Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness:

In response to Deputy Kelleher's question on the constitutionality of the legislation, in a way one must start from the fact that governments produce legislation all the time, legislation is passed and when that legislation is before either the High Court or the Supreme Court for interpretation, there is a very strong presumption of constitutionality. While I have held some legislation to be unconstitutional in my time, there is a very strong presumption that the courts should not be lightly arguing with the legislators. We can take it that when the legislation is brought forward, it done so with the best legal advice that the Government feels it can obtain.

On the question of term limits and the difficulty of introducing them, as I pointed out, once one starts bringing this into an argument about constitutionality, which basically is as a result of the insertion of the original amendment into the Constitution, it is that itself that is creating the problem about term limits.

If the freedom suggested by Professor Binchy allowed the choosing of one's own legislation, there may be the idea that this is a legislative rather than constitutional matter and term limits could be arranged. One must also consider what will happen in real life, and the doctors have replied to that element. They will not set out to kill viable babies; we are talking about real Irish doctors rather than some type of legal concept.

With regard to Deputy Ó Caoláin's question, I know he has heard over and over again that the X case is a flawed judgment. Personally, I do not consider it a flawed judgment by any means and it was a very careful and harmonious interpretation of the Constitution with - as noted by Mr. Callanan - emphasis on the other Articles of the Constitution which stress the importance of the mother in the home and the people dependent on her. All of this was considered, particularly by the former Chief Justice Finlay. It was not a flawed judgment, although the discussion is in a sense irrelevant, as whether the judgment has its weaknesses, it is the law of the land and it is in accordance with that judgment that the heads of Bill have been produced. The Government has made a genuine effort to stick to constitutionality and the laws interpreted by the Supreme Court.

With regard to comments from both Deputy Conway and Senator van Turnhout, I also have considerable concerns about head 19 and the level of the maximum sentence which applies to all cases. A distinction should be made between somebody running a "brothel mill" or doing the sort of things for which the doctor in America was convicted - who would deserve a heavy sentence - and an individual woman and doctor who may have stepped outside the law but who had better intentions. It should be made clear that good faith should be a defence, to some extent at least, with a distinction. I also agree with Mr. Callanan's comments on whether the definition of the offence is broader than the 1861 Act. We really thought we would do something more modern and sensible than the 1861 Act. I can leave it at that.