Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I was about to make the point last night that the argument about suicide and the defence being made for its inclusion in the legislation is based on the Supreme Court judgment in the X case, that we must act on that judgment because this is now the interpretation of the Constitution and we cannot introduce legislation which contravenes the Constitution. Law is not always logical. Usually the problem arises with historic law, not with new law.

I remind Members of the controversy in this House and in committee in 2009 on the issue of blasphemy. Members will recall that blasphemy is specifically provided for in the Constitution. Bizarrely, since the adoption of the Constitution in 1937, it took until 1961 for such a law to be introduced. In 2009 the issue was debated in the House when the then Minister for Justice said:

As regards the offence of blasphemous libel, I believe we would all agree that the optimal approach and certainly the one that I would probably find most preferable would be to abolish it altogether.

The Minister argued that his hands were tied, that he had no option but to introduce legislation to provide for blasphemy because it was specifically referenced in the Constitution. Yet, when that legislation was first published and brought before the House by the former Attorney General, Michael McDowell, it did not include a provision on blasphemy.

Subsequently, the legislation was pursued by the late Minister, Brian Lenihan, who did not include a provision on blasphemy either. It was Mr. Dermot Ahern, his successor, who put forward an amendment. During the Committee Stage debate on the provision, there was a very interesting discussion. Deputy Charles Flanagan, Jim O'Keeffe and I contributed, as Fine Gael Members, as did Deputy Rabbitte of the Labour Party and Deputy Ó Snodaigh of Sinn Féin to argue cogently that we should not introduce a law on blasphemy notwithstanding the reference to it in the Constitution. It was proposed instead that the Constitution should be amended at the first available opportunity. It was indicated that we would not be in contravention of the Constitution if we indicated that it was our intention to amend and clarify it at the first available opportunity. It is interesting to look at the contributions. Deputy Charles Flanagan made the point that we were placing on the Statute Book an amendment laced with subjectivity which would be difficult to enforce. He said it was impractical and would create even more problems. The same argument applies to the issue of suicide, which is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. It figures in the debate on foot of an interpretation by the Supreme Court as to what the Constitution actually means. Where there was a specific provision in the Constitution, a coherent argument was made by Members who are now on the Government benches that it should not be legislated for but rather that we should amend the Constitution to remove an unworkable, impractical provision.

The suicide provision in the Bill is impractical, unworkable and full of subjectivity. I have articulated some of my concerns already. A further concern is that it is impossible to disprove suicidal ideation. Professor Veronica O'Keane, who gave evidence to the joint committee on two occasions, made the coherent argument that if a woman states that she is suicidal, a practitioner has no option but to believe her. There is no way to disprove the claim. I do not believe that women would make false claims, but there is no medical way to assess that whatsoever. I spoke to a psychiatrist during the week who pointed to an electrician who was rewiring a socket and said "That man over there is equally qualified and capable of making the determination in relation to suicidal ideation as someone like me with years of experience". Specifically in relation to suicidal ideation, it is impossible to make the determination. There is no medical assessment available.

It is disingenuous of the Government to talk about implementing the X case judgment. It should be crystal clear. Rather than introduce an Irish solution to an Irish problem, it should be straightforward and honest about stating it wants to provide for a limited form of abortion in this country. In fairness to the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, she has made her position quite clear on that up to now. In fairness to the vast majority of the members of the Labour Party, that is their position and view.

See this speech in context