John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this legislation. It is fair to say that the whole area of abortion, and all topics concerning it, has been the most controversial issue in Irish politics for the duration of my lifetime. In the 14 years since I have been an elected representative, there has been a huge volume of correspondence - either electronic, written or by telephone - on this issue. I am sure that all other Deputies have had the same experience.

In recent months this topic has come up for discussion among individuals, families and communities. In the course of that time I have had the opportunity to speak to a number of women who have expressed differing views on the subject. I have spoken to those who are strongly opposed to abortion as well as women who have travelled to the United Kingdom for abortions. I have also spoken to women who have had terminations in this country to save their lives, which is already provided for under the existing guidelines. I have even found stories from my own extended family of women who have been affected by this issue. There is scarcely a family in the country that has not been affected.

I must confess that I am not a particularly religious person and I approach this matter as somebody who believes in a republic of rights. I addressed this matter in my previous contribution a number of months ago when we had an opportunity for statements in the House. I believe fundamentally that the right to life is the right from which all others that we possess flow. It is the duty of the Government to vindicate that right. I hold that position very sincerely.

I am conscious of the fact that the Government is caught in a triangle of different legal judgments, including Article 40.3.3^o of the Constitution, the X case judgment and the A, B and C v. Ireland judgment from the European Court of Human Rights. It is in that context that this legislation is being framed.

I had the opportunity to attend all six days of the Oireachtas committee hearings that took place in January and May.

It would be fair to say that from the evidence provided, medical and legal, opinion at those hearings was divided. Noteworthy at the hearings in May was the contradiction between the opinions expressed by the two masters of maternity hospitals in Dublin in regard to section 9 of the Bill which deals with the issue of suicidal intent. I will return to that issue later.

The view expressed by one of the medical experts at the hearings in May that if all other medical treatments are refused she would have no option under the terms of this legislation but to sign off on a termination sent a shiver down my spine. That is the fear of many people in terms of what is being proposed. I hope the Minister will be able to address it in his comments later. I am not one who holds to the view that this legislation will open up the floodgates. However, I do believe it potentially poses a significant change in attitude in Ireland to the issue of protection of the life of unborn children. I hope the Minister can allay some of my fears in his contribution.

I have been struck by the number of speakers, in particular from the Government side, who have continually stated that the Government is bound to legislate on this matter. The Government is not legally bound to legislate on this matter. There is a legal requirement under the A, B an C judgment for clarity in the law. That clarity can be brought about through legislation or regulation. I wish Government speakers would not continually state that there is a legally binding requirement on the Government to legislate. That is not true. We should have a truthful discussion. In fairness, most of what I have heard in this House thus far has been truthful.

I have a question for the Minister in relation to the "X" judgment in particular. The suicide ground in the "X" judgment was conceded by the Attorney General and was not contested in the case. Therefore, psychiatric evidence was not heard. This means this particular aspect of the judgment is binding merely on its own facts and is not a binding precedent. That is the legal reality. I have not heard anybody address this issue. Perhaps if the opportunity arises the Minister will address it.

In terms of my primary concerns, I expressed support from an early stage for the opinion voiced by Deputy Creed that a sunset clause or similar mechanism be included in the legislation. I note that the Minister has provided for a review mechanism in section 15. I believe that mechanism should be strengthened and that Deputy Creed's suggestion of a sunset clause, whereby the legislation would be revisited, is not unreasonable and should be considered by the Minister.

Section 9 deals with the risk of loss of life from suicide. There is no doubt but that suicide is a real issue. No more than other people in this Chamber, I have been affected by it. We all know something about it. However, the concern of many people that the provisions in this regard as set down in section 9 are not robust enough have not yet been adequately addressed. Given the evidence presented at the hearings in January and May was that the best clinical practice did not indicate that termination was the best option for a woman expressing suicidal thoughts, this needs to be reflected in the legislation. I do not see that reflected in the wording of section 9 as currently drafted.

I am also concerned about the failure of the Bill to provide a mechanism for vindication of the legal rights of the unborn, as mentioned earlier by a number of contributors, including the Minister of State, Deputy Creighton. Although it may be a somewhat abstract legal argument, under Article 40.3.3o legal protection is afforded to the life of the unborn yet this legislation does not provide a mechanism for vindication of that protection. I believe it should. I hope the Minister will be in a position to address this on Committee or Report Stage.

I am also concerned about the issue of "term limits". I want to put on record that I fully support sections 7 and 8 which deal with medical emergencies. Where a procedure has to be carried out to save a woman's life, it must be carried out. I fully support the provision in legislation of freedom for doctors to do what they have to do. That is right and proper. Effectively, the legislation without spelling out "term limits" implies them. I understand that the Minister might not be in a position to specify a particular number of weeks in the legislation. However, it should be more prescriptive than currently drafted because it, on a de facto basis, outlines-----

See this speech in context