Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for the time to outline my thoughts on Second Stage of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013. As an elected Deputy for Fine Gael affiliated with the Christian democratic movement and representing the people of Meath West, I have a privileged duty to serve the needs of all my constituents while also to legislate on behalf of the people as the nation. People who know me and those familiar with my track record as an elected politician at local and national level will see how I try to take into consideration every detail set before me and how I do my best honestly to achieve what is right, possible and due within the laws and institutions provided by our Constitution and the apparatus of the State.

I do this, as always, conscious that I have been very blessed in life with the strong foundation and support of my family and community. I am proud of my Catholic faith and in my life as a young adult I hope that I have wholeheartedly put the needs of others before my personal concerns. For that reason and many more, I have found the legislation which this Dáil has inherited from the referenda passed by the people of the Republic a difficult task to consider. However, I accept it is required on foot of the Supreme Court judgment and a number of referenda, most recently in 2002.

The past nine months have been difficult in terms of trying to get one’s head around the issue, to read into it fully and to get everyone’s position in order to make the correct decision. I thank the many people who took the time to write, e-mail or telephone me on the issue. I sincerely thank those who met me in Leinster House, my constituency office in Navan or in their homes during the past nine months. I appreciate that people consciously took time out from their busy lives to share with me their views on the Bill and the wider abortion issue. The conversations I had with the majority of people were constructive. We had good debates, and on the whole we could finish with a handshake in the knowledge that a respectful understanding of views was shared. In many cases people were offered meetings at 11 p.m. at or 8 a.m. in order to squeeze them in. The fact that no matter what time I suggested, people turned up, is an indication of how serious they considered the issue and how important it was for them to get their views across. I respect and accept their position. The majority of written correspondence I received was sent in good faith and I did not get the abuse referred to by others. There will always be e-mails where all one can do is press the delete button. That is what I did with e-mails that went beyond rational debate. It is as simple as that.

I am pleased the Bill restates the general prohibition on abortion in Ireland. While I have concerns with certain detail of the Bill as it stands, I take solace from the fact that the thrust of the Bill is to save lives - that of the mother and of the unborn. The majority of people who came to me are of a similar view in that they are pro-life or anti-abortion. I have grown up with the belief that it is a fundamental right of the unborn to be brought into this world and that everything possible to vindicate the life of the unborn must be carried out. Sadly, that is not always possible due to the risk of the loss of life of the woman.

The Constitution provides for, and we have a duty to legislate for, complicated medical scenarios. There must be clarity and certainty in the law with respect to the clear and definitive guidelines on when clinicians can intervene to save the life of a woman. I understand that the purpose of the Bill is to provide clarity, following the X case judgment and subsequent referenda, on the circumstances where a medical termination is permissible in cases where there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as opposed to the health, of a woman as a result of a pregnancy.

The proposed legislation should be strictly within the parameters of the Constitution and Supreme Court judgment in the X case. The Bill is meant to only cover existing constitutional rights. The Minister for Health, who is present, and the Taoiseach have informed the House that this Bill does not create any new rights, nor should it, despite some individual Members of the House wishing for that to be so. Individual Members have spoken of their desire that in the future, the legislation would go further. It will not and cannot. The Bill only deals with the Constitution as it stands today, which is what we should be discussing. We must focus on that debate and not muddy the waters with anything else.

The general scheme of the Bill is based on a number of important principles, two of which require greater clarity and explanation in the wording of the Bill and to be clearly set out in the regulations arising from the legislation. From discussions with the Minister, among others, I accept that it is not always possible to get into the Bill itself every word we would like to be included. Where that is not possible, it must be done by regulation to provide further clarity or definitions. Not all of us are doctors and have signed up to the ethical guidelines under which they operate. We often wish to see matters outlined more clearly or in more detail, but I accept a balance must be struck between what can be put into legislation and what can be in regulations. What is important is to get across the principles of what we are trying to achieve.

The two key principles at stake are, one, that the equal right to life of the unborn will be upheld and the obligation on the medical profession will be to save both lives where possible, and two, that medical termination of pregnancy can only be legally permitted in situations where the doctors involved in the assessment process have unanimously certified that it is the only treatment that will save the woman’s life by averting the real and substantial risk to her life. The decision must be unanimous, not two out of three or one out of three. All three must agree. These principles cannot be stated too often and must be as clear as possible.

