Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I support the Bill on a personal basis, although I fully understand the difficulties certain Deputies and Senators have in supporting it. Some people will argue that the Bill does not go far enough. When Deputy Clare Daly published her Private Members' Bill last year I stated that we would act responsibly by taking an approach that would not be divisive and would encourage an open debate to make life easy on Deputies who have strong views on this issue. I like to think we have avoided the partisan political debates that have previously taken place in this House and elsewhere over many years. In the 20 years I have been in the Oireachtas, this is the one issue that divides people not only within parties but also in wider society. We must be respectful of the strong and deeply held views people hold. Sometimes these views held on both sides are too extreme to allow for a calm and rational debate on the substantive issue of legislating for a constitutional right for women in this country under Article 40.3.3°, as interpreted in the X case in 1992.

It is important to put this debate in its historical context. Once Article 40.3.3° was enshrined in the Constitution it was inevitable that a court would have to decide how to vindicate the rights of the individuals concerned, namely, the pregnant woman and the life of the unborn. Since the X case in 1992 there has been a lacuna in legislating for what is now the constitutional right for a woman to have a lawful termination in the event of her life being at real and substantial risk. There were three referendums in 1992, in respect of which two amendments were passed by the people and one, on the substantive issue, rejected. A referendum was held in 2002 on another amendment which I supported. I consider myself pro-life in general. I do not like to stereotype people or to put them in boxes but I am pro-life in the sense that I believe we should do everything possible to vindicate the life of the unborn. It is something I hold personally dear. I am not a member of any organisation that espouses that view but as a Deputy I believe it is something we should do. It is the fundamental right of the unborn to be brought into this world. However, we face conflicting difficulties when we must provide for complicated medical procedures. I find it difficult to oppose this Bill because I would not like our clinicians and those who deal with this issue every day of the week to have their hands tied because there is not clarity or certainty in the law in terms of clear and definitive guidelines on when they can intervene to save the life of the woman without facing the prospect of a criminal sanction.

The various aspects of the Bill have been extensively discussed. I do not believe it will introduce a liberal abortion regime to this country because Article 40.3.3° and some of the sections contained in the Bill will not permit a move towards abortion on demand. It has been noted that when legislation was introduced in Britain in 1966 the outcome was more liberal than envisaged. That may be the case but there is no chance of a liberal abortion-on-demand regime creeping into this country in the context of our constitutional obligation as legislators to vindicate the life of the unborn. However, we also have an obligation on foot of the judgment in the X case to bring certainty and clarity to this area. The legislation goes no further than that.

I am sure the Minister will be open to discussion on amendments on Committee and Report Stages with a view to improving the Bill. Perhaps he also will be able to address the concerns of those who oppose it without undermining its substance and purpose. The committee hearings in January and April were useful in terms of dealing with my concerns and hearing from expert witnesses. The difficulty in hearing from expert witnesses who have strong views from both sides is that we were left with the task of adjudicating on their claims. We tried to find a middle ground but in the interest of fairness and avoiding partisan treatment we heard from various experts with strong pro-choice and pro-life views. I do not believe we would have reached consensus had we discussed the issue for the rest of our days. It is now up to the Legislature to find a consensus and this Bill offers a balanced approach to that objective.

I accept the Minister's assurance that in the event of the legislation being undermined, for whatever reason, we will move quickly to address it. Some people have asked for a sunset clause in the Bill. Perhaps there are political reasons as to why such a clause could not be included but I do not want to go down that road. We in this Chamber can amend legislation whenever we want. We can introduce Private Members' Bills or the Government can bring forward its own legislation. I do not believe this legislation is cast in stone forever and a day. If difficulties arise, it is incumbent on us as legislators to bring forward amendments. We are obliged to introduce legislation because of our duty to vindicate the right to life of the unborn.

On the broader issue, we must accept that some people take the view that the Bill does not go far enough. We should not make decisions on the basis of polls but recent polls indicate there are definite views on making provision for fatal foetal abnormalities, rape and incest. It is wrong to suggest that we could cover those areas in this legislation, however, because we cannot go beyond what is provided by the Constitution. However, people will raise these issues in the years to come. In trying to persuade as many people as possible to take the middle ground, it is not helpful to raise matters that go beyond the legislation. We must uphold the Constitution in our legislative activities, and this is why the Bill is clearly defined and narrow in focus. None the less, it will have an important outcome in bringing certainty and clarity to the clinicians who deliver children into the world and save the lives of women in the process.

We must also pay heed to our obligations as defined by the European Court of Justice in A, B and C. This was an interesting judgment in many ways because it was claimed by some who are fundamentally opposed to the Bill that it would incrementally introduce abortion into this country. All the judgment demanded was certainty with regard to when a woman could vindicate her constitutional right to a termination in the event of her life being at real and substantial risk.

The Oireachtas hearings were helpful to those of us who were trying to decide our position on the Bill.

They allowed us to tease out issues and, in some cases, expose the extreme views held by some on both sides. People on both sides are raising matters that either cannot be included in the Bill or were not proposed to be included in it. I welcome the mature debate the House is having on this issue because this debate has been anything but mature for the past 20 years. This issue has been used as a political football and in a distasteful manner for the purposes of garnering support and undermining others. If this Bill is passed substantially as drafted, it will, I hope, will bring to an end the unseemly saga we have had in this society for many years.

