children often display character traits which they carry with them throughout their lives on the day they are born. I hope that, at least, those in favour of repeal and abortion understand our problem and dilemma and that we are not hard-hearted. Like all Members present, I wish there was an easy answer to this issue. I wish we were not in a situation whereby the burden and challenge of this problem seem to weigh more heavily on one sex than the other, although I do not accept that men do not have a role to play. In some cases, men, for their own selfish interests and possibly because of embarrassment, have persuaded women to get abortions. Therefore, to leave men out of this is to take from them a responsibility that is rightly theirs because it takes two to bring a child into the world.

I am hugely concerned by deaths in our maternity hospitals. There were three reports on the Savita Halappanavar case and they concluded that her death was due to mistreatment of sepsis that should earlier have been diagnosed. A case recently came to public notice involving a woman who died during an operation on an ectopic pregnancy, which is a very common operation that has been performed in our hospitals for generations. That case deserves as much examination, questioning and remedying as any other in terms of how that was allowed to happen. The outrage of anybody dying in our hospitals in a way that could have been avoided is inexcusable and must be dealt with.

I hope this debate will lead to our being willing to put far more money into two issues: disability, which can arise after or before one is born, and maternity hospitals, such that they can provide the best care in the world and keep up with improving standards. All Members know of children with life-limiting conditions. Some have children close to them with that diagnosis. Because of modern medicine, parents may be given devastating news before a child is born about many things that might not be life-limiting in terms of the duration of the child's life but would be permanently life-constraining. It must be horrendous to be given such a diagnosis. In its wisdom, the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution recommended that such diagnoses not be grounds for abortion. To say it is not absolutely devastating news is not to face reality. We should put far more care, money and support into assisting such parents. The issues of perinatal hospice care and disability must be addressed. Every day, many people face the challenges of looking after parents or children with a disability and fighting with the State for very fundamental things.

By its nature, a referendum is a binary choice. In this case, the choice will be whether to leave in place Article 40.3.3°, which protects human life. I have never had any problem with any medical intervention undertaken in good faith to save a mother's life. I have always believed that anybody who holds back in that regard is wrong. Alternatively, should we take away the constitutional protection afforded by Article 40.3.3° and leave such decisions to the Oireachtas?

What the Oireachtas might do then will be a matter for the Oireachtas and it will not be confined to the proposals of the committee. All the referendum will say, if it succeeds, is that it is then up to these Houses.

I believe that in reality, if we go down the route of life limiting conditions, doctors will find it very hard to make that judgment. Many of the arguments put forward in favour of the referendum will not be dealt with by the proposals in the committee's report. There is much talk of the fact that 3,000 to 3,500 women go to Britain each year. Looking at the statistics, I believe that the numbers of women who travel to Britain for the reasons of fatal foetal abnormality or a life limiting condition are a tiny fraction of the overall numbers who travel. The women who travel there because the baby has been diagnosed with a serious disability are relatively small. I believe that the vast majority go because they want an abortion for social and other reasons. This means that there are people rationalising about where this journey is going. These people know that we are on a journey. There are Members of the Dáil or organisations such as Repealeight who want abortion totally on the same terms as Britain de facto - not de jure - and they say that nothing else is going to stop the flow. The argument that a proposed referendum will stop the flow does not stand up. Unfortunately, the way we are going about this means that inexorably this will happen. The report shows us this. When we see what some committee members are proposing we see the direction they want to bring us. They will have an in. Once it is decided that the child in the womb is not a child or a human to be protected there is an inescapable logic and rationale to where it is going, because who are we to make the choice and to limit the decision between one child and another?

I believe that any talk about proposed legislation is not what we are actually asking the people. We are asking the people if they want to leave it open to what I consider to be an inevitable journey and to equalise our law with Britain or any other liberal country, or we are asking the people if they want to stay where we are and see how we can provide better services and protect that fundamental human right. It is not easy and there is no perfect answer. I do not pretend to have a perfect answer. We live in a very imperfect world with great sorrow, great sadness and difficulty in it. I hear people talk about moral superiority of the current generation over the past generations. I sometimes wonder when I hear societal attitudes to some of the problems of the people I deal with. People 50 years ago had the same superior view of the structure of their society. They thought they had cracked the past and that people who lived 50 years before them had been totally out of fashion. I can guarantee the House one thing: in 50 years' time people will wonder how could we have left so much wrong in the 2010-30 period. They will wonder how we could have been so cruel to so many people. Day in and day out I feel we are living in a very uncaring State. I could tell stories but it would break confidences I have with people. People are being treated in an utterly harrowing way by the State at this time.

Because I believe the unborn child is just that - an unborn child who is fully a human being - this referendum will be the first time ever that a referendum will be introduced to take a fundamental human right to life away from so many. If one does not accept that the child is a human then that is fair enough, but if one does accept it then we have a massive dilemma. I will come down on the side of protecting human life.

The issue of the report of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution needs to be approached with great care and sensitivity. I thank Senator Noone and the members of the committee for their efforts. I appreciate their task was an extremely difficult and arduous one.

From the beginning it was clear that whatever the recommendations the committee proposed they would cause division on a topic that has been debated numerous times in the Houses of Oireachtas and throughout the land over the past 35 years. I remember that these debates often turned nasty and caused people to behave in an undignified manner and to say things which were better left unsaid.

During the course of this debate, I ask that people engage in an honest, open and respectful way, without casting judgment on others. As other Members have already stated, it is important we all recognise that fundamentally this is a deeply personal issue, and it is a matter for each citizen to decide what he or she believes is right and correct. It is important that all of us are non-judgmental in this regard and that we respect the views and opinions of others. I sincerely hope the debate over the next months will be conducted along these lines. On this occasion, I hope we can approach the issue on a somewhat higher level and with an element of maturity that was not there on previous occasions.

Pregnancy and birth and the issues surrounding it are extremely complex. When legislators in the past tried to enact legislation to deal with them it proved extremely difficult and divisive. If it were simple and straightforward, we would not be in the situation we are now in.

