Alex White (Dublin South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

-----that the risk of loss of life includes a risk of suicide? That is just a plain, incontrovertible, undeniable fact that could not possibly not be conceded by the Attorney General, unless anyone here is seriously arguing that a person at risk of death from suicide is not at risk of death. This argument sometimes gets extended to a really absurd level because, quite clearly, a risk of death from suicide is a risk of death. That is what was conceded. It is not an absurd premise at all; it is an absolutely undeniable one. That is why it does not seem to me to be remotely stateable that the X case is to be set aside in some way because of anything that was found in the Attorney General v. Ryan's Car Hire Limited.

I am struck by the number of times honesty has been raised in the debate. Deputies Shortall and Keaveney did it. The motivation of people is questioned, as is whether people have a conscience. Conscience seems, in some people's minds, to exist only on one side of the argument. All Members, on both sides of the argument, agree that people approach this debate honestly. We owe it to one another not to attribute dishonesty to one another in the manner in which we approach this difficult issue. Deputy Shortall said it would have been more honest for the Government to legislate for termination in the case of fatal foetal abnormality - and she mentioned rape and incest - than to do what we are doing. It is not possible under the Constitution to do so, for the reasons clearly set out by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, which we have heard over and over. Deputy Clare Daly's Bill did not do so.

Returning to the honesty issue, we are attacked for not doing something that everyone knows we cannot do. I welcomed Deputy Clare Daly's intervention in this matter. Colleagues on this side looked at me askance when I said that Deputy Daly's introduction of a Bill was a very honest intervention at the time. We did not accept the Bill, as we did not think it was adequate; we thought there were problems with it and we said we would do it ourselves, which is what we have done. People come back a few months later and throw at us the question of why we have not done things that she did not do in her Bill. She did not include these additional circumstances in her Bill because she could not do so for the same reason we cannot. She looked at the Constitution when drafting her Bill, which is what we did. It is no different on either side.

I hesitate to make this point, but I reject out of hand the notion that we are dishonest or disingenuous. The Minister for Justice and Equality said towards the end of his contribution that we were carefully and expertly advised by the Attorney General and that we understand the implications of the Constitution and the importance of upholding the terms of the Constitution in anything we do. We have different views and I share the view that there are circumstances in which the Irish people may well consider revisiting Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution in a referendum. Members should not try to persuade the people that it can be done simply by putting it down on a piece of paper and telling the Government it is dishonest by not doing so. That is disingenuous. Let us all be honest with one another and not ascribe dishonesty to others when the position is quite clear.

It was suggested that on Committee Stage we did not deal with the implications for doctors for doctors' legal liability. We dealt with it carefully on Committee Stage and we said that, as best we could describe the law, if doctors and medical practitioners act within the law and the scope of the Bill, no liability is attached to them. There is a general legal context in respect of the requirements on doctors and the standards of their profession. These are well-known principles of medical negligence that doctors understand and must uphold.

With regard to gestational limits, the test is whether there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother that can only be averted by a termination. If people who want to set a gestational limit pick a certain limit, such as 22 weeks, the clear implication is that the test of a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother that can only be averted by termination disappears beyond that limit. The test must give way. That is not the law; it is not what the Supreme Court said or what the Constitution means. The test is whether there can be a real and substantial risk that can only be averted by termination, and the test applies at all stages. There must be a question of honesty and people must understand the position. Some people do understand that but may want to argue otherwise.

See this speech in context