Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I should state at the outset that I am not in favour of abortion and never have been, but I have spoken at many gatherings since 1983 where it was obvious to me that there were certain requirements that needed to be dealt with such as, for example, rape and incest, which I do not propose to go into now. I am not sure that what we are doing will deal with those issues in their entirety because they still exist.

Deputy Daly, correctly, referred to the 1861 Act. As one of the people who was in the House in 1983 and went through that debate, I can assure the Deputy that it was not a simple debate. It was a very animated and bitter debate on both sides. This is not a simple thing. People who believe that what we are discussing is simple are naive. The people on the Citizens' Assembly had the advantage of not having to address their constituents or the various groups which are likely to come to the fore in the course of what we are now undergoing.

It is worth saying at this stage that the 1861 Act did not protect women to any great extent. Several women lost their lives unnecessarily at that time. Some of us dealt with those cases up close and personal over the years, something which continues. We need to remind ourselves that there was very little protection for women.

The 1861 Offences against the Person Act was deemed to be the Act that prevented abortion at that time. There was a fear that there would be a constitutional challenge to it. That is where it came from. As a result a lobby started for an amendment to the Constitution.

It is not possible to exclude a particular item of legislation from the Constitution and the courts without challenge. That is my opinion but I am neither a legal nor a medical practitioner. I have, however, read the wise words of both over the years. There would be a fear on both sides of something like that happening. Reference has already been made to the various situations that could emerge.

Reference is made in the report of the Citizens' Assembly to the system in the United Kingdom and the possibility of a similar system in this country. Given the existence of the Magna Carta in the UK and our written Constitution, how do the witnesses as legal professionals make the comparison and conclude that it is as simple to bring in legislation that would not be challenged here as it was in the UK?