Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)

——and decided that perhaps there was something in this Bill and he could be kind to us with Christmas coming and refer it to the Law Reform Commission. That is worthwhile. I do not know whether this will create a delay, but it is welcome and is positive. I hope this debate assists in the process of coming to some conclusion.

I find the constant lecturing of the Minister very hard to take. He is the Minister who produces legislation with so many amendments being pushed through at the last minute that Opposition Members barely get the chance to read them. He is the Minister who is part of a Government that tried to impose legislation by way of a constitutional referendum that would prevent a doctor from treating a woman who would die if a doctor did not intervene and carry out a termination of pregnancy. If it did not happen in a hospital, the Bill the Government produced would have meant a doctor was barred from treating such a woman in an emergency. That seems far more barbaric than any deficiencies in this Bill.

If the Minister wants to give lectures, he may have to listen to them as well. Let us look at the record. If that legislation had been agreed and the people had voted for it, it is very likely that at some point a woman would have been dependent on a doctor to save her life and he or she would have had to break the law to save it. If the Minister does not recall it, he should read it again. It is imprinted on my brain. I remember clearly that the requirement was that the procedure had to be carried out in a hospital. Therefore, if a dying woman was outside the hospital context and needed a termination to save her life, that was too bad.

We can look at this legislation in another way in terms of how it can be improved. It is worth looking at it from the point of view of victims rather than from that of health professionals. I was concerned that there was no way of gaining compensation or that the immunity of the health professional was complete in terms of the rights of the victim. The victim of negligence would be without redress, despite suffering because of another's negligence. Should this be the case and should the victim be protected from the consequences or should the care giver be protected from the consequences of his or her negligence?

I suggest a compromise. The law could state or clarify that instead of immunity, where a person provides good samaritan assistance, a court, in determining any claim of negligence against that person, must consider the factor or circumstances in which the emergency care was provided, the degree of emergency involved and the bona fides of the good samaritan. The law could also employ a principle that a person ought not be penalised for assisting a person in an emergency. Such changes as these would ensure that good samaritans are not penalised for acting as such and would recognise their value while not protecting those who are negligent.

I had hoped the Minister would have adopted a more positive approach to this legislation, allowed it to go forward and provided the necessary amendments. He has been in Opposition and must recognise that it is not a simple task to produce watertight legislation. It is not simple, even when in Government. When it comes to flawed legislation the Minister only has to look at his own body of work to find many examples. None of us always gets things right, even the Minister, Deputy McDowell. I hope he will examine the Bill and table amendments to it, and we can take it from there. It is imperative we deal with this important issue. I commend Deputy Timmins for initiating the Bill.

See this speech in context