Two referendums have been held on removing the risk of self-destruction as a ground for a lawful termination and on both occasions citizens voted "No". While we can argue about the reasons they did so, the people were asked twice and answered "No" on both occasions. At some stage, we must accept the validity of the view expressed by the people when they were consulted. In 1992, they were asked to vote on three questions in a referendum. They voted "Yes" in the case of two questions and in the case of the third and substantive issue, they voted to reject the wording put forward at the time. To bring further clarity to the matter, we held a second referendum proposing to remove suicide as a ground for a termination. Again, the people voted "No" for many reasons. Some will argue that the proposal was rejected because the pro-life side believed it went too far and the pro-choice side believed it did not go far enough, resulting in both sides voting against the proposal. The political parties also became involved. For example, Fine Gael opposed the referendum, and this muddied the waters to a certain extent. Regardless of what arguments were made in the constituencies, the substantive issue was that the people told the Oireachtas to get on with the business of legislating in accordance with the Constitution and as laid down in the judgment on the X case. This is what the House is doing today, no more and no less.

The Fianna Fáil Party has had long discussions on the Bill, which we have studied in detail. I attended all the hearings of the Oireachtas joint committee and read the expert group's report numerous times. I expressed to party colleagues my belief that passing the legislation would not in any way undermine the right to life of the unborn. I genuinely believe the purpose of the Bill is to save lives, bring clarity to clinicians and give certainty to women that their constitutional right will be vindicated in the event that their life is at risk. The issue is not a woman's health but her life. I do not believe anybody could argue that we should place obstacles in the way of clinicians and obstetricians who must make very difficult decisions on whether they can intervene to terminate a pregnancy and save the life of a woman.

Greater clarity is needed on the issue of term limits, which is sometimes lost in the debate. People hold different views on term limits. When I was asked whether they should be included in the Bill, I stated it would not be possible to do so because doctors and clinicians could have to intervene at any stage in gestation to save the life of a woman. We cannot allow circumstances to arise where a woman's right to a lawful termination would be vindicated up to 22 weeks and no longer vindicated thereafter. I do not believe the Attorney General would have allowed the Minister to proceed with such a proposal. Nevertheless, the concerns expressed about this issue need to be addressed. In a case where an unborn child is on the cusp of viability and it is found that the woman's life can only be saved by a termination, we must ensure every effort will be made to sustain the life of the unborn for as long as possible in order that it is, where practicable, brought beyond the cusp of viability. Clarity is needed in this area, especially in the section on suicide and self-destruction. Many people have raised this issue. It should be addressed on Committee or Report Stage.

Where a woman's life is under threat of self-destruction, the Bill provides that she will go before a panel of an obstetrician and two psychiatrists who will make an assessment as to whether a termination is the only way to avert a real and substantial risk to the woman's life. Many Deputies on all sides are concerned that this should not become a box-ticking exercise. In such circumstances, the women should be given every assistance and support in making a decision. Counselling, therapy and support are critical to women who are suicidal. I ask the Minister to address this issue.

The suicidal ideation provisions are very restrictive. In such circumstances, the woman will be required to go before a panel to be assessed by an obstetrician and two psychiatrists, and in the event that the panel refuses her request for a termination, a review panel may consider the matter. In light of the number of tests to assess a woman's suicidal ideation, I do not believe many women will present on the suicidal ideation ground. The statistics provided to the Oireachtas hearings show it is highly unusual for women to be suicidal during pregnancy, although such cases sometimes arise.

I hope, when we consider the Bill in more detail, that Deputies will have an opportunity to tease out issues, discuss amendments and express views in a non-partisan manner. This could allay some concerns and persuade more people to support the legislation. Most concerns about the Bill are genuinely held. For some Deputies, it is a matter of conscience and they passionately believe the Bill undermines the right to life of the unborn. People have formed their view on the basis of their faith or a fundamental view of when life begins. I would not support the Bill if I believed it undermined the constitutional right of the unborn. Notwithstanding this constitutional right, most people would like every effort to be made to bring the unborn into this world.

Every year, 5,000 Irish women travel to Britain for terminations. We should not pretend this is not the case. We should show moderation in our use of language when discussing this issue to avoid offending others and be conscious of the need to avoid being judgmental about the 5,000 women who travel abroad for terminations each year. I do not want to make their decision any more difficult by using inflammatory language or making them feel bad. They are our mothers, aunts, sisters, daughters and neighbours. I feel very strongly that people should not use nasty, inflammatory language to try to vindicate an argument, because these women are living among us. We should not be judgmental and our language and tone should reflect the fact that at least 150,000 Irish women have travelled overseas for terminations in the past 30 years and they are among us. I welcome the fact that Members of the Oireachtas and people outside the House have, by and large, been responsible and moderate in the language they have used when expressing their views on this issue.

Having waited 30 years for this legislation, one would expect it to be substantial, but it is a short Bill. While I do not seek to take credit for it, the Bill had been largely drafted previously, although it now includes the threat of self-destruction on the basis that the people rejected the 2002 referendum.

There are many safeguards in the Bill. It is important there is confidence in the reporting of the figures and statistics but not in a way that we become obsessive at looking at every individual case where a termination may be carried out to save the life of the woman. However, if there are genuine concerns they should be addressed in a very quick and meaningful manner.

The Minister happens also to be a doctor but the Minister for Health may not always be a doctor. It is important that we look at that again.

See this speech in context