Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I acknowledge the work of Deputy Clare Daly in amending this legislation to reflect the debate last April when the No. 1 Bill was debated in the House.

This debate takes place following the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar in Galway in October. It takes place in an atmosphere of anger and grief experienced by everyone in the country at the death of a young woman in the prime of her life and at the public heartache of her husband. I hope the Government sees sense and makes arrangements for an investigation that will meet the needs of Praveen Halappanavar and the demand from the public for a full and open inquiry. We are unsure as to the full reasons behind her death. A full investigation is needed to ensure the full story can be told. If it is the case that the lack of a clear, legislative basis for a termination was a factor in her death, we all have to say this can never happen again.

If the Government does not act now, once and for all, I fear it will happen again. The need for legal clarity has been demanded for 20 years. It has been restated many times that six Governments have not delivered on legislation. The Minister for Health said this Government will not be the seventh. I hope this will be the case. Given that this Government may have three years left to run, we are at the point where legislation and clarity is needed within months rather than years.

Women cannot be left to live in the shadow of these grey areas where treatment may or may not be available to them should they need it. We are the legislators. This legislation could be the start of the process if the Government had the courage to accept it. I do not understand why the Government could not accept this Bill and allow it to proceed to Committee Stage where, over the next few months, the required amendments could be drafted and debated. The Medical Treatment (Termination of Pregnancy in Case of Risk to Life of Pregnant Woman )(No. 2) Bill 2012 would then meet all the requirements recommended by the expert group. The only reason the Government will not accept this Bill is political expediency. It knows that it cannot be confident it will be acceptable to its backbenchers. Abortion legislation in the UK is decided on a vote of conscience. What can be so wrong with allowing all Members of the House to vote in conscience on this legislation? Is the Whip system so weak that it could not survive a conscience vote?

The Medical Council ethical guidelines allow for a medical practitioner to exercise a conscientious objection with regard to termination, yet the political system does not.

The expert group report outlines a number of options that could be pursued and lists the advantages and disadvantages of the various options. It is clear from my reading of the report that the only option is to provide legislation and regulations on foot of that legislation. The question is whether the legislation should include the repeal of the 1861 Act or be based on existing legislation. The most robust legislation would involve the repeal of the 1861 Act, thus providing clarity and certainty as to the legal situation.

The issue of a woman accessing a termination in circumstances where there could be a risk of suicide is provided for in this Bill and can be strengthened if necessary. The expert group has recommended that a psychologist be included in the decision-making process in this case. That is in line with the Bill. The group states the woman's general practitioner could be consulted to give the woman's medical history. Considering that it is the medical practitioner who knows the woman best, this is a reasonable suggestion and could aid the decision-making process.

There is no intention in the Bill to suggest a termination could be seen as a solution to a woman's mental health issue in the case of a threat of suicide. For any patient with mental illness, there is no single treatment that will offer a so-called cure, and there should always be follow-up treatment to ensure the individual's mental health does not deteriorate any further and she can recover as much as possible. This would be a challenge for our health services at any time, but in the current climate it is more so. Provision should be made to ensure that access to follow-up treatment is a right.

This Bill is not the full solution but it provides the basis for one. The Government can accept it and amend it if necessary. The expert group pointed out that the legislative process is slow and has highlighted this as the sole disadvantage of its proposal for legislation to repeal the 1861 Act. The last thing we need now is to slow down the process. What we need now is to ensure the Legislature does not let any woman down again.

See this speech in context