Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Go raibh maith agat. I thank each of our guests for attending this morning.

I have a question for Dr. Mills on his proposed rewording of head 2 regarding GP involvement, where the current wording includes "shall consult" and "where practicable" and he suggests "where clinically appropriate" as an alternative wording in that regard. This view argues for a less direct involvement by the GP, although the Bill as drafted does not require GP involvement as an absolute, only where practicable. This contrasts with the views expressed by psychiatrists yesterday who argued that the GP should be fully involved, even to the point of suggesting that the GP should be the first to determine the need, or possible need, for a termination in the context of head 4. Did Dr. Mills note their views? I know it is very difficult to follow each of the day's submissions. Would Dr. Mills like to offer any elaboration on his view in this regard and his view of their arguments, if he has had such an opportunity?

On Mr. Brady's submission, specifically his written submission, which I have gone through, he is at pains to point out his position on the X case decision. He says that a point not argued is a point not decided and references the two specific concessions, as he describes them. Counsel for the Attorney General formally conceded two points. The first was that abortion is lawful under Article 40.3.3° in certain circumstances, and the second concession was that in certain circumstances, an abortion could be the only way to avert the death of a woman from suicide.

In his conclusions, Mr. Brady makes the point that the fact that these concessions, as he describes them, have determined the fate of such an important court case is perhaps regrettable. He concludes that 21 years later, this is determining the fate of our legislators' deliberations. As a legislator, I would like clarification of his view of this process. Is it the failure of the Legislature to address the issue over the past 21 years that is inexcusable, which is his very last word in his written presentation, or is it that a decision, albeit a flawed decision in his view, of the Supreme Court, with its pre-eminence in law, is dictating the parameters for addressing these matters that is inexcusable? I would appreciate it if he could clarify his position regarding these remarks.

I record my thanks to Mr. Tony O'Connor for suggesting that we redraft head 2(1) and for the points he made specifically on head 2(5). That is what this committee is about. It is trying to find a way to improve the legislation and make it fit for purpose. That is something we must evaluate.

Ms Simons makes the point in the opening page of her written submission that the evidence given by every obstetrician and psychiatrist to the committee in January 2013 is totally contradicted by what is now being presented. This has been strongly refuted during the course of these hearings by the most senior perinatal obstetricians in the land. Ms Simons must understand that we are trying to go through all of this information and it seems that there is a strong difference of opinion in that respect.