Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I know something of this issue. I have been a Member of this House on every occasion on which it has been discussed during the past 30 years. I know it is a difficult and sensitive issue for Members on all sides. I do not believe I am revealing any secrets when I say that when we first dealt with this issue in 1983, I expressed the view that the measure which it was proposed to include in our Constitution and which became Article 40.3.3o thereof was deeply flawed and misconceived. During the debate on the 1983 amendment, I detailed for the House many of the flaws it contained. I was criticised and vilified for doing so. Unfortunately, many of the predictions I made with regard to how it might be interpreted, what might be its effects, the impact it might have on women and the steps the State might be obliged to take at a later stage, proved to be correct.

It has not yet been noticed - particularly in this debate - that this year marks the 30th anniversary of the adoption, by referendum of the people, of Article 40.3.3o. The discussions in which we have been engaging in recent weeks to some extent replicates those which took place in this Parliament 30 years ago. The amendment adopted in 1983 was the product of a campaign by individuals and groups who were intolerant of the views of others and who targeted for opprobrium those who did not adopt their groupthink. Unfortunately, a similar approach has been adopted in recent weeks by some of those - I emphasise that it is only some - opposed to this Bill.

I appreciate that some of my friends and colleagues in Fine Gael face a dilemma in respect of the legislation. I have lived through 30 years of referenda, discussions and debates on this issue, within both my party and this Chamber and outside. It is important that we should treat each others views with understanding and respect. Those of us in Fine Gael are all part of one family. It is important that we should tease out issues in a manner that is constructive, realistic and based on fact. The facts are important. It has been suggested that this Bill liberalises the law on abortion. That is not the case and it is a gross distortion to suggest otherwise. The Bill simply reflects the current law and provides the necessary legislative structure. The current law is contained in Article 40.3.3o, which, as stated, has been with us for 30 years and which was articulated by the Supreme Court 21 years ago in respect of the X case. The position has not changed in 21 years.

The Bill is not, by any means, a liberal law. It is highly restrictive and its central theme is respect for the right to life of both women and the unborn. It involves providing the legislative structure required by the courts, including the European Court of Human Rights, to ensure members of the medical profession and pregnant women know the procedures applicable where intervention is required to save the life of a pregnant woman. The Bill has nothing to do with China, the United States or any other of the jurisdictions that have been mentioned during the debate. I regard it as extraordinary that anyone could suggest any relationship between the single baby policy in China or intentional gender-based abortions and this Bill. It is also not only unfortunate, but also alarmist and inaccurate to relate this restrictive measure to the creation of designer babies or the termination of a pregnancy where the prognosis gives rise to the possibility of a child suffering intellectual disability. I had hoped this type of hyperbole would not feature in our discussions.

This is not a measure in which compulsory terminations or abortions are prescribed, nor is it a measure for abortion by simple choice on demand. It would be almost impossible to draft a more restrictive and careful law than that before the House. This is a measure to prescribe a considered structure which provides clarity and certainty and to implement a law that has been in place for 30 years and a Supreme Court application of that law which is over 21 years old. That is an important aspect to remember during the course of the debate. We are not changing the law in any shape or form. The measure before the House is consistent with constitutional principles articulated by our Supreme Court not only in 1992, but applied then and since in practice in various cases that have come before our courts. It will also, for the first time, result in Members of this House fulfilling their obligations, as legislators, and not continuing to abandon their role to the courts as has been the case for 30 years. Had we adopted a measure of this nature some years ago, perhaps Savita Halappavavar, whose life was tragically lost in October 2012, would still be alive.

We have a very good system in the context of providing maternity care and protecting the safety of women and children. However, there are occasions on which that system tragically fails us. If a failure does take place, it is crucial that we should address any legal infirmity which could contribute to its occurring or which has placed at risk the life of a mother or resulted in a loss of life. I am proud to be a part of a Government that is facing up to its responsibilities in this area.

