Paul Connaughton (Galway East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. Few subjects in Irish public discourse are as sensitive as the subject of abortion, which is the focus of the report of the expert group. Views are polarised on both sides and no solution will ever be found that will satisfy the demand of these polar opposites. However, it is worth noting that the tone of the current debate is much more reasoned than the previous debates on the topic. This debate has been led by those in the centre as opposed to the extreme views held on either side, which is most welcome, as it will allow the important issues to be teased out in a reasoned manner.

At the outset, I state that I have no particular medical or legal expertise or background. As a Member of the Dáil and a representative for Galway East I believe it is important that we all have an opportunity to explain our views on the matter. I would always have considered myself to be pro-life. However, I do not believe in having to fall within the narrow parameters of being either pro-life or pro-choice, which obscures rather than illuminates the issues. I have no issue with or concern over providing legal clarity for doctors dealing with a mother whose life is at risk, which is the minimum for which we should be providing.

One other thing about this that always comes up when one moves on from that is the issue of suicide. To bring that up then means one needs to have much more expertise on that matter. Even having sat in this Chamber for the past hour and heard many different people's opinions and experiences on that, it is not easy to make a decision on it. I heard Deputy Neville, Deputy Twomey and some of the other Deputies who spoke on this. That is why it will be important in January to hear what the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children comes up with and what the legal experts say on the matter.

It has been two decades since the Supreme Court made its decision in the X case and 2013 should not pass without the Government putting the legislation on the Statute Book to provide clarity for doctors dealing with the complex medical issues involved.

The report of the expert group is an important document as it brings forth the views of experts in the fields of obstetrics, psychiatry, general practice, law and public policy and was chaired by a High Court judge. It considers the A, B and C v. Ireland judgment in the European Court of Human Rights and puts forward various courses of action. The case was brought to the court three years ago by three women who alleged a breach of their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of abortion in Ireland. All three had unintentionally become pregnant and travelled to the UK for abortions. The judgment in that case found that the Constitution is not inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights and accepted the Supreme Court interpretation of the X case, which found that it is lawful to terminate a pregnancy in Ireland if it is established as matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life as distinct from the health of the mother which can only be avoided by a termination of the pregnancy. The European Court of Human Rights found there had been no violation of rights under the convention in terms of Ms A and Ms B but in respect of the third applicant found that Ireland had failed to respect the applicant's private life as it has no procedure for her to establish whether she qualified for a lawful termination of pregnancy in accordance with Irish law.

This is the nub of the difficulty which now faces the State. The court ruled that no procedures had been laid down in Irish law which can measure or determine risk and this has led to uncertainty. It stated that further legal clarity was required. This further legal clarity must be provided and can and will be provided by this Government, but I do not accept that the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights means that Ireland must legislate to introduce a much more liberal abortion regime. Ireland has signed and ratified the European Convention on Human Rights and thus is under a legal obligation to implement the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, an obligation that successive Governments have sidestepped because it was not politically expedient to do so.

However, the issue can no longer be sidestepped, particularly in the wake of the death of Savita Halappanavar in Galway University Hospital. Savita presented in hospital 17 weeks into her pregnancy and was miscarrying her baby. She died later of blood poisoning after enduring days of pain and her treatment is the subject of multiple inquiries. It is important to let those inquiries report before making any further judgment. Savita's death has promoted a debate which has often centred on the limits facing doctors operating in a legal fog unsure of the ramifications of their actions. What the debate should have focused on was the limits facing women presenting to hospitals in such difficulties and their rights in terms of treatment.

The report of the expert group which is before us was in train before Savita's tragic death but her death has brought home to people on all sides of the debate the human tragedies that lie behind all the legal terminology. Successive governments may have shied away from this emotive, controversial and difficult subject but when the highest court in the land has recommended that clarity is needed and the European Court of Human Rights has echoed that call, we as legislators must recognise that and deal with the problem presented to us.

See this speech in context