Recognising the complexities of the issues involved and the choices that will inevitably face us at the ballot box, it behoves all of us to take time to reflect deeply and to think matters through before we speak, especially before we lecture others on what they should or should not do. Anyone who says this is a simple, straightforward matter is foolish in the extreme and the public should ignore such propagandists, whether they are elected public representatives or representatives of some bipartisan organisation.

Like other Members I too have spent some time considering the recommendations of the committee. I did not find this an easy task. I have listened to the many arguments and discussions over the past weeks. With regard to the actual recommendations before us I am firmly of the view that they go too far. I do not support unrestricted access to abortion up to 12 weeks and I will uphold this view in the upcoming debate.

For me, it is a step too far and I cannot support it. Like all Members, I will have further opportunity to give detailed response and comment when the Government makes decisions and brings proposals before the Oireachtas for consideration and decision.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on what is a difficult, emotive and personal issue for everyone, both in this Chamber and outside. I speak on the issue as both a representative of a number of different views on the part of my constituents and as a parent, husband, son and brother. Where a number of different views are articulated, we get a good cross-section of people's opinions on this sensitive issue. It is important that we have mutual respect for each other's opposing views. While I may not agree with or accept it, I respect everyone's opinion on this and every issue. I hope the same respect will be afforded to me here this evening.

In this debate, it is also important that we reflect on, remember and consider carefully the mother and the unborn baby. In many contributions in this House, the unborn baby was not spoken about as much as it should be. I think that is a mistake because it is real and it needs that level of respect and discussion. There is another dimension, which is the family unit. In some cases, a father or a husband will be involved as well and it is important that all those set ups are encompassed in the discussion. It is also important to remember that there are mothers listening to this debate who have had terminations for one reason or another. We do not want to cause them any further anguish, upset or annoyance during this debate. We must be respectful and mindful of that also.

It is difficult for Members, as legislators, and those outside the House to have a proper debate on the proposed change to the Constitution in the absence of a proposal. In essence, we are talking in a vacuum because we do not have the proper information in front of us. To some degree, that gives an idea of the complexities involved in the issue. Everyone is struggling with what are the appropriate proposals to be considered. It is, therefore, difficult to discuss the detail of a referendum when we do not know what we are actually discussing. We must also remember that the current amendment, protecting the life of the unborn, has served the State well. It has served to protect the life of the unborn very well in the past and now.

I am not so sure of the legitimacy of the term "fatal foetal abnormality" and whether it is just a foetal abnormality. That is, I suppose, for another day and for others to discuss. I have engaged with families that have made it their business to see me at my weekly clinics, at my office or outside of that. They have made contact with me in recent weeks and months and have told me numerous stories. These are stories that we have all heard. However, in some cases, the medical advice given to them years ago was that the baby would not survive outside the mother's womb. If termination had been available at the time, the baby might well have been terminated. However, that was not an option available to them in Ireland, thankfully, and it was not an option that was sought. As a result, the baby was born and has matured to adulthood. As a family unit, they have enjoyed and still enjoy their time with that person despite being given such bleak, sad and bad news following scans during the pregnancy. This is feedback from families, mothers and fathers who have experienced this situation. The undercurrent in their message is that medical professionals are human and sometimes they, like everyone else, can get it wrong. That is hugely important to bear in mind. As a result of taking the right decision, lots of people have enjoyed a fulfilling life to the best of their ability, whatever that may be. No one should deprive any individual of that right. It is important that the correct supports and services be in place for both the mother and the family unit should they get such bad news when they attend for the different scans during pregnancy. If we are honest, those services do not exist properly at the moment. The supports are not there. This needs to be considered further but I will return to it later.

It is also important that we are not selective when quoting medical professionals. I have heard medical professionals quoted quite a lot on both sides of the debate. Yet, when these medical professionals have made recommendations on other important health issues, by and large they have been ignored or not taken on board. I met a senior surgeon a year ago. He was looking for €4 million investment in Tallaght hospital to allow patients to be treated properly. At the moment, they are regarded as being critical. This would allow them to operate normally on a daily basis. They are waiting two years as critical patients for surgery. Those senior surgeons and consultants have advocated to Government on that investment, but it has not happened. Then there is the other side of the coin which we heard earlier today. Other medical professionals came out and advocated strongly in respect of the children's hospital and they would say that, by and large, they were ignored. We must be measured in our approach and our discussion. We must also be measured when we are quoting professionals. I believe in quoting them but they should be quoted honestly, fairly and consistently. People should not be opportunistic or selective. The concern is that we are selectively quoting parts to suit an argument but this is too sensitive an issue to do that.

Where a pregnancy is ended and a baby aborted under the heading "fatal foetal abnormality", what are we trying to achieve? Are we looking for something perfect or ideal that we know will never exist? We must realise and understand that everyone has a right to exist in society irrespective of who they are. I firmly believe that it is not about anyone's disability but everyone's ability. We must put that centre stage. Irrespective of the circumstances into which a person is born, it is important that the services, supports and assistance are there. The love of the family unit and surrounding people will be there. Everyone can have a fulfilling and enjoyable life. That is what is important and it is incumbent on us to ensure that that right remains.

Others issues discussed include rape and incest. These are terrible, awful and inhumane acts to attempt to inflict on any woman. Those found guilty of such acts should get the toughest sentence possible. The acts in question are wrong. I have listened to women who have attended Leinster House to make presentations and to women outside it who have contacted me and sought meetings.

I can only repeat what they are saying to me, which was that while a terrible act was brought upon them, having gone through an abortion was equally difficult for them to deal with it. The termination was not, in essence, any solution for them as they ended up with two significant traumas to deal with in life. One was the terrible, inhumane act that was the rape or incest, which nobody would attempt to condone, and the other was the aborting of the baby. We must remember that in this difficult discussion, the baby who is terminated or who somebody is contemplating terminating, has no say in it. The child, the mother and the family unit, if it happens to the mother there, should get the relevant supports and the services should be provided to allow the child to be born. The child might have been conceived in a way it would not want to be but it had no control over that and it deserves a right to play a role in society. We must be conscious of and reflect on this point.

