Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

The Green Party will be supporting the campaign for the repeal of the eighth amendment to the Constitution. The provisions set out by the Government following receipt of the advice of the Citizens' Assembly and the Oireachtas committee very closely mirror our party position in many ways and we will be supporting the Government in that regard. Some in our party have a different view and may campaign on the other side of the referendum, as they are fully entitled to do, and they will be respected in so doing.

Ultimately, the people are sovereign when it comes to decisions on the Constitution. The Oireachtas can help to guide the debate and referendum but it does not own or control them. It has done a good job in framing the debate in recent months through mechanisms such as the Citizens' Assembly and the Oireachtas committee, while the broad outline of the legislation that is being presented and the wording that is proposed to replace the eighth amendment are of further assistance in that regard.

In my contribution during the consideration of the report of the joint committee by the House, I articulated my concern that any provision relating to this matter would be inserted into the Constitution. My sense was that the original attempt to deal with the issue and, as Deputy Clare Daly stated, provide an equality of rights between the rights of the foetus and those of the mother in a constitutional way was a mistake and never going to work. I was concerned by the proposal for a further provision to the Constitution and believed it unnecessary. Most European and other similar countries have no constitutional provision on this issue. On first reading, the wording that has been presented by the Government seems to be reasonably clear and simple, does not unnecessarily constrain the Oireachtas and perhaps provides legal protection that the Attorney General thought necessary in order that the legislation that will be considered would not be challenged. The broad approach and outline of the provision makes sense.

I was pleased that much attention was given in the Minister's speech to the issue of improving the care we provide to mothers who are making decisions on pregnancy and that he will come back to the House with detailed provisions in that regard. One of the opportunities we have in what I hope will be a moment of change is that not alone will we not be forcing women to travel by boat or plane without any contact or take pills ordered from the Internet without medical assistance but also that we will ensure that the choices made by women are full, free and unencumbered by State-introduced mechanisms which would steer those always difficult decisions. It is very welcome that the Minister discussed ensuring that we proceed with our national maternity policy and further resource maternity services. However, we must go beyond that. We must signal a change in Government policy, much of which is antithetical to women, such as our tax and pension systems and a range of other mechanisms which make it more difficult for women, in particular those who are on their own in terms of raising a child. Change on that scale is needed.

If the people vote for us to change how we approach this issue, it will be vital to have a detailed understanding of and statistics and data on the decisions that are being made and the circumstances within which they are being made. That is not intended to in any way impinge on the privacy of or try to influence those making such decisions but, rather, to help us understand why we, like so many other countries, have so many unwanted or emergency pregnancies and to assess what we can do to ease the circumstances that lead to such situations. As all Members have said, no one wants to put anyone into a position of having to choose.

As all Members know, the timeframe for the referendum is short because of the need to await the judgement delivered yesterday by the Supreme Court. It would be appropriate to hold the referendum before the end of May.

I am uncertain of the meaning of a provision in the Minister's well-articulated speech, which I read with interest. It refers to terminations that take place after the first trimester period in which it has been recommended that an indication is unnecessary. In terms of later terminations, the Minister stated that it is important to be clear and truthful that, in cases where the foetus is viable, early delivery and the full range of neonatal care are the reality. I do not understand what that means and I ask the Minister to clarify it. I am sure that clarity will be brought to such issues during the debate that we will have in the coming weeks, which is the purpose and the valid role of such debate in this referendum.

There is a role for the Medical Council in terms of medical ethics because, as well as two doctors assessing the inevitably complicated and hugely different individual cases, our policy indicates that the Medical Council must contribute to providing an ethical structure for such decisions. The details of how that works can be addressed in the legislation and need not be dealt with now. We must agree upon the broad principles, the heads of a Bill, the issues set out by the Minister and the statements which will give guidance to the people as they make their decisions in this referendum. Even though such situations are very rare, we want them to be safe, legal and rare, and the role of the Medical Council in terms of ethics and the structures in place in such circumstances must be teased out.

As Deputy Catherine Murphy stated, this is an historic day. It will be seen by some as a turn in the wrong direction but, for me, it is a step in the right direction and in tune with the women who have had to make difficult decisions or take difficult journeys. Such women will now have to make less of a journey because we will deal with this in our own country. As we have recognised over the years, the mother has the right to make this choice. That has already been decided. Today, we are deciding how we step with her in that process. It is a welcome move away from saying goodbye to women at passport control and towards their not having to travel because we will deal with these issues at home.

See this speech in context