Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I do not think we need to be made aware of that fact. The right to travel and to information was carried but the ground of threat of suicide was unsuccessful. The people decided on the issue of suicide. They believe that the issue of suicide requires a legislative decision. The reason I list these events is because there is a perception that nothing was done in the past. The people were again consulted in 2002 and they again concurred with the view of the Supreme Court. We have an obligation to stand up and be counted and to provide a resolution to this very difficult issue.

The Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch is correct that many parties have varying views within their membership. This is a matter which will need to be dealt with internally by parties. However, when we assemble here as legislators - whether as members of Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, the Labour Party, Sinn Féin or Independents - we have a duty to the electorate. We will at times be required to leave aside our personal views - whether pro-choice or pro-life - in an attempt to establish a mechanism that will deal conclusively with the issue of the X case, provide clarification and allow us talk about the other important issues relating to maternity services and access to proper treatments and maternity care for women.

We must deal with this issue as a result of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights and the case of A, B and C v Ireland. The expert group review has provided a number of options. I have not read the report in detail but we will have an opportunity to speak with some authority once we have studied and digested the report and consulted our party members and other interest groups from both sides and no side. We are being asked to divide the House again on this same Bill which was debated last April. On the night of the publication of the report, we are being asked to debate the issue and to divide the House again.

We must act in the interest of giving everybody an opportunity to determine, on foot of the expert review group's recommendations, what he or she believes will satisfy the majority in the House. Ultimately, it is the majority in this House who will decide what is required, be it legislation or regulations, in the context of the Government's interpretation of the report. For all these reasons, the Bill is divisive at this juncture. I am not questioning the motivation of Deputy Daly, whose views have been made well known publicly. She has said on numerous occasions that she is pro-choice and that even the eighth amendment, inserting 40.3.3°, is restrictive. However, we must deal with what we have. The bottom line is that the public has spoken and insisted that Article 40.3.3° is the basis on which we make decisions in light of the Supreme Court's interpretation in the X case.

Issues such as rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormalities elicit strong views and people argue for entitlement to termination in such cases, but the current position is that we would actually have to have a referendum to address these particular issues legislatively at a later date if we wanted to. We must work within the current narrow focus. The expert review group has, on foot of a cursory examination, arrived at proposals that may meet the needs of the majority in the House. I refer to the introduction of legislation or a regulation, or both. I am not sure exactly what the Government's interpretation will be but I am sure it will more or less make a proposal, based on the four or five recommendations, that could be backed by a majority in the House. Otherwise, we will be debating this issue continually where a matter arises that is contentious, divisive or does not secure the backing of a majority in the House. For all these reasons, the Bill is not timely this juncture.

Deputy Shatter, as Minister for Justice and Equality with access to support in analysing the Bill and as a solicitor, will have identified some of the flaws in the Bill. It is evident that it would require considerable work on Committee Stage even if Second Stage is passed tomorrow evening. We must wait only a few weeks for recommendations from the Government. The recommendations will be presented to the Joint Committee on Health and Children in January and there will be an opportunity for people of all views to make presentations and submissions on the views of the expert group and judgments A, B and C. We can then determine whether we can bring society with us. There is no point in making in the House a decision that has no resonance. People refer to Mr. Tony Benn's view on leadership. We must lead but the problem is that if one leaves a divided society behind one, one is not achieving very much in the context of this very sensitive issue.

My party will not be supporting the Bill tonight. We await the Government's recommendations. As I stated publicly, including in this Chamber, we want to play a role that will bring finality regarding our obligations in respect of the A, B and C cases, having regard to the reprimand of the Grand Chamber. Thus, there will be clarity such that women can believe their maternity services are comprehensive and safe and that their human rights will be vindicated daily. Where there is a substantial risk to the life of a woman using maternity services, a termination is legal, but clarity is required in this respect. It is necessary on a number of fronts, primarily because of the statement of the European Court of Human Rights. Masters of various maternity hospitals, obstetricians and clinicians dealing with this matter daily are saying legislative and regulatory clarity is required. They seek a definitive statute to give them confidence to work in the maternity services.

With regard to the inquiry into the death of Ms Savita Halappanavar, it is important that we await the outcome. The matter was badly handled. We raised this a long time ago. When we heard about the issue first, we stated the inquiry should be fully independent. There should have been significant discussions with the family, including Mr. Praveen Halappanavar and the extended family. There is now an inquiry that does not have the confidence of the family; it does not really have the confidence of anybody.

I acknowledge the HSE is obligated to carry out its own clinical investigation. Running in tandem with that could have been an independent investigation that would satisfy the needs of the family. Despite this, there was no discussion or engagement. The Tánaiste brought in the Indian ambassador, and the Irish ambassador spoke to the Indian Government, yet no member of the Irish Government spoke to the husband of the deceased until a couple of days ago. To say the very least, this is distasteful. I refer to a high-profile case with a very tragic outcome giving rise to major concerns on the part of the family concerned over the fact that an independent investigation is not being carried out and that instead, an investigation is being carried out by the HSE. I understand the concerns of the family. We should have appointed an independent investigative team that could have carried out an investigation in tandem with the HSE. The HSE has an obligation to ensure that whatever happened in Galway on the day in question will not happen again and it is obliged to address deficiencies.

This debate has done a considerable disservice to maternity services. People highlight the issue of Savita Halappanavar but we do not know the circumstances. However, I do know we have one of the best maternity services in the world. It is staffed by the most eminent and qualified obstetricians, gynaecologists, midwives, nurses and support staff. Women ought to have confidence in the safety of our maternity services and believe they provide the best quality of care for mother and child. We must understand that individuals may use certain tragic circumstances to highlight their particular positions but doing so does not do any justice to the thousands of staff who are working week in, week out, in our maternity services and providing some of the best maternity care in the world. It is important that the language we use to highlight issues be used in a way that is understanding of the concerns of others and what flows therefrom.

The Minister stated we have an obligation regarding the statement of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the A, B and C cases. This is really why we are discussing this issue: let us be honest. I have been a Member for a number of years and believe this matter was pushed on us. It may not have become part of the programme the Government had the European Court of Human Rights not stated quite clearly that there ought to be clarity and that an individual's human rights were not vindicated in respect of her having clarity on whether she was entitled to terminate a pregnancy to save her life. This is the kernel of the issue. Nobody has acted on this issue. Had the European Court of Human Rights not vindicated the human rights of the individual in the C case, we might not have been discussing this at all.

I welcome the fact that, at long last, in the context of the interpretation of the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights decisions, this issue has been brought to the Legislature, where we can make the points and, more important, the decisions that are now required. It is evident that we cannot muddle along anymore and we have to try to be brave in how we deal with this, although we must do so in a way that is sensitive to, and understanding of the fact, that many Members will not necessarily support some or any proposals. My party has not discussed the report because we only received it earlier. However, unless 83 Members are willing to support this, we can continue to debate this issue forever and a day. We must be understanding that some Members have strong views at variance with those expressed by previous speakers and they have as much right to vote against the Government's proposals as others have to support them. Common sense and a consensus may address this divisive issue.

See this speech in context