Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I wish to share time with Deputy Fiona O'Loughlin.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on an issue that has been discussed in the House on numerous occasions, sometimes in a very confrontational manner. In recent times, the tone, manner and language used in debates on this issue have changed in a positive way.

The Bill proposes the simple deletion of Article 43.3.3° and many people believe this is the correct approach to the issue. Let us be clear, however, deletion of the article would leave a serious challenge in terms of what would be the role of clinicians and what support we would put in place across the broader legal framework. Simply deleting the article without giving consideration to the legislative underpinning that would be required could have many implications.

Views on this issue in the Fianna Fáil Party vary, as they do in the Oireachtas generally and in broader society. It is incumbent on everyone to try to advocate his or her position in a meaningful way, while understanding that there are deeply held views and convictions on all sides. I have stated on previous occasions that we must revisit Article 43.3.3°, which has a chilling effect on clinicians and forces many women to travel abroad. Many people in the centre take a very compassionate view of circumstances involving fatal foetal abnormalities, incest and rape. Let us be under no illusions, however. Strong views are held on either side of the argument, with some people advocating a more liberal regime and others contending that termination of pregnancies should not take place under any circumstances. Several years ago, for example, during the debates on the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill, some Members expressed the view that there should not be any termination of pregnancy, even where the life, as opposed to the health, of the mother was at risk. There are people who hold that view. We must move to a position in which there is no longer a chill effect on clinicians and they are able to take clinical decisions in the best interests of the woman independently and without fear. Neither the clinician nor the women involved must fear prosecution. We must arrive at a position where there is no chill effect on people who deal in a medical context with the issue of the life and health of a woman.

Simple narratives do not make for great debate. In the context of the repeal of Article 43.3.3°, I did not have an opportunity to vote on the eighth amendment in 1983. Nevertheless, we cannot dismiss the fact that the amendment was inserted into the Constitution by Irish people and that they will ultimately arbitrate on the matter again at some stage. I have no doubt that a referendum will be held on the issue in the near future. The key point is whether it will be a simple question of deleting Article 43.3.3° and, if so, whether such a proposal would secure the support of the majority of the people. While one should not legislate or make decisions based on opinion polls, there is a middle ground in this argument which would be supportive of moving to address, in a compassionate manner, circumstances involving fatal foetal abnormalities, incest and rape, as well as the freedom to make clinical interventions in the context of the health and life of the mother. This is critically important.

Beyond this, some people are certain that a proposal involving the simple deletion of Article 43.3.3° would be carried. I am not sure that is the case because many people would be concerned that to do so would effectively entrust the Legislature with introducing legislation to underpin certain views and beliefs on this particular issue. The question is whether Irish people would be willing to trust Parliament to introduce the legislation that would have to follow if Article 43.3.3° were deleted without having any knowledge of what form that legislation would take. I have made this point on a number of occasions and I have also supported in this House Bills aimed at addressing the eighth amendment.

I was not enamoured of the decision to establish the Citizens' Assembly. We should have established some form of commission to examine the legal, ethical and moral issues surrounding this issue and to report quickly to the Dáil. We could then have held an Oireachtas hearing and made a final decision on what proposal, if any, would be put to the people. While the Citizens' Assembly established by the Dáil and Seanad is not the best roadmap for addressing and teasing out all the issues, it is the process that is in place. Regardless of whether I, Deputy Coppinger or others like it, we must deal with the reality. Ms Justice Laffoy and 99 citizens will listen to the differing views on the matter and produce a report which will, I assume, be made available to an Oireachtas committee to adjudicate on its recommendations. The Dáil and Seanad will then make a decision on the matter. We cannot circumvent the reality that the Oireachtas will ultimately decide what type of referendum, if any, will be put to the people. We must achieve a consensus in broader society and the Oireachtas. This requires that we articulate and explain our respective viewpoints and convince others of their merits. The idea that one can dismiss those who have different views does not lead to a healthy debate.

