Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State referred to Deputy Kelleher's intervention, in which he pointed out that one was giving a right and taking it away. He and the Minister of State are absolutely right about that. The Minister, however, is possibly guilty of doing the same thing himself in the way that he has framed this legislation. We have already made the point about the obstacles being put in the way of women's accessing abortion because of the onerous terms under which they can get it in cases of suicidal intent, requiring three doctors, three on a review panel and so on. That gives the right and takes it away. Nobody is going to avail of that. Nobody is going to go through that system, they are going to go to England.

This legislation could at least clarify the situation in cases such as the Savita case where clearly there was hesitation and uncertainty. That is the point of the Bill. We need to give that certainty. This Bill would achieve something if it achieved that. The Minister of State cites a difference of opinion in the Supreme Court in the discussion between the two judgments. I am not aware of the one to which he referred but he said it was a response to somebody else who believed-----

I do not know why the Minister of State is shaking his head. I will just repeat the point, the test that was put down in the Supreme Court was that the real and substantial risk did not have to be immediate or inevitable. That was put in to clarify what a real and substantial risk is. That is why it was said. It was to clarify the risk. It was necessary to clarify it because it was unclear and that is the point. Words are slippery. The Minister of State knows that as a lawyer and we need clarification - it is not funny.

See this speech in context