Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge the recognition by Deputy Nulty of the various strands of opinion in this debate and how it should be held in a sensible and humane manner. No one has a monopoly on concern for the life and health of women and the unborn. This debate has the potential to bring out the worst in us. Many people who purport to have an intellect can let their individual prejudice cut across a reasonable view. I do not like using the term pro-life or pro-choice. I have received many e-mails from, let us say, people who want to legislate for the X case and beyond. If I was to produce them, many of the 500 e-mails may amount to cyberbullying in the current climate. Politicians on all sides of the argument are subject to e-mails that have no place in a democratic society. Perhaps we should reproduce some so the public can see what a small minority on either side thinks.

I also have a document I am sure other Members received from Family Life:

There will be a massive and sustained programme of actions, some of which will be directed towards securing a referendum to remove the intended legislation, as well as those who support it. It is worth noting that in the 10 years since the 2002 referendum all those TDs who campaigned against that amendment have lost their seats.

I am not beholden to any group. I will listen to every group's views and these will be an influence but not a deciding factor. Most politicians legislate for the common good and what they believe is the right thing to do in the best interests of society. Many aspects inform their opinions, including personal views, the people they meet and experts in the area. There is not much expertise in this area from the medical profession in the House.

I refer to the case of Savita Halappanavar. Some 300 or 400 people who sent e-mails to me seem to know the details of how she died. I am not sure what happened in this sad and tragic case and my sympathies go to her family and her husband as they go through extreme difficulties. Some people dispute the figures on maternal mortality. Be that as it may, Ireland is one of the safest places in the world for a woman to go through pregnancy and have a child. The statistical information is one maternal fatality in 17,800 while the rate is one in 4,700 in Britain and one in 6,600 in France. While one can dispute the accuracy of the figures on the basis of the criteria used to establish them, it is important to acknowledge that our medical profession does an excellent job. It is unfair to send a message around the globe that Ireland is an unsafe place for pregnant women. It is one of the safest places in the world. I hope the independent inquest under the remit of the HSE and the HIQA report are published and brought into the public domain as soon as possible.

Speaking previously on the issue, I mentioned the sad and tragic death of Tania McCabe. An excellent report carried out by the HSE found she died from sepsis linked with haemorrhaging. Not many women die from sepsis during childbirth. In England, between 2006 and 2008, some 13 women died from the condition. One death is too many but it is important to acknowledge the HSE carried out the report without much controversy and did a good job.

The claim has been made that we are 20 years waiting to deal with this issue and that political cowardice is the reason behind it. I do not agree. In the period 1992 to 2002, efforts were made to bring some clarity to the issue. Despite two referendums, it was no clearer in 2003 than in 1992. It has been stagnant for the past ten years and part of it is due to the inability to find a solution in addition to the old Irish adage of leaving well enough alone. A hard and tragic case came up and now causes difficulty.

I cannot recall the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists or the Medical Council asking for clarity on the issue. Whether we legislate or do something else, there will always be a grey area. We will not be able to legislate to remove the grey area.

Regarding the report of the expert group, I refer to the commitment in the programme for Government:

We 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. We will establish an expert group to address this issue, drawing on appropriate medical and legal expertise with a view to making recommendations to Government on how this matter should be properly addressed.

This is a fair commitment in the programme for Government. It was not the same as the Fine Gael commitment before the election or a commitment to legislate for the X case, as per the Labour Party. Many of the promises made by parties prior to the election were superseded by the programme for Government. Some of the commitments in the programme for Government will not be adhered to. I am concerned that, when the terms of reference were drawn up for the expert group, the decision was made there and then. On 29 November 2011, a decision was made at Cabinet that we would go from A to B, without recourse to the House or the parliamentary parties that make up the Government. We always decry the irrelevance of the House and this is a case in which the House has been made irrelevant. We are debating an issue but the decision has been made and the only question is how we will go from A to B. Should we go via C, via D or both? The Minister read the terms of reference into the record.

The chairman stated: "The only brief the Minister gave this group was to deal with the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights judgment and to advise the Government on how to give effect to existing constitutional provisions". In other words, the terms of reference tied the hands of the expert group to coming up with a process for implementing the Supreme Court decision which interpreted the 1983 constitutional amendment and referred to the substantial risk to the life of the mother, including suicide. That is regrettable.

I am not sure if all the members of the Government are aware of this or if it was the Government's intention, but it is certainly the interpretation the chairman of the expert group put on the terms of reference. He also state, in his preface:

There are groups that think the X case was wrongly decided and there should be another referendum to row back on the right to an abortion, especially in the case of suicide. Two referendums tried to remove suicide as a ground and were defeated. There are still some advocates of another vote by the People.

The chairman does not pass judgment because that was not within his remit. It was my expectation, albeit due to misinterpretation by me, a lack of attention to detail or a misunderstanding of the terms of reference, that the expert group would give its views on the broad issue and how we would move forward on that. Despite the fact that we are having this debate, it is irrelevant if the Government adheres to the group's decision.