We all recognise that services and supports are not adequate at present for the mother, the unborn baby or the family unit. I will not play politics on any issue, as I believe in trying to progress things to get positive outcomes, but adequate services are not available at present. They are lacking in a number of different areas of the health service, some of which I discussed in a Topical Issue debate with the Minister. The people to whom I have spoken say it is not a case of funding but delivery on the ground. We must be humane and compassionate in this regard and must ensure the appropriate services are put in place to help families, particularly mothers, in these dreadfully difficult circumstances and to assist them. This, in turn, will assist the unborn baby. That baby has a right and we must speak up on its behalf.

It will come as no surprise to Members that I confirm I am absolutely pro-life. This is my own personal view and that of those people I represent to my constituency. I acknowledge and respect that my colleague who is present and others in my constituency have different views but based on those people who have contacted my office by telephone, text, Facebook or email, three out of four have asked me to advocate on a pro-life basis. It is hugely important that we protect the life of the unborn in the proposals that are put forward in the time ahead of us.

I seek clarification. The order states the debate on the report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution shall commence not later than 5.40 p.m. and adjourn at 8.40 p.m. I would prefer to speak next week.

For clarification, the Ceann Comhairle has ordered that the debate be adjourned when the number of speakers has been exhausted.

Is it to resume in the coming weeks?

It will be whenever it comes back to the floor again.

Some speakers have left to go home. They will get the opportunity to speak in the coming weeks.

I suspect there will be one opportunity, at least, but that is a matter for the Ceann Comhairle

There are three hours of speaking time left this evening and 80 people have spoken so far during 17 hours of debate. I have waited here to sum up the debate and if there are no more speakers, the normal way to do business is for the Minister to sum up. I do not understand why people are not here and have made arrangements to come back next week when they feel like it. That is not good enough. This is a very important issue. Anyone who is here should be speaking now. I am willing to stay until the time appointed and to close the debate when the time is up. This is unusual and I have not seen it happen before, especially when there is plenty of time left.

I have also stayed here to listen to every single contribution. I have been here for 95% of the contributions and it is unusual that this is happening with more than two hours of debating time left this evening. There are Members in the Chamber who have not contributed and may contribute. I see it as nothing more than a delaying tactic and an attempt to drag out the debate to next week. The Minister of State is waiting to sum up and if people wish to speak on this debate, they have the next two hours and 15 minutes to do so. We had enough games in committee - it is time to stop the games now, as this is too serious an issue.

I will go back to what the Ceann Comhairle said, which is that when the number of speakers has been exhausted the debate adjourns. I understand him to refer to speakers who have not spoken, but intend to speak and are in the House.

It is quite clear. I do not want to be accused of playing games by anyone

That is what Deputy Mattie McGrath is doing.

We discussed this in the committee too. A number of people left having read the Order Paper, which stated the debate would start at 5.40 p.m. and adjourn at 8.40 p.m. It did not state it would conclude.

It is only 5.45 p.m..

People notified the Ceann Comhairle that they wanted to speak but went home on that assumption. They have an expectation that they can come back next week or the week after, which they are entitled to do.

Is it Deputy McGrath's intention to speak?

It is my intention to speak.

Then Deputy Mattie McGrath should speak now and stop playing games.

Does Deputy McGrath wish to speak now and is he available to speak now? If so, he should remember that over the years, the order of the House generally has been that if a person intends to speak, is present at the debate at the appropriate time and does not speak, he or she concedes.

The only reason I remained is because I sought clarification from the Acting Chairman and the secretariat. It states here, and other Members were informed by the Ceann Comhairle, that they could contribute in the next session. That is why I remained. I do not expect the Acting Chairman to be dictated to by other Members as to when I can and cannot speak. I speak through the Chair and I will not be dictated to. I will not be accused of playing games by any other Members.

It is my understanding that the debate has to be adjourned because no question is being put. If no question is being put the debate cannot be concluded and the debate adjourns when everybody who wishes to speak has spoken. Maybe the Government Whip or someone who has been in this House for longer than I have can clarify this but I understand this is the reason the word "adjourn" is on the agenda, not the word "conclude". If there are people who wish to speak, they need to speak. If they do not speak, it is not on the agenda for next week. I ask for clarification that the reason the debate is scheduled to adjourn is that no question is being put.

Two things can happen. I can adjourn the House for 15 minutes to get the direction of the Ceann Comhairle and would be glad to do so.

My own interpretation is that the Ceann Comhairle said the debate is to adjourn tonight when all the speakers are exhausted. I do not mean exhausted in the physical sense, but rather when they have exhausted what they want to say. I am willing to accept that the Deputy can speak if he wants to now. I will suspend the House for 15 minutes in order to get a direction from the Ceann Comhairle. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Sitting suspended at 5.50 p.m. and resumed at 6.05 p.m.

There was some confusion before the suspension, but I want to reinforce the point which was made very ably by the Acting Chair, Deputy Durkan. Standing Order 45 is very clear in terms of how the issue of statements is to be dealt with. In this particular instance, the order of the House provides for statements to be made and adjourned, following which we will take Topical Issues. Anybody in the House who wants to participate may do so. When there are no longer any participants we will adjourn that debate. It will then be a matter for the Business Committee to decide when or if the debate resumes. It is as simple as that. If Members are happy we can proceed to whoever the next speaker is. Was it to be the Minister?

It is Deputy Mattie McGrath.

We have a new chairperson.

I am just saying that Deputy Mattie McGrath's name is on the list.

Who is the next speaker?

It is Deputy Mattie McGrath.

Either the Deputy or myself will decide that. Whoever is offering and whoever is next in line will decide.

Ultimately the Deputy will decide.

Is the Deputy going to speak to us?

