Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I was here and I heard those remarks but they do not give me any consolation.

My points are aimed at the Minister but maybe the Minister of State or Dr. Holohan can answer them. Dr. Holohan stated that the guiding principles which underpin the legislation derived from the work of the expert group. It is very important that the origin of the principles has a sound foundation. For the past few months I have been trying to get some information through parliamentary questions and the parliamentary party but I have not been able to access it. I want clarification on the terms of reference of the expert group and the paragraph on page 8 of that report where Mr. Justice Ryan states:

The only brief that the Minister gave this Group was to deal with the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights judgment and to advise the Government on how to give effect to existing constitutional provisions.

That appears to contradict the terms of reference if it is the only brief the Minister gave this group. I want to know whether the Minister briefed the chairman of the group separately or did anyone brief him or has the judge misinterpreted his terms of reference? I sought to have Mr. Justice Ryan come before the committee but he was not one of those chosen. It is important to clarify that point.

In addition, based on responses to parliamentary questions that I tabled, it appears that nominations to that group were sought from various bodies but those forwarded by the Irish College of General Practitioners, the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the College of Psychiatry were not the ones accepted. I would like clarification on that because I may be incorrect, although in the case of the College of Psychiatry the nominees certainly were not in the group because I heard Dr. McCarthy say in interview that the college's nominee was not picked. Why were these nominees not picked? Who was picked instead and who nominated those people?

We were told that the purpose of these hearings is to inform the legislation. I sat through the hearings in January and the clear message that came through to me was that termination is not a treatment for suicidal intent. Dr. Holohan said that would be very rare. From the evidence we received, it seems that the ratio for this is 1:500,000. Weighed against that, the assessment can be inaccurate in 97% of cases and termination is not a treatment for suicidal intent, yet head 4 puts this into the legislation. Is there any point in our listening to evidence presented at these hearings when the legislation does not reflect what happened at the hearings or are we just going through a charade?

Do we have any statistics on minors in the care of the HSE who come before the court and go abroad for terminations on the grounds of suicidal intent? Those statistics must be available somewhere and, if so, are they accessible?

With regard to the issue of conscientious objection, if, for example, staff in a hospital in Ballinasloe or Tralee or wherever decide that they will avail of this clause, where does that tie-in with the fact that the hospital cannot avail of that facility? If all the staff oppose it, what is the solution to meet the requirements of the legislation as proposed?