Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 91:

In page 11, lines 21 and 22, to delete ", in addition to appointing medical practitioners duly identified by it for appointment to the review panel,".

Amendments Nos. 91 and 94 deal with issues discussed on Committee Stage. The legislation as currently drafted puts the cart before the horse. The Minister is requesting that the HSE make up a list of at least ten medical practitioners from which to choose three members of the review panel and take nominees from the various medical professional organisations and colleges. The HSE would choose from its initial list of ten and may or may not choose from the nominees provided by the various professional organisations. The Minister has quoted ad nauseam witness evidence from the various colleges and he has lent great credence to this evidence, yet he is not prepared to put the nominees on the panel and supplement it with additional staff or medical personnel he requires from the executive nominee process. I hope the Minister will give recognition to the nominees of the various training colleges, as per his comments.

My amendments Nos. 106 and 118 arise from debate on Committee Stage.

These are very much in the interest of the unfortunate woman who has to go before a review panel to get her decision reviewed. It must be borne in mind that this is a woman who under this legislation faces a threat to her life. She feels that her life is in danger and some of the doctors, including her own GP, may also believe that, but she cannot get the certificate from both obstetricians or from the two psychiatrists and the obstetrician to proceed with the termination and she is now appealing to the review panel. It is important to remember that the woman has an illness, whether it be mental or physical. In those circumstances, she may have to travel to meet the three consultants on the review panel. All three consultants must examine the woman, but under the legislation the woman may have to travel to facilitate that examination. It makes more sense to insist that the consultants sit in their cars and travel to examine the woman as close to her home or to her preferred location as possible rather than at the consultants' preferred location.

The Minister will argue that this is the intention behind the legislation and I fully accept he expects that ethos to apply. However, currently, the State cannot get consultants to travel to do outpatient clinics within their own catchment areas, never mind to carry out a review along these lines. This is a basic amendment to ensure consultants will travel and attend to the women concerned rather than the other way around, and I hope the Minister can accept that.

I refer amendment No. 118. Deputy Durkan is probably the House expert on the social welfare appeals office. He attends oral hearings on a weekly basis to advocate on behalf of claimants who are seeking to vindicate their right to a social welfare entitlement. The reason the Deputy and other Members attend such hearings is to ensure the best case is made and to advocate along with the applicant in their favour. However, under this legislation, an ill woman who believes her life is in jeopardy will be asked to appear before three consultants with no right to bring an advocate with her. I am seeking the insertion of the phrase "and/or" in order that the woman can attend the review panel with an advocate, whether that is her GP, her spouse or whoever. The legislation does not provide for that. It will be at the discretion of the panel members whether they allow her to have an advocate with her. It makes sense to provide for this in the legislation, as it is similar to the provision under social welfare legislation under which clients have a legal right to bring an advocate with them to their oral hearing. Surely in regard to something as crucial and important as this legislation, which the Government says is intended to protect women's lives, the woman should have a legal right to have someone advocate on her behalf. I had hoped the Minster would table an amendment to facilitate that and I am disappointed he has not, but I hope he can accept this amendment. It is a simple amendment, which gives a basic right to a woman to have someone sit beside her to give her encouragement, even if it is only moral encouragement, when she faces three consultants on the review panel.

See this speech in context