I hope that, as an Independent, I can speak with the permission of the Chair any time I like and not when I am lectured to or told to by the whip of other parties who will not even allow a free vote.

I sought clarification, because the Order Paper said this debate would be adjourned. Members have left but had indicated that they wanted to speak. They asked if they would have an opportunity to speak next week and were informed that they would. I want clarification for those Members, one from my group and one from another party. They left on the understanding that the debate would resume either next week or the week after.

To be abundantly clear, that decision is a matter for the Business Committee, of which the Deputy is a member.

I cannot impose my will, nor can the Deputy impose his, on the Business Committee. It will have to make a decision and I am sure it will make the best decision in the circumstances. We should get on with the debate now.

I want to clarify that if the Business Committee decides not to schedule time next week or the week after then this debate is over.

It is entirely a matter for the Business Committee.

I want to make sure that Deputy Mattie McGrath is aware that if there is no time scheduled next week or the week after the debate is over. Any Member of this House who wishes to speak has an opportunity to speak now, and if he or she does not speak now they are at the mercy of the Business Committee, which may not schedule any time this week or next week. The Deputy should not come crying back to the House to say that he has been disenfranchised from contributing to this debate because he has his opportunity now.

I really do not think that we have to explain to any Member of this House how the processes work.

We need to explain these antics to the public watching this debate.

It is a matter for the Business Committee to decide whether or not the debate will resume. My understanding, from the points that have been made by Deputy Mattie McGrath, is that the Order Paper states that the debate will adjourn. Members may have left the House in anticipation of being able to participate in the debate on another occasion. That is a matter that will have to be considered by the Business Committee, not by me or by Deputy Jonathan O'Brien. It may or may not agree to provide additional time.

There is nothing biased in that decision.

It is an order and is fully complaint with Standing Orders.

I would hate for anyone to accuse the Chair of being biased.

I do not understand the Deputy's point.

The Chair will understand next week.

Is someone accusing the Chair of being biased? The Acting Chair and myself have been anything but biased in terms of how we have dealt with this matter.

It is abundantly clear. We should be honest.

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. I was only acting on the request of one of the members of my Rural Independent Group who wanted to speak. He had to go to a funeral this evening in County Meath and said he would come back.

I am happy to speak on this most important topic. We have certainly seen some interesting developments in the past week, particularly with reference to the leader of the Fianna Fáil Party, to which I used to belong at one time. While I respect his right to have a personal view on this matter it seems extraordinary for a leader to call for a respectful debate and then proceed to disrespect the majority of those at his own Ard-Fheis and his parliamentary party. He also called for a non-divisive debate but in the same breath seems to have split his own party. These are certainly strange times.

I have sat here and listened to the contributions other Deputies have made, and that is why I did not want to speak until late into the debate. As a member of the committee I said I would sit here throughout the debate, and I did, until it concluded. Some speakers have been nothing short of contemptuous and sectarian in a manner that would not have been out of place in the most bigoted loyalist diatribe of 50 years ago. Thankfully, most of us have moved on from such bitter and blatant hatred masquerading as compassion. Others continued to parrot the worst stereotypes about the Catholic Church at the same time as they managed to completely avoid what this debate is really about.

What I have found to be truly disturbing, and indeed chilling, however, is the total lack of reference to the unborn child. Speeches that went on for over ten minutes managed to avoid all reference to the reality of the child in the womb. That was incredible. We are here debating whether we will permit the intentional destruction of an innocent child's life up to the first three months of its existence and yet we will not face that fact. However, it is a fact that must be faced. It is a brutal fact that what we are now proposing is that for any reason whatsoever, a child's life may be ended up to 12 weeks. Can anyone explain to me the rationale for 12 weeks? Why not 13 weeks or 20 weeks? We must face up to what we are doing.

Much of what I have to say has been outlined in the minority report I, along with Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick of Fine Gael and Senator Ronán Mullen, an Independent, issued prior to the Christmas recess. To my mind, the committee has produced what may have been seen as the most dangerous and extreme set of proposals ever formulated in terms of attacking the fundamental right to life of the unborn child. From the outset, it was clear the preference among the majority of the committee members for the repeal of the eighth amendment and the legalisation of abortion in this State had the potential to obstruct the proper fulfilment by the committee of the mandate given to it by the Dáil and the Seanad. It was stressed to the committee that the mandate given to it by the Dáil and the Seanad was to consider the report and recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly and that, therefore, there should be an opportunity to consider in detail the approach taken by the Citizens' Assembly to its work and the strengths and weaknesses in that regard. There was little support for this among the committee members and the view of the minority group was that the majority wished only to examine how the main thrust of the Citizens’ Assembly recommendations should be implemented.

In our view, the Chairperson had a duty to remind the committee, notwithstanding the various personal views of members, of the need to ensure a thorough consideration of issues given that the vital issues of justice, human rights and personal welfare were at stake. We are disappointed that this did not happen at any stage. Instead, much was made by the Chairperson and other members of the need to avoid repeating the work of the Citizens’ Assembly.

We believe that this revealed a troubling mindset. It was more of a priority to deliver a report by 20 December, without too much inconvenience to members, than to thoroughly consider questions on which lives would depend in future. Yet, despite this desire to avoid repeating the work of the Citizens’ Assembly, the committee later saw fit to embark on a question which was, at most, only tangentially dealt with by the Citizens’ Assembly, namely, the question of whether abortion should be decriminalised.

On the basis of not wanting to repeat the work of the Assembly, the consensus was that the committee would not hear from advocacy groups, but mainly from experts. We opposed this exclusion but, to our surprise and disappointment, the committee went on to invite numerous well-funded international pro-abortion advocacy groups and abortion providers. The only pro-life group invited was One Day More, and that was to present the other side of the arguments presented by the group Termination for Medical Reasons.