Some of those who have contributed to the debate referred to the 4,000 to 5,000 Irish women who effect terminations in the UK each year. However, those women have remained strangely absent from the contributions of a number of Deputies. It is the facility for them to seek such terminations in the UK which has enabled this House to fail to pass legislation of the type now before it in the past. Irish women will continue to effect terminations elsewhere and this is a point we should not ignore. Over 100,000 such terminations, involving women who identified themselves as having travelled to the UK from the Republic of Ireland, are known to have occurred since 1983.

Who knows how many others did not give a Republic of Ireland address? What will continue and will remain is a British solution to what is an Irish problem.

As Minister for Justice and Equality I am personally deeply troubled by the fact that where there is a real and substantial risk to the health of a man, there is no barrier to needed intervention but where there is a real and substantial risk to the health of a pregnant woman, posed by a pregnancy, there is a barrier to needed intervention until the risk escalates to being a risk to life. I recognise there is nothing this Parliament or nothing the Government can do today to address this within the current architecture of our Constitution. The Bill does not and cannot touch this area and there is no Government intention to do so, but we must not ever fail to recognise the difficulty and the complexity.

I also recognise the profound value of protecting the life of the unborn. Like all Members of the House, I am pro-life but that should not obscure the reality or the complexity in addressing this issue nor should we assume identifying when a risk to health graduates to being a risk to life is always easy. This is a burden that falls on the shoulders of the medical profession. That is why they are entitled to a legal architecture or structure that facilitates their addressing such issues.

The tragic consequence of a wrong medical judgment are all too clear, recent and raw in the death of Savita Halappanavar. It is important when addressing this issue that everything is not seen in shades of black and white. Life is much more complex than that. When it comes to protecting the life of pregnant women and protecting the life of the unborn, sadly life is very complex and on occasions there are shades of grey and decisions have to be made to protect individuals' lives.

I have heard the suggestion that there should be some form of legal protection for the foetus. In the context of sections 6 and 7, it has been acknowledged that all that is required is a medical decision as to whether there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother and an appropriate architecture is prescribed in the legislation for that purpose. Apparently it has been suggested that the issue of legal representation arises because of provisions in section 9 which deal with the issue of the risk to life arising from suicide.

Psychiatrists are the individuals provided for in the legislation. A minimum of two must agree together with an obstetrician and it is their decision as to whether in such circumstances a termination is required. Presumably part of the discussion would be the extent to which it is practical to manage and support a pregnant woman who appears suicidal to facilitate in so far as possible the delivery of her unborn baby. We trust psychiatrists to make decisions across a broad range of psychiatric issues - they are dealing on a daily basis with individuals who may claim to be suicidal or they may believe, from their engagement with them, to be suicidal. Why should it be said they cannot be trusted in this area? Are we to have solicitors and barristers as part of the consultative process? Are solicitors and barristers to be a permanent part of our hospital procedures? I do not believe that is either right or appropriate. This is a medical or psychiatric issue, not a legal assessment. It has been part of our law, since the X case 21 years ago, that intervention can occur in these circumstances. The Bill does not extend the existing law. It merely provides a better protection to ensure the issue of suicide if anyone was to try to use it dishonestly cannot be so used.

Those opposed to addressing this issue have missed one vital point. It is worth recording that the X case involved a 14 year old raped young girl who was suicidal. The assessment in that case that she was suicidal was based upon the considered judgment of one single psychologist. Nobody has suggested that psychologist in that case gave false evidence. It remains our law should the Bill not be enacted that an assessment by a single psychologist or a single psychiatrist could facilitate a termination taking place. When the Bill is enacted one will require the united opinion of two psychiatrists and an obstetrician.

Some have said and have used the phraseology that "abortion is not a treatment for suicidal ideation or intent" . Of course it is not a treatment for suicidal ideation but if a woman or a teenage girl truly has a suicidal intent and there is a real and substantial risk to her life, which is clearly identified by two psychiatrists, if a pregnancy is not terminated, how can anyone argue we should take a chance on whether she ends her life or not? Is it appropriate to make that a gamble? Who in this House would wish that for his or her own daughter or niece or grand-niece or grand-daughter? Situations in which this can arise are not difficult to imagine.

