Paul Daly (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. The Bill before us and that we will vote on concerns removing Article 40.3.3° and replacing it with the following: "Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy."I would like to inform the House that I will vote no to this Bill for the following reasons. I entered politics, as I would say everybody here did if asked to write their biographies, to represent the voiceless and vulnerable, to improve and enhance their communities and help those who needed help the most. There is no sector of our society that is more vulnerable and voiceless than the unborn baby. I respect everybody else's position and view but I intend to provide a voice for the unborn, like I guaranteed when I entered politics that I would provide a voice for those most vulnerable and in need of a voice which they did not have themselves. That is one reason.

The main reason I oppose the holding of this referendum is as follows. I stress that it is this referendum, since I am a democrat and am not opposed to referendums and am not opposed to a referendum on the eighth amendment or Article 40.3.3°. I am opposed to the putting of a referendum to the people which, if carried, will result in them voting away their own rights to have a say in what replaces Article 40.3.3°. I am voting no to a referendum which will end up in total uncertainty. I think many people have not yet decided what way they will vote and are totally confused as to how they will vote. It is for that reason only. I worked in the private sector and the public sector. I worked for a self-employed father. I learned through life, through contracts, arrangements, purchases and so on that one does not buy a pig in a bag. The people think that is what they are being sold. The vast majority, the middle ground, the undecided people who have been mentioned here on numerous occasions, are afraid, irrespective of how they feel about whether the eighth amendment has or has not been working, to remove it and to vote in a referendum when they do not know what is coming down the line afterwards. Neither the Minister, with the greatest of respect, nor I, nor anyone else here, nor the most educated and interested of commentators can tell us what will replace Article 40.3.3°.

We have recommendations from a committee. I salute the committee and congratulate the chairperson, Senator Noone, my colleague, Senator Ned O'Sullivan, and anyone else who sat on that committee. They gave us recommendations. They are just recommendations. The Minister has produced a policy document. It is just that - a policy document. He is working, and struggling if we believe all reports, to get agreement in Cabinet to bring out draft legislation. When he does come with draft legislation and puts it on the floors of these Houses, there will be a plethora of amendments. They will be amendments to dilute the draft legislation and to strengthen it. We are in a minority Government situation where the two major parties have afforded a vote of conscience to their members. There is absolutely nobody who can tell me here tonight what the eventual legislation will be. If that is the situation and that uncertainty prevails, I cannot vote to put that question to the people in the fear that, if the eighth amendment is removed, God only knows what will replace it. It is an impossible situation. I am not opposed to referendums. I am not opposed to a referendum on this particular issue. I need to know what the eventual outcome will be when that referendum is held and if it is carried to repeal the eighth amendment. I am not the only one who has that problem. There are many people with that issue. I feel that if the draft legislation could be brought forward and through the Houses of the Oireachtas, amendments taken and examined, the legislative process followed through and the people informed of what will replace the eighth amendment, then I would have no problem putting that question to the people. There is too much uncertainty and that is why I will be voting no.

I do not like making analogies in any way for this issue because it is such a contentious, serious and important issue for so many people who are affected by it. However, I have to make the analogy that it is as if the problem that is to be put before us is the exorbitant number of defaulters on paying the television licence, and where the best solution we can come up with is decriminalising non-payment and not worrying about collecting television licence fees until we can come up with another solution down the line. It might be a bad analogy but that is basically what we are doing. We are not giving answers to the people who so desperately need them. I am a democrat. I will support having a referendum but the people have to know what will come down the line. It has been commented since the vote in the Dáil last week that if one takes my position and votes no, one is denying people their democratic right to have a say and one is not a democrat. I would argue, for the reasons that I have given, that if the people vote yes to the referendum, they are voting away their own democratic right to have a say in what is going to follow. It is not, as has been said, that I do not trust my colleagues here. I trust each and every one of them as I trust myself but, as I have said, to get whatever proposal is put before us through the legislative process, we do not know ourselves what we will end up with, but the people will have deprived themselves of having an input.

Whatever we come up with, whatever is put through the Houses and whatever is agreed to, they will have to live with it forever more and beyond. Our Constitution and the laws of our land, as is the same anywhere, develop the psyche of the population and youth of the country. If this amendment is passed and legislation is introduced which reflects what is in the draft legislation or the recommendations from the committee, there will be a generation of people in 20 years who will have been born and gone through their youth and their teens in a society where abortion is commonplace and acceptable. That generation will then have a different psyche and attitude and abortion will become cosmetic because in that same 20 years, medical science will develop, as it is at the moment, at an enormous rate and in 20 years, one will be able to tell a hell of a lot more about a 12 week old foetus. We are legislating for the future and have to look into the future and at what consequences our legislation will have for the future. I guarantee that under those circumstances, we will have cosmetic abortion in 20 years. We need to look very seriously at this and to consult the people as to what will replace Article 40.3.3°.