The extraordinary imbalance in the list of invited guests in favour of abortion was a problem from the start, which was pointed out by pro-life members. This problem arose because the abortion-supporting majority on the committee did not see it as necessary or desirable to hear expert testimony on issues such as the human rights case for the eighth amendment, seen from the perspective of the Irish State having regard to the current provisions of Bunreacht na hÉireann; whether, as has been claimed, the eighth amendment has contributed to Ireland having a significantly lower than average abortion rate compared to abortion jurisdictions and to the saving of thousands of lives as a result, I believe up to 5,000 per year, since it was inserted in the Constitution at the will of the people; the experiences of families who believed that the lives of some of their loved ones had been saved by the eighth amendment; and the evolution of an abortion culture in countries where abortion had been legalised.

Having regard to the manifest majority in favour of legalised abortion among committee members, pro-life members made it clear at all times that it was not the job of us in the pro-life minority to secure a list of experts who would ensure that all issues were examined thoroughly. That was the responsibility of the Chairperson, Senator Noone, supported by the secretariat, and we believe this responsibility was not met by any yardstick. Nonetheless, several names were proposed by us. Some of these were rejected, contributing further to the imbalance in the perspectives presented.

Any independent analysis of the invited speakers and the recommendations that they made shows a clear ideological preference for legalised abortion among the vast majority. This applies also in the case of some invited speakers who spoke from a position of medical expertise but who did not confine themselves to providing expert evidence and instead offered personal opinions that went far beyond the scope of their expertise.

Despite concerns expressed repeatedly by the three pro-life members, there was not sufficient time allowed to properly examine invited speakers-committee witnesses. This concern was never accepted by the Chairperson and there was never any proposal to extend the time available for questioning. That was all the more of a problem because of the strong tendency of invited witnesses to support legalised abortion. The allocation of extra minutes occasionally and on a grace-and-favour basis cannot be considered as an acceptable resolution of the problem given the profound importance of the issues at stake.

When the committee pre-emptively voted to recommend that the eighth amendment be removed or changed, and I mean pre-emptively - everybody could see that - without waiting to hear from all the invited speakers, much less to hear from a balanced ticket of speakers, this confirmed that the link between the evidence being heard and the conclusions the committee would reach would be, at best, loose. I pointed out that it was like a court case where somebody was on trial - it could be anybody - and after hearing only half the evidence the jury foreman approaches the justice and says, "We have heard enough; we will give our result now".

The committee’s decision to vote pre-emptively has been defended repeatedly by the Chairperson despite its being an objectively hasty, ill-considered and prejudicial move. We believe that is unfortunate. It was only when pro-life members drew public attention to the biased attitudes and processes within the committee that the Chair, backed by the secretariat, made belated attempts to invite a small number of pro-life voices. It should be noted that the number of such people by then proposed was small and tokenistic and would in no way rectify the imbalance complained of. It is significant that one of the speakers the committee invited was a person who had earlier been proposed by me but rejected. The committee did not choose to hear from him at first but, in the light of criticisms of the lack of balance, an effort to secure his participation was now under way. We believed this was revealing.

A second belated invitee, the group Both Lives Matter, had previously offered to appear before the committee after its work in highlighting the number of abortions prevented as a result of Northern Ireland’s more restrictive laws had been discussed briefly at the committee. This group’s offer was declined on the basis that advocacy groups were supposedly not being invited, despite pro-abortion advocacy groups like the Irish Family Planning Association, the New York based Center for Reproductive Rights, and the largest abortion provider in the United Kingdom, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, being invited.

However, the group was later invited after public attention was drawn to the imbalance among invitees. It is not surprising that the small number of pro-life groups invited belatedly to give evidence declined to do so. From their correspondence with the committee, it was clear they felt they were being used to give token respectability to a process which had already jumped ahead to decide on critical issues. We cannot disagree with their view of the situation. In fact, I and others attempted to have the letters they wrote to the committee read into the record, but that was denied by the Chairman. Hearing what they had to say was denied.

I have a note on a case to which I was very close. It is important that we recognise the fact that Ireland has one of the lowest maternal mortality rates and is one of the safest places in the world to give birth. It is important that we do not confuse unfortunate medical failings with the lifesaving eighth amendment, which strives to protect both lives. Women’s lives are saved from complicated and emergency pregnancy situations day in and day out in our maternity hospitals. Women receive all the treatment necessary to save their lives, including the termination of pregnancy if required. The only difference is that the aim of the eighth is to save both lives. Four years ago today, my own daughter’s life was saved when her pregnancy became complicated by severe pre-eclampsia. Thankfully, my granddaughter, Amy-Berry, was delivered, ten weeks early. My granddaughter almost lost her life as a result of being delivered so early but thankfully both lives were saved. It is a story which demonstrates precisely the aim of the eighth amendment. I wish my granddaughter a very happy and peaceful birthday. I thank the medical and maternity staff of South Tipperary General Hospital and Cork University Hospital and salute staff all over the country for the gallant work they do in these situations every day.

In view of the failure of the committee to consider certain issues and the partial nature of the evidence heard on other issues, we have chosen to give a fuller treatment to issues not fully considered by the committee. We recommend the retention of the eighth amendment on the grounds that it protects both mother and unborn child, does not endanger top quality medical care for women and unborn children in pregnancy and is consistent with the best standards in the protection of human rights and human dignity. In the last few weeks, there has been much talk and apparently a lot of sincere concern about one recommendation of the committee in particular. I refer to the so-called "12 week limit without restriction as to reason" which was introduced by the Fianna Fáil members and then accepted by the majority of the members. This was despite the fact that the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis voted overwhelmingly a week earlier to retain the eighth amendment and not to undermine the right to life that it guarantees.

There is one thing that must be made absolutely clear: all of the debate about what will and what will not be acceptable in a post repeal scenario is a complete and utter distraction from the main point. I emphasise that. If the repeal of the eighth amendment happens, albeit I do not believe it will, there will be absolutely nothing to stop the Oireachtas in any future iteration from introducing as permissive an abortion regime as it sees fit. I have the privilege to have been elected to sit here currently and whoever is elected to a future Oireachtas will have the same privilege. However, they will be able to introduce whatever legislation they see fit. Only the power of the Constitution can prevent this State from descending into a situation like that of the UK where there is de facto abortion on demand and where 200,000 unborn children lose their lives each and every year.

