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

I was only three years short of being able to vote in 1983. All of this indicates that there is a large swathe of people who have never had an opportunity to cast an opinion on this issue. It should be borne in mind that it is primarily women of childbearing age who are most affected, yet they have never had an opportunity to cast their view.

Since being appointed Fianna Fáil's spokesperson on health, I have been grappling with this issue. We debated it in the context of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act. I sat on the committee chaired by now Senator Buttimer that formulated that debate. It was insightful because that was the first time that we as an Oireachtas tried to deal with the issue in a non-political way, recognising that it was socially divisive and people had strong feelings on it.

My leader, Deputy Micheál Martin, subsequently allowed us a free vote - a vote of conscience. Some parties have followed us in that while others have not. That is entirely their entitlement. It is not for me to say whether they should or should not. Since being appointed health spokesperson, I have tried to take the political element out of this issue, given that it has been charged for a long time and has occasionally been used by political parties of all persuasions and none. We have gone beyond that now. Our society is mature enough to have a respectful, incisive and decisive debate on this issue, with the people ultimately deciding.

I also sat on the joint Oireachtas committee. I pay tribute to the Citizens' Assembly, chaired by Ms Justice Mary Laffoy, who outlined the assembly's workings and the reasoning behind its conclusions and recommendations. Our committee was charged by the Oireachtas to examine those recommendations and reach our own determinations.

The committee did not reach a unanimous view. Rather, there was a majority view and a dissenting view, with varying views even within those. I respect every one of those views. If we are to allow the people the space to grapple with this issue, we in this Chamber must equally acknowledge that people have deeply held views - morally, ethically and even religiously.

That aside, my personal or political discomfort is nothing compared with the discomfort caused to women every day of the week who are grappling with crisis or unwanted pregnancies or the devastating news of fatal foetal abnormalities. We must be conscious of that.

The Minister outlined that 170,000 plus women had left this State for terminations. We have been exporting our problem for a long time. It is our duty to address this issue. With the best will in the world, and although people have varying opinions on this, we cannot do anything other than what we have legislated for already unless we repeal, amend or replace Article 40.3.3°. We have to change what is in our Constitution. That will be the first step towards addressing this issue.

It would be easy for me and others contributing in this debate to keep our heads down and hope that the issue goes away but, as a generation of politicians, we have to deal with it. We have to give the people an opportunity to express their opinion in light of the fact that the last time they had such an opportunity was in 1983. Ireland has fundamentally changed in many respects since then, as outlined by the Minister. It has changed most in how women have become more assertive. They now have an opportunity to put themselves at the heart of this debate, which is primarily about women's rights and health care and about giving them equal opportunity in the Republic. We cannot have a situation in which a woman becomes a second-class citizen upon becoming pregnant. We must understand that that is no longer acceptable.

People have asked me how the committee arrived at our recommendations. The Citizens' Assembly made 13 recommendations, the most fundamental one being that there should be a change to Article 40.3.3°. The assembly outlined three options. The committee's majority recommendation was for a repeal simpliciter, that is, the article should just be removed from the Constitution, and for the Houses of the Oireachtas to be allowed to legislate for what was primarily a health care issue for women. There were varying views on that in the legal advice that the committee sought and was given. I am sure that different advice may even be given to the Government by the Attorney General. What I do know, however, is that if we continue allowing Article 40.3.3° to be the bulwark for dealing with this issue, the status quowill prevail. Every night, four or five women will self-administer abortion pills at home and ten women will get on planes every day to fly abroad. We as a Parliament will have to live with that if we fail to grasp this issue.

We must show political leadership by having a debate that is respectful of every view that will be expressed in this Chamber and then allowing the people to make their decision based on the full information. I urge everyone involved not only to respect one another's views, but to engage in the debate so that the question can be decided one way or the other.

I have expressed my view that there must be a repeal simpliciteror a variation of same that removes Article 40.3.3° from the Constitution. I am open to a new constitutional article giving the Oireachtas the supreme authority to legislate on this issue. I would take on board the Attorney General's opinion and that of others. However, we must be honest with people. If Article 40.3.3° is replaced or repealed, the Legislature will govern from then on, but we cannot guarantee anything. We could publish legislation in advance of this referendum campaign that would give people guidance as to what the likely outcome would be, but if the Oireachtas is to legislate in the event of a repeal, then it will be the Oireachtas that will decide, not necessarily this one either, but possibly a changed Oireachtas following a general election. All we can do is be honest with people about what we believe the Oireachtas in its current composition would pass in the event of a repeal.

I urge people to examine the committee's recommendations and consider why we came to those determinations. They are more conservative than the recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly. For example, the assembly referred to a 22 week gestational period whereas we are calling for a 12 week period in the majority of cases. It would be a matter for the clinicians and the woman with a view to her health and life.

