John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I will be sharing time with colleagues, if that is okay.

When I was preparing to come in here to speak on this issue, I found it difficult - as did Deputy Jonathan O'Brien, to whose contribution I listened - to put on paper and then deliver a pre-written speech. It is something to which many Members of this House will have given serious consideration before they have come in here. I was taken by the Deputy's contribution.

This issue has been debated for two weeks in my parliamentary party. Having seen the work of the committee, I was taken with the contributions of the members of my party who attended that committee and the work they put in. It was extensive in terms of time, but also in terms of the preparation, the consultation and the feedback they gave the party.

As Deputy Kelleher stated, the report of the all-party committee on the eighth amendment was not unanimous; it was a majority report. When one looks through the report on the various issues on which they voted, the votes varied. There was a divergence of views on some issues.

It is important to acknowledge the manner in which they conducted themselves. In his contribution, Deputy Kelly spoke of respect and dignity and, on looking in on the proceedings of that committee, that was in evidence. To my colleagues on this side of the House and all colleagues who participated, I commend the work in which they have been involved.

I want to make reference in particular to my party leader, Deputy Micheál Martin, because in some regards his actions have changed the way in which this debate is taking place. By that, I specifically mean that for quite some time, Deputy Martin has afforded members of our party a free vote on matters of conscience and that needs to be acknowledged. As I stated at our parliamentary party meeting last night, with that freedom of conscience and that vote that goes with it, there is a responsibility on all of us to clearly understand the issues, to read the reports, to engage and to ensure that we understand why we are making the decisions we are making and that we have clarity of thought. That is why, despite media interest ringing round asking different members what way they would or would not vote, some of us decided that was not the time or place to make decisions. We decided that it was incumbent on all of us who had a responsibility to make a decision to make it following due process, having taken the time to read the report, having discussed it with colleagues and having listened clearly on it. For me, the opportunity to do that is in this House.

The committee, in its majority report, is clear in its finding. I suppose the two findings that have dominated and set the scene are clearly the repeal and the recommendation that the law should be amended to permit termination of pregnancy with no restriction as to reason up to 12 weeks. Many of us have listened and have looked at the detail. We have listened and we have seen correspondence, both to the committee and to many of us directly, regarding traumatic situations women have gone through in the past and are going through today as we speak, and I am mindful and conscious of that. It is in that context that we read the report.

However, from my standing - this is my personal position - I have read the report, which has constantly addressed the issues that face those women but I still come back to the point that the issue of an abortion or termination is still of a life. I am not able to turn away from that and the protection that was offered in the Constitution to recognise that life or to remove that from the Constitution, leaving the Constitution silent or mute on the issue of the protection of a child and a life. I have striven with this for quite a while to make sure that I was clear in my own mind. I am aware that all of us who will contribute to this debate come with our own life experiences. That is what informs our opinion - how we have been brought up, who we have met, what has happened to us. All our own life experiences feed into it but from my point of view, it is difficult to see a situation where a protection that currently exists in the Constitution is to be withdrawn and that the life of the unborn child is to be regarded as silent or mute from a constitutional point of view. That is why I do not support repealing the eighth amendment as recommended by the committee.

We have all had correspondence from people talking about the very personal issues, whether it was fatal foetal abnormality, rape or incest, but the recommendation of the committee goes beyond that. To be fair to Deputy Kelleher, he explained that clearly, but from my point of view, the recommendation that the committee makes is a step too far and is not something I believe I can support. I did not say this lightly. I have reflected on it but I cannot see that the life of the unborn child, as recognised in the Constitution, can be removed. I, furthermore, do not support that recommendation.

As I say, it is a very personal decision. For many women who are listening, it is not what they wanted to hear. However, having taken the time - I refused to respond earlier - to read the report, to read correspondence from others on all sides of the argument who contacted us setting out all cases, for me personally, the decision has come down to the fact that the life of the unborn is vulnerable and without its protection in the Constitution, all of these laws are possible. I believe it is important that somebody stands up and recognises that. I have a clear conscience on it.

What I am doing, for me, is for the right reasons. Many Members in this House will not agree with it but, having listened to the debate and read the reports over Christmas, I am quite clear that I am not in a position either to support the repeal of the eighth amendment as recommended or to support the recommendation that is made in the committee's report as I have outlined.

See this speech in context