Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I can understand why the Government concluded that it was required to legislate in this area. I have studied the reports of the hearings of the Joint Committee on Health and Children, during the course of which a range of principles and arguments were expounded. The arguments ranged from the sound and sensible to the truly bizarre. I apologise if I single anybody out but I was particularly struck by Professor de Londras from Durham University, who argued that if the Bill simply stated that suicidality was not to be included in matters considered to pose a risk to life for the purpose of the legislative system, it may avoid a finding of unconstitutionality. I do not think any Attorney General could sign off on legislation of the kind proposed by Professor de Londras. Even if such legislation ultimately turned out to be constitutional, we would have a ludicrous situation in respect of threats to the physical life of a mother. As Deputy Sandra McLellan noted, nobody questions the daily medical practices of Irish hospitals as they pertain to protecting maternal life. If anything, the Bill requires medical practice to be underpinned by certain principles and procedures. For example, operations have to take place in certain locations. If we took on board Professor de Londras's arguments those restrictions would apply in the case of termination based on a threat to physical health but the question of threatened suicide would be left entirely unregulated. Such a position would be untenable.

I agree with Catherine McGuinness and others who have stated that the Government does not have a legal obligation to legislate as a result of the X case, although moral obligations are a different matter. The question arises, however, of whether it is legally obliged to act on foot of the A, B and C case. Dr. Marie Cahill of UCC believed it was not obliged on the basis that the A, B and C case involved physical and medical risks to the mothers' lives and as such is not relevant to abortion on grounds of threatened suicide. She believed it would be possible to remove the latter provision and remain in conformity with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. That may be correct but, having studied the judgment in the A, B and C case, I am of the opinion that it obliges the Government to legislate. If I differ from Dr. Cahill, that is too bad.

I do not want a liberal abortion regime in this country. I recognise that people who advance that opinion are often exposed to the charge of hypocrisy given that thousands of Irish women travel to the UK annually to secure terminations. It is not an easy journey for any of these women and it is particularly traumatic for some of them. However, many practices that are banned under Irish criminal law are legal elsewhere. Irish people have the right to travel out of the country to places where such practices are legal. Does that mean we should legalise all these practices in Ireland? That is the logical outcome of arguing that those who do not want a liberal abortion regime in this country are hypocrites.

The Minister for Health wants to bring certainty to an uncertain situation. The issues are not uncertain when it comes to the physical threat to the life.

He wants to bring certainty to the situation where somebody is threatening to commit suicide if they do not have a termination. Practically nothing has happened in this regard since the X case all those years ago because of uncertainty on the part of people who might feel they want a termination and on the part of people who would be expected to provide that service. When one legislates to bring certainty where there was uncertainty previously, one obviously creates a situation where demand for terminations in this country will increase. There is no doubt about that. It does not matter who is in power or who writes the legislation. That is the situation one brings about when one writes the legislation. As somebody who does not believe in a liberal abortion regime, I have to ask myself whether the legislation being proposed by the Government is sufficiently watertight - I accept there can be no guarantees - to reduce the risk of this turning into a liberal abortion regime, in so far as that is possible to do. I have some serious doubts in that regard. Time does not permit me to go into a number of technical matters. I hope they will be discussed and viewed benignly by the Government on Committee Stage.

I want to spend a few minutes on one thing that strikes me. The Government has put forward the notion that if this legislation does not lead to the tightly controlled regime it is trying to provide for, it will change it, review it, stop the practices taking place under it or suspend it. I cannot find a reference to that promise in the legislation itself, however. Section 15 of the Bill, which states that "the Executive shall ... each year, prepare and submit to the Minister a report on the operation" of this legislation, is followed by nothing. It is like a drama in several acts in which the first act is used to set the scene, but the other acts have disappeared and one is supposed to guess what happens after that. Given that we are trying to regulate how legislation of this importance will operate, that should be set out in law. It should not be a matter of the whim of an individual Minister. I am not talking specifically about the Minister, Deputy Reilly, who thankfully will not be Minister for Health forever. I am also talking about his successors. There is no obligation to publish the review that is provided for in the legislation before us. There is no obligation to have it debated in the Joint Committee on Health and Children.

I do not doubt that the Minister will introduce a few amendments on Committee Stage to assuage some of his backbenchers. While a proper review procedure would be desirable, it would not be sufficient. The Minister has said he will do A, B and C, but where is that in the legislation? We are expected to accept his word. I recall watching some black and white footage of the Kennedy-Nixon campaign in the 1960s, when the Democrats used a picture of Richard Nixon looking particularly elusive with the caption "would you buy a used car from this man?" I must say I would not buy a car from the Minister, Deputy James Reilly, if it came straight off the assembly line. The Minister said he would get rid of trolleys, but one cannot get into the Mid-Western Regional Hospital in Limerick because one's way is blocked by trolleys. He said he would reduce waiting lists, but they have got longer. He said he would introduce a universal system of health insurance, but we are further away from that than ever. He said he would get rid of prescription charges, but instead they increased threefold. Are we supposed to take his word in this case? I think it was the great film director Cecil B. DeMille who said that in the movie business, a verbal promise "isn't worth the paper it's written on." The verbal, written and other promises we have received from the Minister carry no weight with me. All we have is his word, and I am sorry to say his word is no good, in my view. In the absence of a proper review procedure to regulate this situation - it needs to be written in statute - I will find it extremely difficult to support this legislation.

See this speech in context