Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent) | Oireachtas source

As I said, the timeline which led to the charge of bias in the committee is critical. At the outset, the committee invited 24 pro-repeal witnesses to present before it and just three pro-life witnesses. I thank the clerk to the committee for his endurance and forbearance in co-operating with me in trying to find out the full list. Then, in a most extraordinary move, just three weeks into the 12 weeks of hearings, this committee voted not to retain the eighth amendment in full thereby demonstrating that it had no interest in hearing from all witnesses before making a decision. This move alone has destroyed the credibility of the committee and put to bed any claim that it conducted itself in an impartial way. By voting so early in the process, the committee behaved in a juvenile and contemptuous fashion towards the democratic process and our duty as elected parliamentarians to scrutinise and ask the hard questions before voting on any proposal, most particularly when it involves a life-and-death issue. This vote, which was taken just three weeks into the hearings, means that the committee gave its verdict on the eighth amendment after hearing from less than a third of the witnesses who were invited to appear before it. We voted after hearing from 14 pro-repeal witnesses and just one pro-life speaker. That is incredible. Seeking now to justify this farce by engaging in some kind of blame game is, quite frankly, embarrassing. The clear message sent to the public is that the entire thing is a stitch-up and that there is nobody to blame for this other than the members who voted in for abortion in week 3 before we heard from two thirds of the witnesses we invited to appear before us.

When members reflected on what they had done, there was a scramble to extend matters late in the day in respect of pro-life speakers. Clearly, this was an attempt to gloss over the appallingly skewed line of speakers and the fact that the committee had already voted for abortion. To add insult to injury, when the two additional pro-life speakers who were invited to appear declined the offer and cited the abortion vote that had taken place, pro-life groups were criticised by committee members for not accepting the invitation to speak. It is disgraceful that the three pro-life groups were invited to present not because the committee wanted to listen to their expert opinions but because the committee needed cover for the one-sided way in which it had conducted its activities. The spin emanating from this committee about pro-life individuals being invited to attend and refusing to do so needs to stop. It is highly misleading and does not put matters in context. Everyone in this room knows why they were invited late in the day. It is time that a modicum of respect was shown and people on this committee were upfront and admitted to what they know to be true, namely, that these hearings have a pre-determined outcome and have been a charade from the start. Given that the committee voted for abortion before hearing the evidence from both sides, it is perfectly reasonable and understandable that pro-life people are reluctant to take part in the process this late. The committee has already made up its mind and just wants a few more pro-life groups to attend to disguise what is a deeply flawed and one-sided process.

For the record, it is not the case that lots of pro-life groups and individuals were contacted after the initial three were invited. My understanding is that only two additional pro-life individuals and groups were contacted, bringing it to a total of five pro-life invitations against 28 or 29 on the pro-repeal side. These figures have been supplied by the secretariat. When members of the committee say they are blue in the face from looking for pro-life witnesses to come forward, there is no basis for such claims. If people here became blue in the face that easily as a result of asking just two more witnesses to attend, they should go to the doctor and have their blood pressure checked.