Amendments may also be needed in order that the monitoring and control of these principles in practice are upheld. This is very important and I note many people have proposed all kinds of changes and amendments. On Committee Stage, any amendments that would help to tighten up this measure and make it more clear, as well as making reporting on and monitoring of the practice of the legislation must be very clear in intent. Such amendments must be accepted on Committee Stage, if possible, if so doing helps the thrust of the legislation to guarantee what the Bill is intended to achieve.

Sections 7, 8 and 9 deal with the three scenarios that probably concern people in this regard and on which people mainly focus. Section 9 is probably the measure that is of greatest concern to everyone. In discussions with most people I have met, there now is an acceptance of the provisions of sections 7 and 8, that is, when there is a risk of life to the woman arising from physical illness and where there is a risk in an emergency. During the debate on this issue, an acceptance has emerged that greater clarity is needed in this regard, that this can only be done through regulations and that such regulations require underlining legislation. This is the reason Members are debating this Bill today. Consequently, over the past year, the provisions of sections 7 and 8 have become acceptable to most people I have met although there always will be a few who will never accept even those two sections. However, the issue that of most concern with the people I represent and meet is section 9.

This section is of concern to me and I refer in the first instance to the actual principle of the inclusion of the risk of suicide. However, I accept this already is a right in the Constitution and while I might not like it, I accept it is there. It has been put to the people a number of times and on each occasion they have voted to keep this right. In the words of the submission made by Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness during the second round of committee meetings, the transcripts of which I read through in their entirety, "The removal of this ground for termination of pregnancy would require a further referendum”. She went on to state, "This constitutional position has been conceded, however reluctantly, by the more rational and legally aware representatives of anti-abortion groups". I consider myself to be one of those people who is rational and legally aware and consequently recognise that this right already is in the Constitution. I have no problem with other groups who have a particular argument to make or who do not like a certain section of this Bill. However, I ask that everyone agree on the current position in respect of the Constitution and what is actually in it, in order that one can have a proper, rational debate around this issue. The Constitution does not always reflect everything one would like but one should accept what is there. I believe Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness brought great clarity to precisely what is in the Constitution. Moreover, in his opening statement, the Minister also referred to the current situation in respect of what are people's rights. While the practice might be different, I refer to what is in the Constitution.

While the aforementioned principle is one part of it, the second major concern is that in allowing for this principle or when trying to put into practice this constitutional right, the legislation could unintentionally open floodgates or be open to abuse. This is probably the major concern most people have brought to my attention. I refer to the genuine fear that were this legislation to be drafted wrongly or were a word to be tweaked or were something to happen, it would open up, and therefore lead to, an increased delivery or number of terminations that would take place. People do not want that and the people who I meet, talk to and represent do not desire it. While they voted in referendums in a certain way to allow for the risk to a woman, to a mother, they do not want that to be abused. This is my interpretation of what people say to me and what I am trying to represent. Members have a duty to keep this legislation tight.

From talking this through with the Minister at various meetings, I believe the intent is to keep this right and to make sure it reflects the X case. There must be a guarantee this will happen, therefore, whatever is required on Committee and Report Stages must be done to ensure this. The procedures as set out in this Bill should be sufficiently rigorous to ensure that very few cases will be dealt with under this section. The Bill is meant to reflect the X case and hence, its practical implications should be very restrictive in nature. Both Committee Stage and the regulations to be introduced offer a chance to tighten this up. I have great faith in the medical profession, which has in place certain codes of ethics. Obstetricians do all they can to protect the unborn and to ensure the babies are brought to a point at which there is a chance they can survive outside the womb. That is what they do by nature and one must ensure the legislation allows for that and states this is what is sought. The best place to point this out probably is in the regulations.

All Members have concerns and views about the gestation period and the lack of detail thereon in this Bill. I am told there are constitutional reasons for its non-inclusion but perhaps the regulations are a suitable place to include and deal with this issue because it would go against the very nature, education and training of obstetricians and so on in the case of the unborn being at 25, 26 or 27 weeks, as a few more weeks could make a major difference in this regard. In its present form the Bill allows for the termination of pregnancy but the associated guidelines should point to an expectation, where at all possible, that the treatment given to the mother both for physical illness or even in respect of the risk of suicide should be such where the baby can be born and kept alive outside of the womb, ideally at 30 or 32 week or so on. There are some difficult timeframes involved in this issue that must be addressed and discussed further. Efforts must be made through regulation to point out clearly there is an expectation at all times that the life of the unborn will be protected.

While I would like to go on a little further-----

See this speech in context