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

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for publishing the report. I have read the summary, the recommendations and some of the conclusions and findings. The individual testimonies certainly highlight some of the trauma people have to endure. Mr. Gorman referred to a call by civil society to repeal the eighth amendment. I cannot recall a time when we ever had a civil debate on this matter, to be quite truthful. Perhaps from now on, we will try to ensure it is civil and cordial and that we will reach some consensus in addressing it.

This issue has been debated in the Dáil on numerous occasions recently. Deputy Daly introduced a Bill on a couple of occasions, as have other members. There is no point in our trying to simplify this debate; it is quite complex and society has very strong views on it. There is a deeply conservative element and those in this category have very strong objections to any form of liberalisation of abortion. They talk about abortion on demand and the move towards that. Theirs is certainly one view. I have always said I believe there is a middle ground. The matter of fatal foetal abnormalities is one on which there might be broader consensus. Having said that, there is a strong body of opinion reflecting concern over this.

The eighth amendment is what anchors all the legislation and the interpretations by the Supreme Court in the context of the X case. We have a very tangled legislative framework hanging off the eighth amendment. The key question is alluded to in the recommendations. The first recommendation is the repeal of Article 40.3.3°. To write this in black and white is quite easy but to reach a point where we could have a rational debate on it would require, in the first instance, a debate in the Parliament with a majority favouring the putting of the proposal to the people for debate.

The key question, which I cannot ask the witnesses to answer today, concerns whether the Irish people are ready to repeal the amendment without knowing what is to be put in its place. Would they trust the Legislature to bring forward proposals? The constitutional provision was made, in the first instance, in 1983 because the people were not of the view that they could trust that the move towards abortion on demand across Europe, the United States and elsewhere would not occur here.

There should be a debate on this issue. We must confront it and we cannot deny the fact that ten to 12 Irish women will board a plane every day seeking an abortion for various reasons. Irrespective of the reason, they feel they have a crisis pregnancy and that a termination is their option. Very often, they travel under considerable pressure with a crisis pregnancy.

The report goes into some detail regarding the recommendations. We received it only today so it certainly merits further discussion by this committee.

Let me return to the key issue, that of engaging civil society. Mr. O'Gorman should be very clear that there are varying views in civil society. There is a liberal civil society and a conservative one. To have the debate will be exceptionally difficult. There is no point in my pretending, in the face of a general election, that these issues cannot be very easily moved off the agenda for electoral reasons. Unfortunately, that is what has happened regarding this issue for the past 30 years. It has been avoided, to say the very least.

The tragic case of Savita Halappanavar brought the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act into being. Many of the testimonies here regard the Savita Halappanavar case as an issue of concern. Is what happened in Galway sometimes used to generate discourse without actually taking into account that it may not have been entirely a question of legislative problems and constitutional inhibitors? If we are to structure an argument or debate, it should be grounded entirely on factual positions, both of those opposing the repeal of the eighth amendment and those proposing an amendment thereto. The case of Savita Halappanavar was very tragic. We had long discussions in meetings of this committee on the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill and there was a pre-legislative scrutiny element also. This resulted in a variety of opinions. It is not that every member agreed on how to move forward. If we are to engage with broader society, we cannot deny the fact that 11 Irish women travel abroad for an abortion every day for many and various reasons.

The witnesses have made recommendations. How do they envisage our bringing about a discussion to address the recommendations in a debate, making reference to the equality referendum? The key issue with that referendum was that there was broad political consensus. I doubt this will feature in the case in question. There is potential for a very divisive debate. Perhaps the committee will have to examine this. I raised this in the Dáil previously. We must try to come to some arrangement whereby we can actually have a proper debate, something like that which took place during the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill. Otherwise, this report will gather dust. While it is gathering dust, another 12 women will go abroad every day of the week for a termination in England or Wales. I assume this estimate is conservative in view of the fact that women also travel elsewhere for terminations. One should not pretend it is easy to move this debate on because it is not. Accepting that it is difficult would be the first step in trying to have a more inclusive debate representing all views in society.