Of course, the Government does not have to accept all the recommendations of the expert group. It can decide to act on only one recommendation. It cannot implement all of them. Many review groups are established and governments often choose, for one reason or another, to ignore their recommendations.

I acknowledge that this is a difficult decision for Government. There is no easy way out. It is, nevertheless, important that we analyse it. When I say do not rush the cynics will say we have had 20 years to think about this. We have not debated this issue in the Dáil in ten years, however. It has not been discussed. At the time of the bank guarantee, there was a huge momentum towards guaranteeing the banks. Very few people questioned it. I accept that the Labour Party did not support the guarantee but it supported the nationalisation of banks, which was the same thing. I am sure you agree with me on that, Acting Chairman. Deputy Kieran O'Donnell questioned certain aspects of the guarantee but the momentum was to support it. There was a herd mentality. We are all familiar with it. It is easy to roll over before that mentality.

There is a large common ground of uncertainty on this issue. I am unsure about it. I do not have a monopoly of wisdom. I have a view, however, that the decision of the electorate in 1983 might not have been as the Supreme Court interpreted it. I was severely rebuked in an e-mail from a post-graduate law student for challenging the Supreme Court's interpretation of legislation. I was told it was not my role.

There were two referendums, in 1992 and 2002. The chairman of the expert group mentioned that the issue of suicide was voted upon on those occasions. I am not a spokesperson for the church and many church figures have let society down. Nevertheless, I remember Cardinal Connell and a number of bishops supporting a "No" vote in 1992. I do not think they were advocating for suicide to be used as a ground for termination or to intervene in a pregnancy.

I am uncertain of a few things. I am uncertain where the Irish people stand on the issue of suicide. I am conscious of the opinion polls carried out over the weekend. I am also conscious of the inaccuracy of opinion polls on social issues. We need look back no further than the children referendum campaign, when opinion polls predicted an 8:2 vote in favour of the amendments. Despite the fact that there was a very limited "No" campaign, the result of the referendum was a much closer 55% for the amendments and 45% against.

I do not take my lead from opinion polls on social issues. I do not even take my lead from the majority of people. I take my lead from what is the right thing to do. Trying to establish that is very difficult. We could have a referendum on the suicide issue tomorrow and if it were defeated people would still want it included as a ground. Many people might vote against it because they want to go a step further.

Irrespective of what the Government decides to do, I am of the view that the two extreme ends of this bell curve will not be satisfied. If legislation is brought forward with very tight controls on the suicide issue it may be challenged in the Supreme Court and overturned, and we may well have to have a referendum anyway. That is a danger and I do not know how it would go.

Dr. Alex Bourne was the gynaecologist who, in 1938, used the danger to the mental health of the mother as a defence for carrying out a termination. Many years later he changed his view. Ms Norma McCorvey, for whom the pseudonym Jane Roe was used in the case of Roe v. Wade in the United States Supreme Court in 1973, later changed her position. In reading the following I am conscious of the danger of scaremongering. I remember at the time of the mobile telephone masts it was put to us that one would not want to be walking behind coffins going down the road. It is, however, important to read this because it shows the complexity of the issue. I do not want to say, in a number of years, that I felt it was not right but I let it go through because that was how the flow was going, that I did not stand up and express my view, that I did not take a stand and that I should have done so because what I did was wrong. This is a concern for me and for many others like me. It is important to acknowledge that.

This is, to the best of my knowledge, a correct statement by Ms Norma McCorvey. If others want to verify or refute it that is fair enough:

It was my pseudonym, Jane Roe, which had been used to create the "right" to abortion out of legal thin air. But Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee never told me that what I was signing would allow women to come up to me 15, 20 years later and say, "Thank you for allowing me to have my five or six abortions. Without you, it would not have been possible". Sarah never mentioned women using abortions as a form of birth control. We talked about truly desperate and needy women, not women already wearing maternity clothes.

I do not want to sensationalise this issue, but it is important to realise that Ms, McCorvey sought a judicial review to overturn the decision in her own case some time in the mid-1990s. She failed in her attempt to do so.

People on all sides of the argument have concerns. I recognise the bona fides and difficulties of everyone involved in the debate and for women, many of whom claim men do not have a right to talk on this issue because we have not experienced birth and the difficulties associated with it.

I am also concerned that we lack medical and clinical statistics on the issue of suicide. How many pregnant women commit suicide as a result of their pregnancy? How many go on to have terminations and commit suicide afterwards? Is that statistical information available? It would be important for the Minister for Health or the Minister for Justice and Equality to come to the House before the end of the debate and outline those details.

I thank you, Acting Chairman, for allowing me to speak. I acknowledge the difficulties this issue presents for people. It is important that we do what we believe is right and in the common good.

See this speech in context