Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have to confess that I would certainly need more than five minutes to go through the various allegations, implications and inaccurate assertions I have heard in this session alone. I will try my best to address the main points, which is that this committee has hastily but all too belatedly convened a session because it knows that the cat is out of the bag about the flawed processes and attitudes that have existed within this committee from the start.

As far as possible, I have tried to avoid a criticism of the Chairman. I think I used the word "bias" on one occasion because I have not always felt that she was impartial but, by and large, my criticism would be that she probably had a very difficult job in the first place but she has failed to preside over a process and make the necessary proposals that would try to procure objectivity as far as possible on this very difficult issue. I say that as somebody who has been in the Seanad for ten years. I have known the Chairman for a long time and I like her, but I cannot be dishonest about the way I feel this committee has operated. I can only act with integrity if I tell it as I see it.

While I had intended to address what various speakers had to say seriatum, I do not know at whom the notion of unchristian behaviour was being levelled. Speaking for myself, and I am sure, Deputies McGrath and Fitzpatrick, as one of those on the committee who has opposed the motion, all I can say is that I have certainly tried to respect every person's dignity at all times. I do not think I have ever attacked it. I have sought to robustly question in extremely difficult circumstances where there was nothing like the time needed to address various tendentious stuff going on where experts came in and then lashed into their views to a very considerable degree. Although I was grateful on those occasions where, on a grace and favour basis, the Chairman allotted more time, probably because she perceived that I was representing a minority view, as do Deputies McGrath and Fitzpatrick, at least within this committee, it is too much to expect that we would regard as removing all of the problem when time after time, there were questions that desperately needed to be asked which people here were simply not interested in asking because they would tend to undermine advocacy for abortion and which I would have asked had I received the time. Time and again, I have made the comparison with the Committee of Public Accounts where there is serious inquiry into what is being said. This committee has failed almost at all times to engage in that kind of inquiry and that is simply not my fault or the fault of Deputies McGrath and Fitzpatrick. It perhaps reflects the fact that we are in a serious minority on the committee and that most other members did not see that they had a need even to ask questions that would go against the grain of their own point of view.

From the outset, I stressed that the mandate given to the committee by the Houses was to consider the report and recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly. I stress that there should be an opportunity to consider in detail the approach taken by the Citizens' Assembly to its work and the strengths and weaknesses in that regard. There was little support for this among committee members. The committee clearly wished only to examine whether and how the assembly's recommendations should be implemented. We heard that from Deputy Murphy here today. She started off by saying that we were asked to consider the report and recommendations and decided that we were not going to repeat the Citizens' Assembly but were going to consider its recommendations.

What is that if not a direct admission that she, and the committee, wanted to truncate the mandate given to it by the Houses of the Oireachtas? As far as I can recall, the Chairman failed in that instance to propose that the committee needed to address the full mandate given to it by the Houses. That is just for starters.

Much was made by the Chairman and others of the need to avoid repeating the work of the Citizens' Assembly. This was simply unsatisfactory because it presupposed that there was no need to analyse how the assembly had done its work. I pointed out the danger at one point that the committee wanted to do less rather than more work, which caused indignation and was rejected by several members. However, it was on the basis of not wanting to repeat the work of the assembly that a consensus was arrived at - I looked at The Irish Timesreport on the matter earlier - to the effect that the committee would not hear from advocacy groups, just from so-called experts. I opposed that exclusion of advocacy groups and my objection was noted. The committee then went on to invite numerous pro-abortion advocacy groups. No pro-life advocacy group was invited. What more evidence do we need of a flawed process, flawed attitudes and closed minds coming from within the committee? Only one pro-life advocacy group, which clarified an issue relating to its own work - I am referring to Both Lives Matter - offered to come before the committee and this offer was declined by the secretariat on the basis that advocacy groups were not being invited. The latter was despite the fact that the group in question had been invited.

Despite concerns I expressed on numerous occasions, and I will stop when I am out of time and if the Chairman wants to-----