Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses. I shall address my questions to Dr. Simon Mills first. Can Dr. Mills elaborate what he meant in the context of capacity and representation under heads 6 and 9? Is he saying, for example, that a woman who has been refused through the panel and who lodges an appeal with the review panel would be entitled to legal representation or that somebody else could represent her if she felt she was not in a position to attend for whatever reason, medical or otherwise? I seek clarity on the matter.

Dr. Mills also mentioned a conflict of interest in the panel. Is that a conflict in the context of conscientious objection or is it a conflict for some other reason? He referred to being obliged to declare a conflict of interest. I seek clarity on the matter.

When Dr. Mills referred to criminalisation in the context of head 19, was he referring to the criminalisation of a person who would carry out the termination or also the criminalisation of the woman? He referred in that context to it being quite problematic, so I want to get clarity on that as well.

On the broader issues, Mr. Brady referred to the fact that a termination could take place up until birth. He implied that it would be the intentional destruction of the baby. Where is that stated in the legislation? Where could that possibly happen? Is he saying that the legislation overrides the right of the unborn contained in Article 40.3.3° and explicitly stated in the Constitution?

Head 4 has been quite contentious in discussions and we have had varying views. The Government has made the decision to legislate, although the Oireachtas will decide at the end of the day. Is there not a constitutional obligation on the Oireachtas when legislating to include the threat to the life of the woman because of suicide? I seek clarity on the matter because I have heard varying views. The Attorney General has a view but the senior counsel and BLs may also have a view.