It has been observed that a common argument put forward by those who advocate the repeal of the pro-life amendment is that the Constitution is no place to deal with the complexities of abortion. Better by far to leave all of that to the wisdom of the Legislature, so the reasoning goes. While not entirely unsurprising, the fact that this has generated a certain kind of credibility is quite bewildering. It is a view that has been reiterated on several occasions. As has also been noted:

One can only wonder if any of those who advance this position have ever actually opened their copy of Bunreacht na hÉireann or even taken the time to acquaint themselves with the many other Amendments that now form part of its text. [An Taoiseach referred to some of these recently]. If they had done so they might perhaps, have been more circumspect in adopting the 'too complex for the Constitution' line. What about children's rights? [We had that referendum some years ago and legislation passed here, inserted in the Constitution]. There is now an explicit children's rights provision in the Constitution, even though the topic of children's rights is extremely complex. [It is very complex as any of us who have children or grandchildren know]. What all of this demonstrates is, and I quote “not that abortion or the right to life is too complex for the constitution. What it demonstrates is that it is the ‘wrong’ kind of complexity [for some of the people here]. By all means let us keep complex amendments that liberals like. But by no means let us keep the Eighth [That is the hypocrisy and double standards]. That is the clear reasoning at work here. Sure we can hold summits [the Taoiseach is in Davos], conduct pan-European debates, engage with the entire EU political class to canvass for a certain treaty outcome; but try and figure out how to keep or 'ratify' a fundamental human right in the Constitution? Sorry, you're on your own, it's just too hard. [A party I was involved with campaigned twice on treaties that were rejected]. In an appalling dereliction of duty, the Committee chose to cut the knot of complexity rather than make any attempt to unfold it in a life affirming manner. [That is my belief, that it decided to cut the knot of complexity rather than make any attempt to unfold it in a life-affirming manner, sadly]. It is a lazy parliamentary hubris masquerading as serious critique.

As our minority report puts it:

Bunreacht na hÉireann is the basic legal text of the Irish State, within which all fundamental rights are protected, such as the freedom of speech, freedom of association and peaceful assembly, the right to private property, the right to a fair trial, etc. Constitutions are the correct place to secure and protect fundamental rights.

It is time to call out the majority of committee members on their "too complex for the Constitution" line.

To return to a point I made earlier, but which I think needs repeating, the focus on the so-called "12 week limit" is utterly disingenuous and amounts to little more than a grotesque exercise in PR designed to obscure some of the more distasteful realities that the report recommends. For example, while the committee report in its section dealing with foetal abnormalities did not technically recommend that the law should provide for the termination of pregnancy on the ground that the unborn child has a significant foetal abnormality, or what I call "life-limiting condition", it nevertheless left the option for such terminations to occur on other grounds, such as those of a purported threat to the physical or mental health of the mother. These recommendations have thus created a gaping legislative loophole that will directly permit the targeting of unborn children who have been diagnosed with severe life-limiting conditions at late gestational ages. By their very nature, loopholes never explicitly mention the abusive purposes for which they can be used. Recently, we had a budget debate on the Finance Bill. No tax loophole, for example, ever says "this way to tax avoidance". The same is true here.

Submitting a human being's right to life to a democratic vote is to my mind the very opposite of genuine democracy. It is, in point of fact, an utterly totalitarian impulse. If we put even a fraction of the effort into trying to tease out the life saving benefits and possibilities of the eighth amendment that we have put into undermining it, we might not feel this great sense of inevitability about abortion. The child in the womb cries out for our protection and our care. The eighth amendment is a reflection of what an authentic human rights culture can look like.

We should not allow it to be tainted or destroyed by those who will not stop until every last protection for the unborn child is removed. Is that really who we want to align ourselves with?

There are many more aspects of this debate I could have mentioned, such as the total absence of gestational limits under mental health grounds in the report. I have been asked not to say this but many Down's syndrome families have contacted me because of the stance taken by their CEO. I could have mentioned the fact that 90% of Down's syndrome children in the UK are aborted or the fact that since the UK introduced its abortion law 50 years ago, a law which is mirrored in the report's recommendations, almost 9 million unborn lives have been lost. Is that where we want to be in 50 years? This is an opportunity to assert we will not tread that path, that we choose a culture of life, the life of both mother and baby, and that we will not rush headlong into a culture of death from which there can be no return.

My job this evening was to wrap up the debate and there are no other speakers offering. I am at a loss to know when the debate is to conclude or how we decide when the statements conclude. There will not be time scheduled next week for statements - perhaps the week after, I do not know. To be helpful, I will give my wrap-up speech now so that people will know the Government's position in case this does not occur again. More than 80 colleagues have spoken here and there has been well over 17 hours of debate. There is actually more than two hours left this evening if anybody else wants to contribute. I do not see anybody else offering. I contend that if somebody wanted to contribute, they should be here because there is time.

To clarify, the Ceann Comhairle has already made an order. In accordance with the order of the House, the debate adjourns and a concluding speech, because it relates to statements, is not appropriate in those circumstances. The Minister of State may speak in the normal way but should recognise that in the event of the debate coming back into the House, there may be further speeches.

On a point of order, and not to be in any way argumentative, which is not my forte, how will we know when the debate is concluded?

The Ceann Comhairle also clarified that. We have no way of determining what the Business Committee might come up with in the next week. It may come up with another opportunity and it may not. That is something over which we have no control. The only thing we have control over is that the debate adjourns, which clearly says the debate is open-ended. There could be speeches later and there may not be speeches later.

Ba mhaith liom-----

I do not want to spend the whole evening debating the potential of the debate now, if I can help it.

I give way to the Deputy.

