Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to see this legislation, which finally addresses an issue that has been the subject of a great deal of discussion, not only in recent months but for several decades. While that debate and discussion was sometimes extremely heated in the past, it has been much more calm and reasoned in recent months, a change I very much welcome. Nonetheless, the fact the Oireachtas was waiting two decades to address the issue of the X case is something I would not want to see repeated. I believe all Members of this House should consider whether postponing such an issue because it is uncomfortable is a wise course of action in terms of serving the interests of those who send us here.

I think it essential to point out that Article 34.4.6° of the Constitution states: "the decision of the Supreme Court shall in all cases be final and conclusive." The X case is the law - that is the reality. A termination of pregnancy arising from a risk to life, specifically from suicide, was deemed lawful under the X case judgment. It is true to say that it was not raised in the Supreme Court. However, testimony around the issue of suicide was accepted at the High Court hearing and no appeals to the Supreme Court regarding it were raised. Therefore, it was accepted by the Supreme Court.

The X Case was revisited in the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of A, B and C v. Ireland, which placed Ireland under a legal obligation to put in place and implement a legislative or regulatory regime providing effective and accessible procedures whereby pregnant women can establish whether a termination may be carried out in accordance with Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the X case. Last December, the Government approved the implementation of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the A, B and C v. Ireland case by way of legislation with regulations, within the parameters of Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution. As I stated on a previous occasion when I spoke on this matter, I have never had as much contact from my constituents on a single issue, which I believe speaks volumes about how seriously the people view the matter of the X case. A minority were opposed to any action being taken, but the vast majority of them made it crystal clear to me that they wanted action on the matter.

I stated in this House last year, when the expert group issued its report outlining the options for the Government to take, that one of those options was to implement legislation with regulations. This is the option the Government has taken, and I fully support this approach.

The main purpose of the Bill is to provide legislation to allow abortions to take place in Ireland when there is a risk to the life of the woman - when there is a risk of her dying. Put another way, when the equal right to life as stated in Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution is no longer equal, a process will be provided that provides access to a lawful termination of pregnancy in accordance with the X case and the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the A, B and C v. Ireland case. A woman will know whether she can have treatment or whether she cannot. The reality at present is that a woman is never sure whether she can or cannot avail of treatment. This Bill does not confer any new rights; it confirms existing rights and addresses how they are exercised. I say that as a parent and grandparent with a daughter and a granddaughter.

Section 9 of the Bill is the relevant section that deals with suicide cases. A perinatal psychiatrist, of which there are only a few in the State, is not required. If one was required, I consider the legislation might be deemed to prevent access by women to the procedures that this legislation enables them to avail of.

Section 10 concerns the appeals process. The woman, or a person acting on her behalf, may appeal if she is unhappy with the outcome of the original panel. There is no provision for medical staff making appeals themselves, which is a positive aspect. This ensures that a positive initial decision cannot be overturned. Women are entitled to be heard at the appeal under section 14 of the Bill. This is crucial and had not been present in the heads of the Bill.

Under section 22, with regard to sentencing, while I am happy to see the relevant sections of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 repealed, there is still one point I am certain of in regard to the new legislation, namely, no reasonable person wishes to see a woman who obtained an abortion go to prison for any length of time. I believe this would be inhumane. Women who seek abortions seek them because they are in crisis. That crisis should not, in my view, be something that results in a prison sentence. That said, sentencing has been watered down and now refers to prison sentences "not exceeding 14 years". This is an improvement over the heads of the Bill, which provided penalties in the form of a flat sentence. The legislation allows discretion and the opportunity to deliver light sentences, or no sentencing at all, to women who have experienced a crisis pregnancy and chose to have an abortion.

I would like to address the issue of fatal foetal abnormalities. I have been contacted by individuals who have expressed their wish to see legislation introduced that widens the provision of abortion in order to deal with cases where termination of a pregnancy is permitted for medical reasons beyond the scope of the X case. These cases occur where the pregnancy has a fatal foetal abnormality where there is no chance at all of life outside the womb. Dealing with such cases under this legislation is, I believe, outside the scope of the scope of the Constitution. This is a serious problem in Irish law. As I have said previously in the House, women in these situations must endure a very difficult physical and emotional crisis, and if they choose not to endure it, they must leave this State in order to end it. I have heard much testimony from women who have been through all of this. It is heart-rending to listen to and read of their experiences, and I believe it is wrong that they have to suffer so much. I am extremely sympathetic to the view that these cases be addressed under Irish law.

What the majority of people want, at a minimum, is to see difficult, sad and traumatic cases dealt with. In order for us to do that, there needs to be a serious debate about Article 40.3.3° and whether there is a need for a referendum to remove it or replace it with a less onerous provision. I believe it could easily be the case that, at some future point, Ireland, as a state, will be found to have violated a woman's right to privacy, her right to a family life or her right to bodily integrity. We should not allow this to occur and I believe we should address this matter ourselves, for Irish women, our fellow citizens.

It remains to be seen how many women will avail of this legislation, even if it applies to them. I strongly suspect that women with the resources to travel abroad will continue to do so, as is at present the case for women with a fatal foetal abnormality, in cases of rape or incest, or in regard to the many other reasons for which Irish women have abortions. Approximately 12 women a day are believed to travel from Ireland in order to obtain an abortion. Ultimately, I believe the Irish people will need to decide upon this matter again, and that the Oireachtas and the Government need to enable a referendum process that allows them to decide this issue in a nuanced way, not in the way of previous referendums, and then to legislate on the basis of a result from that process. Based on previous polling of the Irish people and from what I have heard myself, the majority would agree with me on this. I do not want the Oireachtas to wait another 20 years to address these matters. We in the Oireachtas need to serve the needs of the people who elect us, and to do so in a timely fashion.

See this speech in context