Many people have stated their desire to address the issue of fatal foetal abnormalities. I have a friend whose wife received a diagnosis of a fatal foetal abnormality. They wanted to have this child. They kicked the sand up and down Garryvoe beach for weeks on end because of that diagnosis wondering what they would do. Would she continue with the pregnancy or would she have it terminated? They spent weeks deciding. If they decided to terminate the pregnancy, given that there could have been no survival outside of the womb, the only difficulty would have been that they would have had to go abroad. They made the decision to go abroad. It was inhumane that our country could force this on our citizens. They decided to terminate the pregnancy because they felt that they could not go through with it in light of the prognosis of certain death ex utero, so the idea that we would ask people like them to FedEx their little baby back home to Ireland is inhumane. For that reason, the recommendations in the report are critical to this debate.

The issue of rape and incest is one about which a lot of people speak. Even people with quite conservative views in this area will say the issue of incest and rape should be addressed. All the empirical legal evidence we have shows that it would be impossible for us to legislate on the ground of rape. We have to trust the integrity and honesty of women. Are we to put people who have been subjected to a vile act through another inquisition to find out and determine whether they have been raped in advance of having a termination? If we are to have restrictions in this area, these are the things that will actually have to happen. That is why, in the context of the recommendations of the committee, we also looked at the 12-week limit and decided that it should be a matter for the woman and her clinician to determine the reasons for a termination within that period. That would also address the issue of incest and rape in the vast majority of cases in that we would not need to have an inquisition of women to establish whether they were telling the truth. I firmly believe we should trust women in this context and that we have a duty to ensure they have the space, with their clinicians, to make the best decision for themselves and the lives they are living.

The Minister spoke about the age profile of those travelling abroad for a termination. I have received several emails from people which, to say the least, I find quite alarming. I am alarmed that there are people in our society who think this way because in their emails they are effectively saying the women who travel abroad are just using abortion as another form of contraception. I find that grossly offensive. I do not know of any woman who will get onto an aeroplane lightly and head to Liverpool, Birmingham or Holland for a termination of a pregnancy. I know women who have had terminations, an issue with which they grappled before they made their final decision. That it is just another form of contraception is a grotesque, offensive view of women.

As my party has allowed members a free vote, I am speaking in a personal capacity. I am speaking as a Fianna Fáil Deputy but in a personal capacity and as a representative of the people of Cork North Central. I leave my personal and political views outside the door when I speak about these issues because I have listened to the evidence given at the committee, heard the personal testimonies about what people had to endure and spoken to individual constituents who brought to my attention the challenges they faced when they received the devastating news of a fatal foetal abnormality or, in some cases, a foetal abnormality and the decisions they had to make. Space should be given in this debate. If we expect the people to behave in a manner that allows respect for varying views, the very least we should do is expect the same from each other in this House. If we are to lead by example in any way, we must allow space for varying views to be expressed.

Committee members held varying views on the issues before it, but majority views were expressed in a number of areas. The Citizens' Assembly made recommendations to allow a termination for various reasons, the first of which was a real and substantial physical risk to the life of the woman. Reason No. 2 was a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman by suicide. Reason No. 3 was a serious risk to the health of the woman. Reason No. 4 was a serious risk to the mental health of the woman. Reason No. 5 was a serious risk to the health of the woman. Reason No. 6 was a risk to the physical health of the woman. Reason No. 7 was a risk to the mental health of the woman. Reason No. 8 was a risk to the health of the woman. Reason No. 9 was pregnancy as a result of rape.

As a committee, we concurred, by and large, with the recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly. However, we deviated from some of its recommendations, primarily in the area of disability. We were very clear that disability should not be a ground for a termination. Let us be honest - people make decisions and choices. Are we to adjudicate on and be judgmental about the decisions they make? Who are we to judge a person who has just received the most devastating news that the baby she is carrying has a profound disability or will die ex-utero? The committee stated, however, that after a period of 12 weeks, disability would not be a ground for a legal termination. That was the strongly held view of a lot of committee members, even those who had quite open views on this issue. It was not the case that the committee was a slave to the Citizens' Assembly. It deliberated on every one of the recommendations and came to its own conclusions and diverged in certain areas.

I fervently hope the Government can keep to its timetable and that we can have the substantive issue of the repeal of Article 40.3.3^odealt with by the summer. Publishing the scheme of a Bill in that timeframe will require a lot of resources. We must be honest when we are talking about legislation, people having concerns about a 12-week limit, foetal anomalies, fatal foetal anomalies, incest and rape and so forth and point out that nothing can be done unless we remove Article 40.3.3^ofrom the Constitution. All the talk about what might or could happen is only relevant in the event that Article 40.3.3^ois removed and the only ones who can remove it are the people. My vote has the same value as that of any person outside the House. It will be the citizens who will decide. Our duty, first and foremost, is to facilitate the holding of a referendum and establish the commission to observe that it is fair and impartial. Political parties and individuals must ensure, at the very least, that they are honest and upfront, whatever view they hold, and that we will all be respectful of each other. As someone who will be 50 years old next Saturday, I do not want to preside over the continuation of the current situation, knowing that next year, the year after and the year after thousands of Irish girls and women will board aeroplanes to seek health care in other countries or climb the stairs to their bedroom with an abortion pill because the State has failed them.

See this speech in context