I want to make it very clear that I have come in from home to be here because I am very disturbed by this. I believe I speak on behalf of tens of thousands of men and women throughout this country. There is an attempt here to drag out the debate so we can then drag out the presentation of legislation before the House so that we can drag out the inevitability of a referendum on the eighth amendment. At the beginning of this process, we made it very clear. We stood up twice to object to the 20 minute speeches that were being allowed for every Deputy in the House. We indicated we thought this might happen in an attempt to drag it out, filibuster and obfuscate and to pull it way down the road. That is clearly what is happening. I back up the Minister of State, Deputy Stanton, and his right to end the debate now. This should die a natural death and not be put on a respiratory machine. Normally that is what would happen. The norm is being taken away from this reality. The only case in which this would be allowed is in a case of this magnitude. I put on record our absolute objection to the procedures that are being dragged out here. When the Business Committee meets next week, I have no doubt this will be a very contentious issue. I back up the Minister of State in his attempt to give a concluding speech. He should be allowed to do so and that should be the end of the matter. We have had 80 speakers in 17 hours, and it does not do anybody in this country any justice to drag this out any further. We need to move on so that the young people of this country, in particular, get to have a vote on this on 25 May. If we do not move on, we will deny that cohort a right to have a say over something that affects their future - not the Acting Chairman's, with all due respect, and certainly not mine, but theirs. We have to keep that in mind when we make these decisions.

I put my hand up before the last Deputy.

The Deputy should resume his seat.

The Deputy should resume his seat.

I will come back to the Deputy in a second.

Before the last Deputy spoke-----

I will come back to the Deputy. He should resume his seat.

I do not think the Acting Chairman is being fair.

The Deputy should resume his seat and I will be back to him in a second.

Not indefinitely. This is not going to go on indefinitely. We are going to bring this to a conclusion in the next five minutes one way or the other.

The Acting Chairman said we had two and a half hours.

Each Member shall have 20 minutes each. A Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a statement in reply which will not exceed ten minutes. That was the order of the House originally and that is the way it stays. There will be no deviation from that. The debate adjourns then. The debate adjourns. Does anyone have any problem with that?

Acting Chairman-----

There was another speaker before Deputy Ó Cuív.

I have no problem. Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick left here this evening. It is surprising coming from Deputy Smith because at every Business Committee meeting and in most Orders of Business here they are demanding more time, yet they tried to confine this to ten minutes. The Acting Chairman said 70 speakers spoke but there are 158 Members. A number who wanted to speak have gone home. We were right to get the 20 minutes because we have 20 minutes on climate change, Dublin Port and rural roads and ten minutes was all they wanted on this life and death situation. The terminology used by Deputy Smith was interesting when she said we should let the debate end its life naturally when they want to end the life unnaturally of thousands of children. I insist that the Members who checked before they went home that they would have another opportunity to speak will have another opportunity to speak. The Ceann Comhairle has ruled on that.

In my first five years in the Dáil, all we heard was the word "guillotine". The Opposition was always accusing the Government of guillotining business. The Deputy made a speech last week and said it would not be fair to have 51 or 52 hours of speaking time. At the moment all we have had is 17 hours, which is a third of what the Deputy said. There was a problem earlier on and there is a bit of confusion. This is one of the most important debates that we have had in the Dáil in a long time. The Ceann Comhairle stated earlier that it would be up to the Business Committee, which will meet next week, to decide what happens. That is the fairest way. There was confusion here this evening and I will not say whose fault it was. It was just general confusion. There should be no comments made. The Business Committee-----

I am glad the Deputy did not attribute the fault to anybody because there is no confusion as far as I am concerned.

There is absolutely no confusion as far as I am concerned. I read the rule into the record as it stands before me. We were here during the debate at the beginning. The debate adjourned to facilitate speakers. There is a time now within which people may conclude their submissions to the House. If speakers are not here, it is a long-standing tradition of the House that they defer and that is it. Nobody will facilitate a debate at a time that suits everybody. If that were the case, we would be here forever. Does that satisfy the Deputy? I am not confused about it.

What I said was that there was confusion. I did not say-----

We should conclude in a minute.

I did not say there was confusion on the Acting Chairman's behalf. I said there was confusion here.

There was no confusion at all.

The Ceann Comhairle summed it up well.

He did the right thing. The Business Committee will have an opportunity next week and I hope common sense will prevail. This is a very important issue.

I would not like for people-----

All right, Deputy. That is it.

I would not like people to use this as an excuse not to give an opportunity-----

The Ceann Comhairle also said it will be a matter for the Business Committee to have further debate or not to have any debate at all.

I have a point of order.

The Deputy should resume her seat.

It is clarification on something that I am being accused of.

It is important for the public to understand that I am not objecting to dragging out speaking on a Bill. This is not a Bill. This is statements on the outcome of the eighth amendment committee.

We get to speak on the Bill the next time. That is my intention.

The House decided on 20 minutes, in its wisdom, and I accept that. I am surprised at people who think that something as fundamental as this can be discussed in ten minutes. There is talk of a Bill coming in after a referendum, in the event of it succeeding. However, this was the place to discuss the big, complex, substantial issue, because the next Bill that comes in will ask if we want to hold a referendum. There will be five or ten lines, or perhaps fewer than that because it relates only to the deletion of an article. Therefore, I am astounded that most people who have always argued here for good debating time are looking for less time on this occasion.

I want the referendum to be held at a time when the maximum number of citizens in our State are available to vote.

Sorry, hold on Deputy, that is not the issue.

I am sure the Deputy can, but he should conclude.

It is very easy to ascertain what month of the year that would be. Finally, I want to thank the Acting Chairman, Deputy Bernard J. Durkan because when the question arose here earlier, he suspended the Dáil to give the Ceann Comhairle an opportunity to come to the Chamber and give his ruling. I have no doubt that the Minister of State on the other side of the House accepts the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle which was that as far as he was concerned, the debate was adjourned today and it was a matter entirely for the Business Committee to decide what happens next.