On 8 May 2015, I spoke on Deputy Coppinger's previous Bill on this issue. The tone and language of the debate in broader society demonstrate a greater understanding of the various positions taken on this issue. As the Minister for Health noted, people have bravely told their stories about the impact of having to travel abroad for terminations has had on them. In the area of fatal foetal abnormalities in particular, we have heard harrowing stories about families having to make very difficult decisions. That they have subsequently found there is no support available in their own country to help them through the trauma is repugnant. This area must be addressed quickly. People will argue that the Citizens' Assembly is a pathway to prevarication but I hope that will not be the case. If it reaches some form of consensus that ultimately brings the House together in terms of making a decision, that would be welcome.

Reference was made to the referendum on marriage equality. Let us be honest, until recently many people believed a referendum on marriage equality could not pass. Certain Deputies and parties expressed strong views on the issue. While the Fianna Fáil Party called for the issue to be addressed, it certainly helped that there was discourse and debate on the issue and that respect was shown for differing views on it. One hears sarcastic remarks about middle Ireland, the centre holding and so forth but a consensus was reached and middle Ireland was happy to support the marriage equality referendum.

I am definite that if it had been left to the extremes on both sides, without there having been a platform or a pathway for middle Ireland to be heard, we could have had a very different outcome. I think it shows a certain maturity as to how we bring about movement on very difficult social issues.

Overall, as I said previously, I have not definitively made up my mind on how I will vote on this Bill. I want to see a referendum and want to see the issue addressed but, at the same time, I believe much of the time these Bills are coming before the Dáil when we know we have a process that should be able to shape broader debate in this House in the coming months, when the Citizens' Assembly reports. I do not think it is doing the broader debate a service when it is introduced primarily to embarrass some people. We have to be conscious that it sometimes is used for political debate rather than for public debate and ensuring there is proper discourse and understanding on the matter.

With regard to clinicians, when one speaks to medical experts such as obstetricians and gynaecologists, there is no doubt there is still a chilling effect. The fact we have legislation on the Statute Book that only allows for interventions to save the life of the woman is extreme. While the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act was a move in the direction of addressing that issue, it has not addressed it fully and fundamentally. We must accept there is a need for a genuine look at Article 40.3.3° and the eighth amendment in the context of clinical outcomes and interventions and of making sure we have clear guidelines and do not tie medical decisions based on a chill factor or a fear factor. Most of the time we trust our clinicians and, on this issue, we should trust them, the woman and the family to make the decisions.

There is another area of which we must be conscious. If we are to move to where some of us would like to be, where we actually consult the public in the context of a referendum and have a broad debate, one could argue we would probably need a number of options to be discussed in terms of what is possible and feasible. As I said previously, if it is just a deletion without any consideration being given to what is beyond that, we could end up in a situation where the public simply would not support it and we would be back to square one. I do not believe we should make this judgment without having done a detailed analysis of the findings of the Citizens' Assembly. We should then bring that into an Oireachtas committee and have swift hearings. We have to make a decision on this and cannot prevaricate any longer.

Reference was made on a number of occasions to the fact this issue has been ignored for many years. Nonetheless, we had referendums on it on a number of occasions and it was rejected as recently as 2002. As far as I can recollect, it was rejected by the extremes on both sides, in that those who were fundamentally opposed to abortion objected to it, as did those who were very much pro-choice, and the middle ground lost out. We are now in situation where it is again being debated.

I suggest to the proposers of the Bill and, equally, to the Government that we do not prevaricate and do not use the Citizens' Assembly as a method of stringing out this debate. When this comes back to the Oireachtas, there should be swift hearings on it so we can come to an informed decision in this Chamber and in the Seanad in the context of giving many of the people who are most affected by Article 40.3.3° a choice in voting on this issue. I believe the younger generations have an entitlement to and are fully justified in having a say on this issue in the short term. I hope we come to the right decisions that will allow that debate.

If we are to move on this, we should move by trying to bring as many people with us as possible. I believe there is a middle ground in Ireland that wants to deal with issues such as the health of the mother, the life of the mother, the issue of incest and rape, and fatal foetal abnormalities. If we can move to that type of position, I believe there will be broad support. However, if it becomes divisive on both sides, we could be in a situation where the public are unsure and may not be willing to support changes to Article 40.3.3°.

See this speech in context