Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left) | Oireachtas source

That is not what we are discussing, however. The Bill before the House is extremely narrow in scope and deals with the very limited circumstances. Aspects of this morning's debate have been marked by the most abstract, twilight zone-type aura. It is absolutely mad. A couple of weeks ago we tabled a proposal to repeal the eighth amendment and the people who voted against that proposal are now using the fact that the amendment in question has not been repealed to support their case. They state that the Bill is too limited and that we need to repeal the eighth amendment. That is the complete opposite of what they were arguing on the previous occasion. It is just not good enough.

The Bill deals with the narrow circumstances of fatal foetal abnormality. The Minister is absolutely correct to state that misdiagnoses are possible. Of course they are possible. That is why the families who find themselves in the circumstances to which reference has been made undergo two, three, four or even five tests. It is not going to be the case that a foetus which does not have a skull or a brain is going to proceed to become a championship footballer. The parents involved would will it to be so but it is not going to happen. That is the nub of the issue. The definition of being born alive has been discussed in the courts. It is not true to state that Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution only deals with circumstances where there is a threat to the life of the woman. That is not accurate. The judgment handed down by the High Court in the PP v. HSE prior to Christmas indicates that the article also deals with the right to life of the unborn and that the State has an obligation to defend that right as far as is practicable. Being practicable is not the same as what is possible. That has been the decision made in respect of a host of cases. The court specifically stated that it should not be a case of insisting that someone should continue with a pregnancy if it is an exercise in futility.

I did not state that people should go before the courts to have their private lives debated by barristers, etc. What I said was that those who put forward the argument that what is proposed is unconstitutional are wrong. They do not know whether it is unconstitutional. The only way to determine whether something is constitutional is if the High Court or the Supreme Court adjudicate on the relevant matter and deem it to be so. That is the reality. What the Minister is actually saying is that the current Attorney General believes it to be unconstitutional. Many other people, including the previous Attorney General, believe that she is wrong. Other former Attorneys General were proven wrong in respect of this matter, including the one who took the case against Miss X and lost. The reality is that we do not know whether it is unconstitutional. There is a provision - if the Government believes in the laws of the State - whereby this matter could be referred to the President and Council of State under Article 26 of the Constitution in order to have it adjudicated upon. Is there anything wrong with doing that? I do not believe so.

I am sick of hearing references to unconstitutionality, particularly as they appear to mean that we should just pack up our bags because we cannot do anything about particular matters. Declarations of unconstitutionality are regularly the subject of judicial reviews. What happens? Does the sky fall or does society stop working? Section 29 of the Offences Against the State Act, involving gardaí being allowed to issue search warrants in respect of their own investigations, was deemed unconstitutional in 2012. Did the world stop moving or was a national crisis provoked as a result? No. The provision was merely negated and gardaí were prevented from issuing their own search warrants. If we are right, then, as Deputy Wallace observed, we have an opportunity to alleviate the pressure and heartache that was experienced by people last week, that will be experienced by others today and that still be experienced by even more individuals next week. If we are wrong, then matters will remain the same and people who find themselves in the circumstances to which the legislation relates will not be able to avail of terminations. Unless we get to that stage, however, we cannot say whether that which is proposed is unconstitutional.

I am sick of what is happening. I have in my possession details of a litany of contributions made by over 50 Deputies in respect of this matter. In July 2013 the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, stated that "... it is my personal belief that they should be enabled to do so here in Ireland. I would like to believe that we, as legislators, would be able to reach a position - at some not-too-distant point in the future - when we can provide for this." The former Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, is on record as stating, "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". The views of Minister, Deputy Varadkar, are also on record, as are those of the current Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Fitzgerald, who referred to the twilight zone in which families in this country are left. Three Ministers of State, Deputies Nash, Ó Ríordáin and Kathleen Lynch also put their views on the record. In fact, practically the entire Cabinet has gone on record in respect of this matter. What has the Government done in respect of it, however? The answer is absolutely nothing. I am frankly sick of being told - on each occasion on which we raise matters - that action cannot be taken. If it is serious about this matter, what has the Government done? The statements to which I have just referred were made between two to three years ago.

It is an affront to me that 15 Labour Deputies published an open letter to the then Minister for Health, Deputy Reilly, in which they articulated many of the views we have just articulated in this debate. However, we face the prospect of their coming into the House on Tuesday next and voting against the legislation. I really hope that does not happen. It is very regrettable that Sinn Féin did not choose to deal with this matter at its party conference either last year or the year before. If it had dealt with it, then the party could have come around in respect of its position. In the context of Labour and Fine Gael, all I can say is "My God". When the legislation relating to the controversial eighth amendment was before the House, the Whip was not imposed and Deputies from Fine Gael and Labour were given a free vote. However, the Government will not consider allowing such a vote in respect of the Bill before the House. That fact is giving rise to a great deal of upset on the part of Deputies who are going to be obliged to vote against the Bill. I really do not care if they are upset, however, because I am more concerned about the people whose lives are being impacted upon by our lack of action in respect of this matter.

Deputy Boyd Barrett correctly stated that it is not possible to control nature. We are dealing with one of life's tragedies and although we cannot undo the damage that has been done, we can at least try to alleviate some of the problems that arise. Sadly, grief and loss are a part of everyday life for people. Bereavement is always difficult but what else would a civilised society do but try to rally around, support people and alleviate the burden that has been placed on them to the greatest degree possible. I do not know how long people are expected to listen to Deputies uttering platitudes in this House. They really are not interested in hearing such platitudes. The legislation before the House is long overdue and action is required. Between now and Tuesday next, the Government must reconsider its position and ask what would be wrong with passing the legislation. The answer to that question is nothing. There would be everything right about passing it because it would give relief to people who currently find themselves in the situation to which it relates. It would also lift the burden under which others have been placed, remove the stigma from them, ease their heartache and bring to an end the violation of their international human rights.

It is simply not good enough. People do not want excuses, they want action. I hope the Government will strongly reflect on that before Tuesday.

See this speech in context