John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I wish to refer to two areas and I do not wish to rehash what has been said. In the previous session Mr. Paul Brady strayed into the area of constitutional law. He made particular reference to the suicide grounds in the X judgment. Dr. Cahill made reference to it in her report. I will ask Dr. Cahill specifically and Mrs. Justice McGuinness as well to respond to me. If the suicide ground was conceded in the X case and was not argued and therefore is not binding other than on the specific facts of the X judgment itself, is that currently the legal position following on from the 1965 judgment to which Dr. Cahill referred in her presentation? If it has not been argued before the court, is it binding and is it correct that we should put an elaborate arrangement in the legislation, with 95% of which Members in both Houses of the Oireachtas agree? The central issue is head 4. Should we build such an elaborate mechanism if the decision in the X case on that specific area is not binding?

My final question is specifically for Mrs. Justice McGuinness, whom I have observed for years. I was present in January for the three days of hearings and I have been present for virtually all of the current three days of the hearings also. She was asked directly in January about the question of fatal foetal abnormalities. I remember it distinctly and it stuck in my mind that she said to legislate would be unconstitutional. Perhaps I misheard her earlier. I have an infection at the moment which is affecting my hearing but I think she said that she regretted that the heads of the Bill do not include a provision to deal with the case of fatal foetal abnormalities. Perhaps I misunderstood or she was expressing the wish that the constitutional provision would be amended. Could she clarify the position please?