Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to have the opportunity to say a few words on this difficult subject. At the outset, I listened carefully to Deputy Calleary and I respect his views and judgment. He is a serious politician but I disagree with his conclusions. This is not the time to wait for the committee to make a decision. It is a decision the House must make and we must give political direction. The expert group has shown us the options and it is the political direction that is important now. It is still up for the committee to look in detail at how that recommendation we decide upon is to be framed, be it by legislation or otherwise. We can no longer set up committees and say we will not make any decision until it makes its findings.

We have been dealing with this serious issue for 30 years, with reproductive rights for women being the most contentious issue in the history of the State in the last century. The programme for Government we signed up to was categoric that we would acknowledge the recent ruling of the European Court of Human Rights subsequent to the established ruling of the Irish Supreme Court on the X case and that we would establish an expert group to address the issue, drawing on appropriate medical and legal expertise. When we read the report we see the expert group did that with a view to making recommendations to Government on how this matter should be properly addressed.

It is essential that we, in this House, address in depth the findings of that report and that we give political direction as to how to proceed.

We have reached a very sad situation where the lives of women were at risk down along the line. We have seen what has happened most recently with the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar. We will not know the full outcome until we receive the final report from the HSE and HIQA. Certainly a strong case has been presented that based on the words of her husband, Savita Halappanavar had been seeking a termination and that no termination was permitted. She had requested it on several occasions but was refused because there was still a foetal heartbeat. The termination only took place after the heartbeat had ceased. In the course of the contents of the womb being removed subsequently, she died, having contracted e-coli and septicaemia.

It was a terrible tragedy that reminds us of the tragedy of the X case 20 years ago where a girl of 14 was abused for two years and then raped. A case was taken in the High Court, which decided that she should not be allowed to travel for an abortion. That decision was overturned in the Supreme Court, which led to further referenda. The outcome of the three referenda that took place was conclusive in the minds of the people. Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution states: "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right." It established, as a right, the right to life of the mother and the right to life of the unborn also. The Supreme Court then interpreted that very carefully in the context of circumstances where there was a real and substantial threat to the life of the mother, which could only be removed by terminating the pregnancy.

Clearly the result of the referendum on which the people voted was that the State should introduce laws that would vindicate that right. It states in a straightforward manner: "guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right." Once the right was spelled out, it should have been compulsory on the State to introduce those laws, but that has not taken place over a very considerable period of time. It has not been addressed by this House or by any Government until now. It is a significant failing of this House not to address the matter of citizens having a right that was vindicated in the Constitution. We can no longer put it on the long finger.

When the matter was reviewed and attempts were made to limit it further by leaving suicide out of the equation, two further referenda enhanced the right by specifying the right to travel across the board and not for any particular purpose, but the right to travel to have a termination of a pregnancy in another country was the context in which it was debated. That is now part and parcel of Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution. That was supplemented by a further right to information, including information to a pregnant woman that could be used to facilitate the termination of a pregnancy. There was no provision for pregnancy termination in this country, but the right to information is written into the Constitution.

When Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution is read in its entirety, it cries out to the Legislature to introduce legislation to act on the right ensconced in the Constitution. It is telling us that the only meaningful option and the only option, as envisaged in the Constitution, is legislation because it states that the State shall guarantee "in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right". It is written in the Constitution.

There are four options before us in the expert report and they are addressed very carefully. They are that we could have regulation, guidelines, primary legislation, or primary legislation and regulation. It does not make sense to have guidelines unless they are statutory guidelines, which automatically means legislation. Likewise, it is not possible to have meaningful regulation unless it is statutory regulation. So there is no option other than having primary legislation or primary legislation plus regulation. The constitutional provision is crying out for us to introduce legislation. It would seem it is preferable to introduce primary legislation plus regulation which can deal with changing medical circumstances as medical and scientific developments in the area move on.

I state categorically that as far as I am concerned there is no other choice. We in this House have no choice but to be true to the Constitution, which means that we must legislate on the matter. The sooner we do so the better. The function of the committee, to which we should refer this matter after we finish our deliberations, should be to decide how to frame and formulate the best possible legislation to allow the right ensconced in the Constitution to be vindicated as proposed in Article 40.3.3°.

See this speech in context