A young teenage girl in the X case was the victim of rape. There are other young teenage girls who are victims of rape or incest and young girls pregnant with babies with a fatal foetal abnormality. That is an issue we cannot address of itself. However, if she was suicidal who would take the chance with their daughter? We take the threat of suicide with great seriousness and too many of our young people have ended their lives in this way. We have a responsibility as a Government and a Legislature to address this issue in the Bill and the Supreme Court judgment in the X case requires that we do so. If we fail to do so, this Bill would be unconstitutional and it would not meet our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

There are, of course, many people outside the House who believe that legislation in this area should go further. Legislation in this area cannot go further under the current constitutional parameters. There are many who believe that a woman who is a victim of rape and becomes pregnant, whether suicidal or not, should be entitled to terminate a pregnancy. There are many who believe that if a woman is pregnant and there is a fatal foetal abnormality which results in there being no realistic prospect of the child surviving outside the womb, that the woman should not be compelled to maintain that pregnancy. There are many who believe that to so compel her is an appalling cruelty. These are not issues that can be addressed within the legislation nor does the Government have any intention to address those issues by way of the holding of a further referendum. On a personal level, I believe it is a terrible cruelty to require a woman to carry a child who has a fatal foetal abnormality to full term. We will continue to have women in this country who address that difficulty by taking the trip to the United Kingdom. As a State we are abandoning them in their hour of need and leaving it to others to address that issue.

I wish to refer to another issue that has been raised. There are posters in this city and I presume elsewhere about full-term abortions. Does anyone actually know what they are talking about? Is anyone suggesting that if a woman is eight or nine months pregnant that there will be an abortion that terminates the life of the unborn? I reiterate, it has been our law, certainly since the X case for 21 years and going back 30 years to the constitutional amendment, that if there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother that a pregnancy can be terminated. However, if there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother when a pregnancy is substantially advanced, it is not a termination that the medical profession engages in, it is a delivery. Babies are delivered early throughout this country where medical difficulties arise.

Everything possible is done by the medical profession to protect the lives of those babies.

A very close friend of mine had a baby delivered at 30 weeks when she suffered a major health difficulty that put her life at risk. Late-term abortions and posters depicting them have no truth or reality and they are merely designed to scare and create problems for people who may not fully understand the manner in which the medical profession operates. It is a form of absolutism that gave us the 1983 amendment in the first place.

I understand that individual Deputies have genuine and conflicting views, and I also understand that some of my good friends and colleagues have genuine and conflicting views. In so far as it is believed that this Bill is changing the law, those people are incorrect. In the context of those who consider the provisions relating to suicide as open to abuse, the reality is that the absence of any legislation - such as the Bill currently before the House - gives rise to greater risk of abuse than its enactment, which provides a very careful and simple architecture designed to ensure that no abuse occurs. The suggestion that numbers of Irish women will pretend to be suicidal in order to terminate pregnancy is a slur on the women of Ireland. Irish women who become pregnant are concerned for the health and well-being of their baby and themselves, and none who I know would pretend to be suicidal in order to effect a termination. I know some people believe this is a possibility but what is being missed by some expressing concern about this Bill is that it will put in place protection that does not currently exist within the law as delineated and detailed by the Supreme Court.

I am conscious that this issue always seems to be divisive. We have had a very careful, considered debate in this House, with people expressing genuine views and concerns. I appreciate that outside the House there is very substantial support for the legislation before the House. The overwhelming majority of Irish people are way ahead of us as politicians, and the overwhelming majority of Irish people believe it time for us to deal maturely with the issue and live up to our legislative responsibilities by enacting the type of legislation that is the Bill we are discussing today.

I regret that a small number of people outside the House are campaigning in a manner that is thoughtless, insensitive and despicable. I recall that on two occasions I had individuals - some young people of whom I would expect more - outside my house, carrying a major poster depicting a very bloodied foetus. One of these demonstrations occurred at 8 a.m., when young children were going to school and young mothers were taking them. That was an appalling way for those people to conduct themselves.

See this speech in context