Dr. Tony Holohan:

I apologise if I misunderstood the Deputy's question. The test that arises in this situation relates to the risk, real and substantial, to the life of the mother. It does not relate to the health or potential viability of the foetus. That is the situation as provided for under the Constitution.

In respect of the question about whether the provisions relating to the two psychiatrists under head 4 may be overly restrictive, the intention is to create a situation whereby this service can be accessed, perhaps through a GP or direct referral from an obstetrician in all of the 19 obstetric units in the country. If we need to look at aspects of how things have currently been framed in terms of their impact, the Minister has indicated that we will do that. That is the intention.

I take the point about Senator Bacik's preference for a three-day period over a seven-day period. There can sometimes be practical difficulties in convening groups of people over holiday weekends and periods so the seven-day period is very much an outer limit as opposed to a minimum period.

Senator Bacik echoed a point made earlier about head 19, and we take that point. Again, it is something we can look at in the context of drafting.

In respect of head 4, I will not get into giving what I think will be the likely number of terminations that will occur as a consequence of the Bill. My general expectation is that it is not likely to be significant. We have made provision for the grounds of suicide because it arises as a consequence of the constitutional position and the Supreme Court judgment and because it would be impossible to rule out the possibility of suicidal ideation and a risk to a woman's life as a consequence of self-destruction that could only be averted through termination. Removing this provision entirely would be based on a belief that it could never arise. I would not expect it to be a very widespread or common occurrence but I would not say that it would never happen and I will not put a number on it.