Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I will stay with the issue of "clinically appropriate", if I can. I would agree with Deputy Shortall that what we need is something that relates to the actual documentation. Correspondence between the committee and the Minister and his officials would not be something that in 200 years or 150 years will be laid before a court as legally binding.

I am incredibly disappointed by the phrase "trust doctors". When I walked the streets in Dublin Central on repeal, that is not what I said to people. Our slogan, the Green Party slogan, was "Trust her" - trust women. The issue around "clinically appropriate" is that it places all of the power in the hands of clinicians and in the hands of those legal professionals who will then interpret what "clinically appropriate" means.

Over the past few weeks, I have spent a long time looking over these documents. I listened to lots of legal opinions, both of those who want to proceed with the agreement and of those who question it. Many of them are eminent legal minds saying very different things and the idea that it is not open to interpretation is simply not credible.

I can totally understand how clinicians feel it is important but that does not negate the requirement for more rights-based language here. That is incredibly important when it comes to reproductive care, and that we centre women in it.

There is a trust deficit here and we have ambiguous language. There is a trust deficit between the institutions of the State and the people of the State. Particularly when it pertains to this phrase, what can be done now that does not delay the project but that reaches out to bridge that gap and to close that trust deficit? What can we do now that is legally binding?