Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the speakers for their presentations and contributions.

In reference to an earlier point, the speakers were asked here for their legal opinions. They were asked to give a range of opinions and people giving opinions is not banned in the committee. In fact, we all had the option of recommending and suggesting people to give their opinions.

My questions relate to what was the intent of the Citizens' Assembly because that is why we are here. Obviously, the committee is to deal with the recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly and the general issue of the reality of abortion.

It was mentioned earlier that the option is repeal or replace, but there is a third option which arises from the Citizens' Assembly, which is repeal and replace. To make it clear the Citizens' Assembly was proposing that the eighth amendment should be repealed and taken out of the Constitution and replaced in order to try to copperfasten the right of Oireachtas to legislate. That is what the Citizens' Assembly decided. In doing so it was trying to close off any potential legal challenge and uncertainty as the witnesses have outlined because of the perceived pre-1983 rights. It was being done from the point of view of an anti-abortion challenge. That is clearly the case because it coincides with what it recommended, which was abortion on socioeconomic grounds, abortion up to 12 weeks on request of the pregnant person, for health reasons and so on.

I want to ask the witnesses about a specific wording. The Citizens' Assembly did not come up with a wording, but it was mooted that specific powers might be given to the Oireachtas. I believe that would be problematic because no legislation should be immune from challenge by a concerned person, whose civil rights, for example, might be being impaired. Any wording would need to take cognisance of that.

While there is merit, as Ms O'Toole said, in dealing with this question of a danger of pre-existing rights, we do not want it to be the case that any legislation would be just impervious to any woman, pregnant person or anybody challenging it. I think there would be a problem with that wording and I have no doubt that any referendum proposing that politicians would have exclusive power in anything would be roundly rejected by the electorate. It shows the problems with inserting a wording. Professor de Londras has suggested a wording, which does not give the Oireachtas exclusive powers, it just stipulates that the Oireachtas must legislate. If nothing is inserted, as she suggested, how big a deal is the threat other speakers have mentioned? The only threat I could envisage is a legal challenge. However, if legislation was published as has been suggested so that everybody knew what they were voting for, would that not make it clear what the people's intent was? I have heard people saying that there could be a chilling effect on the Oireachtas or that the Oireachtas might, if there was a legal challenge by an individual, try to use the vacuum of not having a replacement wording as a chilling effect and not actually legislate.

I want to ask about putting additional abortion grounds into the Constitution. I am glad there has been some discussion of who our allies and friends are here. Countries that are basically dictatorships or arise from dictatorships, such as Kenya, Swaziland, Chile and the Philippines, are the countries Ireland is in conjunction with on this issue. While it may not be specifically for today, I believe Deputy Browne last week asked about a balance of power. There might be a balance of power and a group of Deputies who put it up to the Dáil to get the legislation changed or otherwise they would refuse to form a government. There seemed to be a suggestion that some kind of special case or exemption from democracy would be made for abortion legislation - maybe a higher proof that the Dáil would vote by, say, 72 to 25. I am raising it because it is the second time I have heard it raised at this committee. For the Dáil not to be allowed to change legislation would be a break with our democratic rights.