We should accept that and not dispute the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle, which was given after due consideration.

I can tell the Deputy that nobody is disputing the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle. I had already read into the record the Ceann Comhairle's ruling for everyone to hear. I repeat it now again for everyone to hear. I am calling on a speaker. The speaker may speak for as long or as short as he or she wishes for a maximum of 20 minutes. I call the Minister of State, Deputy David Stanton, to speak now.

On a point of clarification-----

For clarification-----

No, I am sorry Deputy, there are no more clarifications.

Is it a wrap up speech or not? There are a few speakers who still want to speak.

Where are they? If they want to speak, they can be here to do so.

It will still be a matter for the Business Committee whose members can make up their minds next week. We are not doing that now. I call on the Minister of State without precondition.

This was to be the closing speech and it may yet be the closing speech. Certainly, I am somewhat confused on matters. I heard it said earlier that there might not be time next week, the following week or the week after that again. Looking at the business schedule for today, it states: "Statements re. Report the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution (resumed, if not previously concluded)." It refers to "if not previously concluded". Usually, when one has plenty of time left, over two hours, and when one has no speakers, the normal convention while I have been here, and I am here longer than most in the House now, is that is the conclusion. Nobody is stopping anyone from speaking. There is no curtailment if people want to speak. There is no guillotine. If nobody is offering to speak, the Minister usually stands up and makes concluding remarks. I will make my remarks as I had prepared and they may well be the concluding remarks because it might be that the debate does not resume further. It may be that there is no one who wants to come back again after this.

There are a few. There are two.

I thank the Members of the Dáil who have contributed to the debate today. I recognise that there are deeply held views on all sides of the Oireachtas and throughout the country. In taking the next steps as a Parliament and as a Government, we must respect and hear them all. That is what most people have said here.

It is most important that we accept that no matter what divides us, we are united in wanting to do what is right. Everyone wants to do what they think is right. Some have changed their views over the years and some bear scars from past debates. This time, I think and hope it is possible for us to have a respectful debate on the issue. That is how it has been until now. It will require everyone's attention but it is crucial that everyone has the chance to hear clearly the issues in this debate so that when, as a nation, we come to make the next decision on this issue, we make an informed one. If the Oireachtas decides to hold a referendum, it will be the people who will make the final decision. The people are sovereign.

As a country, we have a particularly complex past regarding the position that women have held in the State. Abortion was made a felony in 1861 under the Offences Against the Person Act. In more recent decades, it has been an issue dominated by referendums and court cases. The first referendum was held in 1983, and there was another in 1992 with three questions. Legislation followed that in 1995, and a third referendum on abortion was held in 2002, seeking to overturn the ruling in the X case, but it was defeated. In 2013, the issue came before the Oireachtas when it passed the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act. Since the passing of that law, there has been a clear legal basis for abortion in Ireland but it has become clear that this Oireachtas can go no further without constitutional change and the people having their say.

Turning to the substance of the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, I commend all members of that committee on their work and thank them for their contributions. I thank Senator Catherine Noone in particular for her plain and balanced handling of the issue as Chairman. I also commend the Chair of the Citizens' Assembly, Ms Justice Mary Laffoy, and its members for their careful deliberations and acknowledge their valuable contribution.

I recognise that the recommendations contained in the committee's report represent the views of the majority of members of the committee but there was not unanimous agreement on them. I respect the views of those who dissent from the recommendations but I believe the recommendations are the basis on which the Government will proceed. That is a matter for the Oireachtas to ultimately decide.

The main conclusion of the committee is that change is needed to extend the grounds for lawful termination of pregnancy in the State. In order to effect that change, the committee recommended that Article 40.3.3° should be removed from the Constitution. The committee then went on to make recommendations on the grounds on which the termination of pregnancy should be permitted in Ireland if Article 40.3.3° was repealed. It recommended extending the law on abortion to cover cases where the health of a woman was concerned, cases of fatal foetal abnormalities and a broader legal regime that allows abortions where a woman seeks it from her medical practitioner for pregnancies of under 12 weeks' gestation. The Minister for Health, Deputy Simon Harris, is working with officials and the Attorney General to consider how best to translate these recommendations into legislation should that be the wish of the Irish people.

While it is understandable that focus has been on the committee's recommendations on the eighth amendment, the committee did not only make recommendations on the termination of pregnancy, but also on the services and supports that should be available to women. The Government is fully committed to ensuring that all women accessing maternity services should receive the same standard of safe, high-quality care. Every woman, from every corner of Ireland, should expect and be able to access the maternity services that she needs. I am confident that through the implementation of the national maternity strategy, Creating a Better Future Together, the quality outcomes envisaged by the committee will be realised.

The Department of Health under the chairmanship of the chief medical officer has now established a group to address and formulate an effective and comprehensive response to the issues raised by the committee in its ancillary recommendations. We have made other progress which provides the basis for delivering the kind of integrated care that women and their children deserve. We have established the national women and infants health programme, and we now have HIQA standards for safer, better maternity services and new HSE national standards for bereavement care to ensure clinical and counselling services are in place to support all women and families in all pregnancy loss situations. The HSE's Positive Options crisis pregnancy counselling service is also available in 50 centres nationwide. These other recommendations are very important and we should take cognisance of them.

I realise that this issue challenges all of us. It causes us to ask difficult questions of ourselves and makes us uncomfortable as we collectively wrestle with what, at its core, is a very personal, private matter for many people. As the debate concludes, the Minister for Health will return to Government shortly with a series of proposals to facilitate a referendum on the issue by the end of May or early June, should that be the decision of this Oireachtas. Over the past two weeks of statements on this issue we have shown that a constructive debate is possible and I hope that we can continue such a debate in an atmosphere of respect for each others' views if the decision of this Oireachtas is to hold a referendum.

These may be the concluding remarks on these statements, or if others come in in a few weeks or months time, another set of concluding remarks may be required. In any case, that is the Government's position.

Top
Share