Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I wish to return to the CervicalCheck scandal and then I have two questions on abortion prompted by the Minister's comments. To go back to the issue of mandatory disclosure first, I was particularly impressed by an article by Pat Leahy in The Irish Timeslast week, which the Minister may have seen, in which Mr. Leahy gives some deserved criticism of us all as a political class about the failure to face down establishment opposition to mandatory disclosure, whose time seems to have arrived as an idea. One person I know who has direct experience of the problems surrounding mandatory disclosure says not disclosing information about one's institutional or personal professional failing is like driving away from the scene of an accident. Has the Minister formally, intellectually and politically committed to mandatory disclosure? If so, when did he mentally and publicly commit to it first? If I am on the right track about the change in thinking, if it is a good idea now, why was it not a good idea before now?

Regarding the issue of abortion, the posters and what the Minister himself said, I have always opposed the public use of graphic images of abortion because it is disrespectful to the dignity of the unborn child whose death is so graphically depicted for one thing and, second, I worry about its impact on children and other vulnerable people. However, I would like a precise answer to this question: does the Minister not think there is something of a disconnect or double standard if, on the one hand, there is outrage on one's own behalf or other people's behalf about such graphic images and, on the other, a lack of empathy towards the child whose death is depicted, however graphically? I am just asking the question.

I wondered why the Minister appeared to laugh at Deputy Murphy O'Mahony's question about what debates he will do and when. I would have thought it is part of his ministerial stewardship and his duty, if he is leading the Government's campaign to make a very significant change to our law on a life-or-death issue which will have far-reaching effects, to be out there publicly. I know he is a busy man, but he has quite a phalanx of people, including party-political people and civil servants, behind him to help him do his job. I would have thought it is very legitimate to ask him the precise detail of what he will debate and when. There is a tendency across Government to use press releases, press conferences and other situations whereby Ministers and powerful political people are unchallenged. He has been out very little on the abortion question in any circumstance in which people can respectfully challenge him. Frankly, there are big questions, and Deputy Murphy O'Mahony is right to ask about GPs. The Minister is proposing a far-reaching law providing for abortion up to 12 weeks gestation on demand and up to six months gestation effectively on demand because that is how it works in Britain, where abortion is available on a mental health ground. GPs do not have scanning equipment. People are entitled to know whether we are looking at a future in which abortion clinics will be established in this country. Regardless of what side of the issue he is on, does the Minister not think he has a duty to be out debating this issue soon, often and in circumstances in which he can be respectfully challenged on detail? What we are not getting is detail on what will happen if people repeal the eighth amendment and give politicians full power to legalise abortion. I agree with his empathy for women in crisis pregnancy. I am asking him why I neither see nor hear any empathy for the children who will be aborted if our law changes. Very specifically, I am asking him for detail as to when he will debate this issue respectfully, one on one or in circumstances in which he can be challenged honestly, and how many times he will debate. He is no doubt talking to his advisers about when he will debate these matters, so we are entitled to some detail.