Kate O'Connell (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

It is not in any way a suitable way to provide women's healthcare. I have a vision of a big van. Maybe I am wrong but that is not the way forward. It cannot be how we look at it. Australia and Scotland have remote areas and they manage it. We should be able to manage it.

We discussed the ring-fencing of funding in a maternity strategy where the constant drag of women's health and gynaecological issues are just not a priority and women are expected to get over it and deal with their prolapsed whatever until a time comes when someone deems they can have an operation. I would be very supportive of this. It is a very time-sensitive matter. Going from eight to ten weeks totally changes someone's situation. Ring-fencing of budgets in contraception and the termination of pregnancy services is essential to ensure that women are not put at any undue risk. We heard evidence that the longer a pregnancy goes on and the later the termination, the greater the risk of complication. Doctors for Choice argued it should be as early as possible.

I refer to scanning. People are already taking abortion pills in this country without scanning. We had evidence of the complications. Will witnesses clarify if it was 20% of under-nine weeks where there were surgical complications or is it less than that? Is it not less than that? Will the witnesses clarify the complication rate for medical terminations under nine weeks. Do they have the evidence? How would any form of ultrasound or MRI in a GPs surgery, or whatever, possibly effect that? My memory of the evidence is that ultrasound intervention before nine weeks is neither here nor there except in the rare cases of ectopic pregnancy.

I refer to an abortion providers network. There appears to be agreement on the 24 hour helpline, certainly when a service starts, although I imagine that maybe in ten years time we will not need one. However, I am seriously concerned at the idea of an abortion providers network. Any list of providers of this service is ripe for targeting. I know there is a list of pharmacists who provide the morning after pill. Somehow I am not on it but my husband is and every so often, we receive a letter along with religious paraphernalia. There are lists of people who provide things that others object to. Such a list of providers seems to invite trouble.

The eighth amendment committee was very conscious of the service not being provided by a private operator in this country, but that it would be provided as part of the public health service on a universal basis. I do not know which contributor mentioned the emergence of private care. The most significant thing we heard this morning was the buy-in from the Department of Health. Can those who have engaged in this already tell us if their informed view is that a lead needs to be appointed in the Department of Health between now and next June, for example, for the roll out period of perhaps two years? Do we need a designated official? We have three Ministers of State in the Department of Health. Do they believe that someone must be appointed to drive this? They have clearly said that without leadership it will not happen.