Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am glad to have this opportunity to comment on the report of the expert group on the judgment of the A, B and C v. Ireland case. The reason we have this report at all is that Labour insisted on it being part of the programme for Government. For 20 years now, the Labour Party has been a strong, and often, a lone voice on the need to act on the judgment in the X case. The Labour Party has never been silent on this matter. I have the scars on my back from this debate. I am only too well aware that this issue was been with us for 20 years. This is the first Government that has decided we are going to deal with it. Six previous governments have, shamefully, in my opinion, neglected and failed to act on the 1992 Supreme Court judgment. As the Minister for Health has said on the record of the House, this Government will not be the seventh.

None of us needs reminding of the tragic circumstances that propelled this issue back into the national and international headlines. Savita Halappanavar's name has now become a sad chapter in Ireland's history. When Savita and her husband came to Ireland they did not plan on becoming household names. Their plans were simple, the same as every ordinary couple who work hard and plan to start a family and build their lives together. The appalling tragedy of her death has touched a nerve across the country. Along with other Members of this House, I have never previously received so many letters, e-mails and telephone calls on any one issue. Ordinary people are appalled that this could happen. I am sure all Members of the House experienced a similar response, often from people who had never previously contacted a Deputy.

For me and my colleagues in Labour it has without doubt highlighted the need to deal with the legacy of the failure to act on the judgment in the X case. While we still do not know the exact details of Savita Halappanavar's case, it has once again become starkly obvious that there is no clear guidance in this area. We do not yet know whether her life could have been saved, but it is clear that medical staff are being forced to work in a grey area. Staff in all our hospitals are forced to make life and death decisions every day. It is a fearsome and sobering responsibility, and it is only fair to those staff and to their patients that they are free to apply their expertise and make those critical decisions within a clear legal framework. Doctors and consultants should be able to act in the best interests of their patients without having to second-guess the outcome of a possible court case. They do not have the time nor should they have the responsibility to interpret the provisions of Bunreacht na hÉireann and make an informed, safe and, crucially, lawful decision on a medical dilemma that may face them.

The majority of the correspondence I have received has called for legislation, a view with which I concur. Legislating for the judgment of the X case has been a long-standing policy of the Labour Party. I have read the report in detail and nothing in it has changed my view that legislation is required. I was of that view at 16 years of age when this issue first came to public prominence, and little did I know at that stage that a full 20 years later I would be one of the people required to address this issue once and for all in this House.

As I said, the majority of the correspondence I have received has called for legislation, but it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge that I have also received correspondence expressing a different view and, by and large, that correspondence has been important to me. It is important we respect everybody's opinion. I know that this is a very difficult issue for some people and that their gut instinct is to shy away from any legislation which would allow for abortion even in the most limited circumstances. Equally I am sure that they would not in a million years wish to see a mother dying unnecessarily. Their fear, if I understand it correctly, is that any legislation could effectively lead to abortion on demand. I speak honestly in saying that this is a red herring.

Our Constitution as it stands now expressly forbids termination of pregnancy except when there is a direct threat to the life of the mother. That cannot be changed without a referendum carried by a majority of the people. I hold my own views on that and I believe that sometimes in very limited circumstances, a termination can be the least bad option available. However, they are views for another day.

Leaving aside the prospect of a referendum and returning to the Constitution as it stands now in the aftermath of the judgment in the X case, I believe we are confronted with one fundamental question. What constitutes a direct threat to the life of the mother? The only honest answer I can give to that is that I do not know. I am a politician, not a qualified medical practitioner. I cannot make those decisions nor should I be making them. However, what I can do and what I should be doing as a politician and a legislator in this House is to provide a clear legal framework to allow those who are qualified to make such decisions the autonomy to do so.

As we are all aware, Deputy Clare Daly recently introduced a Bill and, while I welcomed the debate it generated, I do not believe it was the finished article in terms of what is required now. The best and most appropriate place to draft legislation of the complexity required to address this issue fundamentally and definitively is in the Office of the Attorney General.

It should then be debated thoroughly in these Houses. I hope that this House will, after the engagement process outlined at the outset of this debate by the Minister and on publication of the report of the expert group, legislate to give effect to the X case ruling, having fully considered the implications of this report and the legislation tabled before us.

There is an infuriating tendency in this House and the political system in general to long-finger and prevaricate, hoping that complex issues of this nature might one day sort themselves out but we know that they do not. Politicians who are serious about their job should not live their lives by opinion polls but I would implore those who are uncomfortable with taking a stand on this issue to reflect on the views of the people. Last week's RedDC poll showed a huge majority, unimaginable in its scale just a short time ago, who were in favour of legislating for the X case.

Statements from experienced and familiar opponents in this area in recent weeks advising that we all must be subject to the "court of the conscience" in regard to this issue are offensive to me and offensive to the intelligence of members of this House. The court of somebody else's conscience should not be allowed to sentence any sick woman to be imprisoned in the narrow confines of his or her own minority views. If Members of Dáil Éireann are not prepared to uphold judgments of the Supreme Court and if the representatives of the Irish people choose to dispense with the mandate given to them in referenda by the Irish people directly then we should all reflect on our function here. I read today the statement from the Catholic bishops on their approach to this debate. I fully respect the right of the Catholic Church and leaders of other faiths to make their views known. That is their right and I will always defend that right but nobody in this House and Republic should feel compelled to be bound by it. The nature of these interventions reminds me of Talleyrand's remarks about the Bourbons and how they were doomed to learn nothing and forget nothing. No republic worth the name should impose one ideology over any other on the rights of women to safe health care and medical interventions, or on any other issue.

Today the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers expressed its concern regarding the situation of women who are of the opinion that their life may be at risk due to their pregnancy. It also invited the Irish authorities to take all necessary measures to implement the European Court of Human Rights ruling. The council's human rights commissioner is quoted on RTE News this evening as saying:

If you have a provision that grants this legal possibility - in very limited circumstances - then there has to be some way for people to actually access this possibility. If you have a court ruling - we're talking about the rule of law here - we are talking about implementing a court ruling, as well as providing this provision.

Today, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton spoke very eloquently at Dublin City University about the human rights challenges facing the world. She set out four pillars on which those human rights challenges can be addressed. She said the full vindication of women's rights across the globe represents what she termed "unfinished business". I urge Members here and the citizens of Ireland to closely consider those words shared with us in Dublin today and commit to definitively resolve this critical social and human rights issue once and for all.

See this speech in context