Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness:

There are four questions and I will try to reply to them as quickly as possible. To be honest, I could not comment, as if it were handed down on tablets of stone, on the talk about a risk to life as a result of suicide related to her pregnancy as opposed to suicide unrelated to her pregnancy. That question has not been put before the courts and has not yet been decided. This is a difficulty people often have. They say the courts ought to have said this or that, but the courts decide precisely on what is put before them. The Supreme Court did not decide that one could have an abortion up to nine months. It was not asked to decide on a time limit. A time limit would be a matter for legislation. The people who attack the court about that are completely wrong. There can be things that are not decided. The committee will have heard from other lawyers who perhaps would be more prepared to guess about this, as it were, but I am not prepared to guess about it.

When one talks about looking at the current legal situation in this area, one must look at the entire legal position and the position set up by the various referenda. The referenda in 1992 and 2002 rejected a very clear attempt to get rid of the suicidal or self-destruction ground. It was specifically put to the people and, for whatever reason, they voted against it. If one says that the referendum is the ultimate democracy, that was the ultimate democracy. Again, the people voted for a right to travel and a right to information. We would be naive if we thought that was not a recognition that people go abroad for abortions.

When committee members are looking at the views of the Irish people on this issue, they should look to all the people who do not write to them and who do not carry out the robot telephone calls bothering them in their offices but who say: "I do not really want abortion but what if it was my 14 year old daughter who was raped?" If the human dilemma is put before them, they are out on the streets. They were out on the streets about the X case and about Savita. People are more subtle than simply saying: "This is our ideal and come hell or high water we will stick to it."

As regards the discredited decision, it is a matter of opinion whether one discredits it. With regard to the psychiatrists, it would have been preferable, perhaps, to have a psychiatrist but there was a very well known psychologist. In fact, another well known psychologist was at a meeting of the Children's Rights Alliance that I attended this morning. She said to me that she considered it a great pity that only psychiatrists and no psychologist appeared before the committee to give evidence, because psychologists have a great deal to say on this as well.

In respect of children in care, it is to be hoped that the situation of children in care will be taken into account in the more detailed guidelines and regulations to be made. This would be in accordance with the children's referendum. I agree with Professor Binchy about the importance of the children's referendum. "I would, wouldn't I?", as the saying goes. However, it is interesting that among the people who most strongly opposed the children's referendum were the same people who are extremely, and much more violently than Professor Binchy, opposed to any possible move on introducing abortion. That was a little strange. They are terribly in favour of the rights of the unborn but they are not so enthusiastic when it comes to the rights of the born.

I believe the committee must look at the middle ground and to the middle people of Ireland who do not keep going after the members all the time.