Alex White (Dublin South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank all Members for their contributions in the past three days, specifically during the closing session of this extremely important process of pre-legislative scrutiny of the heads of the Bill, for which I have the privilege of being present. I thank the main speakers of the main Opposition parties for their initial contributions, in particular Deputy Billy Kelleher for his extremely helpful insights.

When I stated my belief that there was a large measure of agreement throughout the three days of hearings, I was not oblivious to the considerable discussion that had taken place on head 4. I was simply pointing out that I believed there was a reasonable measure of agreement, a conclusion I reached primarily on the basis of the relative silence on many aspects of the heads of the Bill.

While I accept that Senator Walsh would have preferred the debate to have lasted longer, three days of discussion would be considered reasonably lengthy in anybody's book. I am sure all the concerns people have about aspects of the heads of the Bill were given some airing during the course of the hearings. From my observation of the deliberations, I share Deputy Kelleher's view that head 4 is the area of greatest concern. This was evident in the discussion.

Deputy Ó Caoláin is correct that the hearings were a very useful exercise in democracy. I was a Member of the Seanad, the House which normally sits in this Chamber, before my election to the Dáil and appointment as Minister of State. Parliamentarians on all sides may sometimes wish to have an opportunity for greater scrutiny of legislation. The scrutiny of the legislation before us has provided important insights which will be extremely helpful to the Government. Irrespective of which side of the argument one is on, all of us will agree that this has been an extremely positive exercise from the point of view of public elucidation, elaboration and questioning of issues.

Deputy Catherine Byrne stated she was proud to have been involved in this process and noted the level of expertise that was made available to the committee. Her point is well made. We should be thankful that such a high level of expertise is available to us and independent experts are willing to come before the committee, give evidence and subject themselves to what is essentially a cross-examination by Members.

I thank Deputy Seamus Healy for his contribution. The Deputy commented on a number of specific aspects of the heads of the Bill that he and others wish to have addressed in the period ahead. He referred, for example, to the definition of the term "appropriate location" and alluded to the stringency and extent of the criminal sanction provided, the periods to be allowed for review and the issues of consent and monitoring. I emphasise that all issues raised by Deputies and Senators in the course of the debates will be considered. I want to give people the comfort, respect, courtesy and assurance that everything that has been raised here will be considered and addressed in the preparation and publication of the Bill.

Deputy Ciara Conway made a fair point that, at least on one view, society, the country and Parliament are somewhat overdue in addressing this issue. Those of us who argued in the past that it was taking too long to address this issue can now cease doing so. Let us get on with the process that is required. While I agree with the tenor of the Deputy's remarks, I am glad, as she is, to be part of a deliberative process that is finally bringing forward legislation. I also accept the point made by Deputy Conway, Senator Bacik and others in respect of head 19 that the offence or restated offences has been cast, at least in one view, in relatively broad terms. We will consider this matter. The chief medical officer, Dr. Holohan, also made this point on the first day of the committee's hearings.

I thank Senator van Turnhout for her most insightful contribution. She and others raised a concern about the differential treatment of a risk to life based on physical risk as opposed to a risk to life from suicide. As colleagues will be aware, the expert group addressed this issue. The language that has been used and is reflected in the Bill comes at least to some extent from the expert group report, which stated the following:

Finally, the role of the psychiatrist is key where a termination of pregnancy is prescribed as appropriate treatment in case of suicidal ideation/intent. There are recognised clinical challenges in correctly diagnosing expressed suicide intent, for instance, the absence of recognised clinical markers.

The issue was, therefore, addressed by the expert group. I thank the members of the expert group, including Mr. Justice Ryan. While I accept there has been some debate about the group, on any reading, its report is a rigorous treatment of the issue which provides an extremely helpful background and foundation for the work we are doing.

I listened to the comments of Senator van Turnhout and others on penalties, sanctions and appeal times. On the two periods of seven days provided for in the heads, it is important to emphasise that these periods are maxima as opposed to prescribed periods. If the persons who are to consider the review have been empanelled within two or three days, the clock stops and the second seven days within which they must make their determination begins. The periods are maxima which arise from genuine concern in respect of the practicality and pragmatic requirements of bringing together professionals in the field in one place to do this work. The periods were set down as a result of a practical consideration and have certainly not been born of any other motivation.

I appreciated Deputy Catherine Byrne's comment that the time was right for the Bill. She and other speakers also raised the issue of foetal abnormalities. I believe it would be fair to describe her view as one of regret that it has not been possible to address this issue in the legislation. It is regrettable that this is the case. The issue may be revisited either by the Houses or the people at some future time. If I may express a view, I would support such a course of action although it is not something that can be addressed in the context of this legislation.

Senator Jim Walsh makes a reasonable point, albeit one with which I do not agree, in asking what was the requirement of the European Court of Human Rights. The decision in the A, B and C v. Ireland case required clarity, as the Senator acknowledged. The Government decided that the best way to ensure this clarity was by means of primary legislation to be followed by regulations. The Oireachtas makes the law and it is necessary to provide clarity to medical professionals.

It seems to me, if I may say so, entirely appropriate that legal clarity should be provided in laws passed by the Houses of Parliament. That is where it should be done. It is the decision of the Government that it should be done and we will respectfully introduce legislation in these Houses in the hope of winning the support of a majority for its passage. That is what the Government has decided and intends to do.

Senator Walsh posited a scenario - I hope I am not misrepresenting him but rather paraphrasing what he said - where a woman might present in a stressful situation, refuse treatment on offer to her and go on to seek and obtain certification for a termination, in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. This can only occur where there is a real and substantial risk to her life that can only be averted by a termination. We have to keep reminding ourselves of what is provided for here. It can only occur in circumstances where there is a real and substantial risk to her life which can only be averted by a termination. It is worth pausing and reflecting on the nature of that test, which is a very onerous one in my view.

There has been much debate between members of the medical profession, particularly the psychiatrists, echoed throughout these hearings, on the question of abortion never being a treatment for suicide or suicidality. I will not revisit this issue now except to repeat what Dr. Holohan said on Friday because his comments put the issue in the clearest terms. He said that we simply cannot say the circumstance of a real and substantial risk to a woman's life could never occur as a consequence of suicidal ideation. I agree with Dr. Holohan on this point. We simply cannot make the assertion that it would never occur, that a real and substantial risk to a woman's life could never occur as a consequence of suicidal ideation. I do not think anybody could make that statement.