Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am concerned about this matter.

The second issue is the failure to publish the Attorney General's advice upon which members of the Government relied to buttress their views. This was done because of Article 28.4.3o, an amendment that was introduced by the people at the behest of a Fianna Fáil Government to ensure that discussions at Cabinet were confidential. There is a difference between discussions at Cabinet and memoranda prepared in advance of those. If the Government is going to rely on the advice of the Attorney General to kill off a Bill, the very least that should be done is to publish that advice to enable people to introduce legislation in future. It is particularly ironic that the advice, which could not be shown to backbenchers, subsequently appeared in Sunday newspapers in extracts. As a backbencher who supports this Government, which is sometimes confused with being in government, it is interesting to learn of deals after the event. I accept that a political deal was done in this regard, but I was not aware of it at the time. If it was done in my name, it was not done with my knowledge.

The price of this decision will be paid by couples and pregnant women in Ireland who receive diagnoses of fatal foetal abnormalities. What are they expected to do if we do not legislate? As argued in Strasbourg, they are expected to initiate an action in the High Court as soon as a diagnosis is confirmed and, if unsuccessful, pursue it to the Supreme Court to obtain a declaration that Article 40.3.3o of the Constitution allows a termination in their cases. Yet again, we will see a pregnant woman in distress surrounded by lawyers in courts rather than medics in an environment of medical care. There is an onus on this House to legislate where possible. As the Tánaiste outlined, legislating on a broader range of issues than fatal foetal abnormality, for example, rape, incest and the health as opposed to the life of a pregnant mother, as a basis for termination would require a referendum. However, it is conceivable, particularly given the Government's argument in Strasbourg, that it would be constitutional to legislate for fatal foetal abnormalities. There is an onus on the House to do exactly that.

See this speech in context