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

I welcome the Minister of State. We had the three days of hearings and preliminary discussions about legislation in January and there is no doubt they were beneficial in terms of Members being able to ask questions of experts. The Minister of State said he was following the debate closely and noted a high level of consensus. I can assure the Minister of State there was a high level of consensus in the areas where Members agree and where experts agree but there was a high level of non-consensual discussion as well in the sensitive area of head 4.

There is no point in discussing the broad issues without focusing on the fact that head 4 has proved contentious for this committee hearing. The Minister of State referred to it in his speech. The witnesses who presented also held varying views. There is no doubt that there is an obligation on us, as legislators, to deal with this particular issue. That is also my personal view and my party will discuss the matter when we read the final text of the Bill.

It has been propagated, to a certain extent, that there is never a risk to a woman on the issue of suicide. It was clearly stated by experts that there is and that it is a real risk at times. When we speak, we should be very conscious that we do not dismiss the real and substantial risk to the life of a woman in very rare and limited circumstances. It is still a risk and there is an onus on us to deal with the issue.

The Chairman has received praise from all around on his handling of the committee. The next phase is parliamentary input, and discussions will be held in the Houses of the Oireachtas as the legislation wends its way forward. One would need the wisdom of Solomon to address the entire matter. I hope that the Chairman will take on board the flavour that exists. People hold opposing views on the matter. I believe that many people are in the middle ground and want us to deal with the matter. We must find the consensus, wherever we can, to bring as many people as possible to the centre ground. Extreme and inflammatory language has been used by both sides but that does not encourage a broad debate.

The Chairman has pointed out that we are obligated to work within the parameters of Article 40.3.3° and the X case judgment. Regardless of whether people think that is restrictive, people should be mindful of the fact that we are obligated to deal with the issue within those parameters when we debate the final legislation.

I thank all the members for the discussion. As the Chairman said, the hearing has proved that divisive issues can be discussed when temperate language is used and there is understanding given to the views of others. One can have a calm, rational debate and tease out strong views while displaying respect and dignity. The debate also helped and highlighted that head 4 is an issue that is deeply rooted in people's view, either ethically, religiously, morally or otherwise. The Government should be conscious of that in the context of these hearings. I thank the Chairman and members for their company over the past three days.