Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman and the experts who came before the committee. It is important to say that experts in the fields of medicine, legal studies and so on volunteered their time. Many travelled long distances and their testimony was invaluable and overwhelming. I will not repeat it but will make a few points on where we go from here and what I think our job was.

We were here not just to validate the decisions of the Citizens' Assembly but to analyse them and consider how we might possibly take them forward. I agree with Deputy Jan O'Sullivan that the first step is to study Article 40.3. 3^o. That is far and away the most important step. In order to broaden the provision for abortion in line with the recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly, we need to repeal the eighth amendment.

Confusion arose in the course of the assembly - a matter that was aired here by Ms. Justice Laffoy and the other legal representatives regarding the idea of replacing that provision in the Constitution with something else. The first point to make is that the intentions of the Citizens' Assembly when it explored that avenue were explored here, and the testimony given - this was made clear by Ms Justice Laffoy and others - was to the effect that the assembly wanted more clarity. By doing that, the assembly thought it was voting for a situation where the Oireachtas would legislate, it would not be in the Constitution, ironically enough, and that there would be no impediment to the Oireachtas legislating. There was an idea that something might have to be inserted to specify that. We have teased the matter out with our legal adviser and my view is that it is not necessary. To give effect to the intention of the Citizens' Assembly, simple repeal is the best option because the Oireachtas already has the power to bring in whatever legislation it sees fit once the barrier of the eighth amendment is removed. There would be no comparable area where the courts would be removed from that process, and, in essence, what the Citizens' Assembly recommended would be provided for. My feeling is that the original decision of the Citizens' Assembly to simply repeal is the best way forward. I will not repeat the points but that is the only way in which we can give a voice to this.

The Constitution is not the place to regulate medical practice. We were given evidence on that. Real life medical practice requires flexibility. This is a public health matter. In no other area of medicine do we intrude in the relationship between doctor and patient. We allow the doctor make the best decision in consultation with the patient. That is all that is being advocated here. Such matters being in the Constitution has led to a situation where women's rights and their constitutional status are significantly lessened. My first concern is that this should not be in the Constitution at all. The best way of ensuring that is repeal simpliciter. Legislation may be published in tandem because we know it is being prepared.

I will make some points about what I would like to see in the legislation but it might be a job beyond us.

I know we discussed it earlier in the committee proceedings but there is a problem with putting something into the Constitution given the restrictions in that regard. Our legal counsel was very clear that to repeal and replace in the Constitution a full piece of legislation would be unprecedented and totally unworkable. She also was quite clear that to replace it with specific grounds along the lines of the divorce referendum could give rise to problems. We will have to have another constitutional referendum now to overcome what was voted in at that time. Specifying anything in the Constitution becomes problematic in that sense. Either broad or confined grounds in the Constitution give rise to all sorts of complications. Given that what was being sought by the citizens was legal certainty to broaden the provision of access to abortion in Ireland from all of the evidence I have heard the best way to do that is repeal simpliciterand because of a procedural mechanism, my belief is that we have to take that vote first. We could not possibly vote on other options as to what might go into the Constitution first because if one voted on one and then one jumped into having nothing that would be completely wrong. We need to ask first whether we should have something in the Constitution or not and then take the other votes then after that.