Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak on this particular Bill. I was one of the people who was here in a previous era when discussions of this nature took place on the eighth amendment of the Constitution. To a great extent, a very animated debate took place at that particular time, which has been repeated on a number of occasions since. I hope that on this particular occasion, we will have a more mature and a more regulated debate in terms of keeping the emotion to a minimum, recognising the issue is important. It requires and deserves a full and thorough debate, with respect for one another's views, and it is no harm to say there are vastly disparate views on this subject that have been expressed in this country over the years, and in other jurisdictions also. I hope we can say to ourselves this is an new era and times are different. Our society has evolved and it is a time also for recognising the other's point of view. This is a feature of our modern society. I hope it will manifest itself in the course of the debate as it goes ahead.

I have not changed my views since I spoke, as did many other people in the House, on the 2013 legislation on the protection of life during pregnancy. It brought to the fore many of the issues spoken about in debates prior to that as did, funnily enough, the children's rights Bill. For some unknown reason, the same subjects came up in that debate, again on the basis the State was trying to take control of the family and children. In actual fact, the reverse is the case. The State is trying to protect the family and ensure each element of the family has a fair opportunity to develop, evolve and live in a society which, hopefully, is fairer.

I could never understand the situation, for instance, with regard to rape. I know there are strongly held views on the subject. If I had a daughter, which I do not, and she was the victim of such a crime I would find it very hard not to consult with her as to what she should do. She should at least have some control over what happened next. She should at least be consulted. It is not fair, and it would not be fair, to say "tough luck, that was an unfortunate incident". It is a little bit more than that. It affects the lives of the victims forever, for as long as they are alive. It is incumbent on us to address this issue now and we can do so. This is why, in the course of the committee's hearings, we had to come to the conclusion the only way to deal with that situation without specifically getting into court cases, lawyers, evidence and counter-charges was to leave it at the 12 weeks that was previously recommended by the Citizens' Assembly.

Many people are worried about this. They are concerned about it on the basis it should be less. As has already been pointed out by other speakers, it is fairly average across Europe with one or two exceptions. To leave out the 12 weeks and reduce it further could mean eliminating some cases that would eventually end up in the traditional method of abortion, that of travelling overseas again. It is not something we should try to look forward to.

In the course of the hearings, it was patently obvious to everybody that women in certain situations found themselves in a very lonely position and isolated without comfort, advice or counselling. It was for this reason a great deal of emphasis was placed on the whole issue of counselling. We looked at a number of other countries throughout Europe, some of which have adequate counselling and some which do not. It was concluded there was a need for counselling, greater emphasis on sex education in schools and greater emphasis on back-up and counselling for a woman who might become pregnant in a crisis situation, and there are multiple reasons as to how that could come about.

We had an adequate opportunity during the period of the hearings to look at the situation whereby it was said in the past that women would arbitrarily seek out an abortion as a means of birth control. Nothing could be further from the truth. There was no evidence to suggest that at all, good, bad or indifferent. In fact, the reverse was the case. There was clear evidence adduced in the hearings to the effect that women wanted the pregnancy to go right and wanted to produce the baby even if the baby was not perfect. They still wanted the pregnancy to go right and felt they had a requirement to do so for some reason - maternal instinct - they had in their own minds. In those circumstances the lack of adequate counselling was patently obvious. It was just appalling to listen to the type of stories being told, whereby they were isolated and left on their own with no advice whatsoever, so they had the choice of going abroad or staying at home and being in doubt for the rest of their lives, or suffering the consequences.

There are those who have said in the past the whole issue of suicide was myth and not real. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. In the course of our business as public representatives, Members all have met people who have had mental problems around crises in their lives. Because of this, it is incumbent upon us when dealing with this particular situation to so do in the clear knowledge we might be dealing with what could ultimately become a tragedy. It is in our interests, in the interests of the people of the country and in the interests of fairness to try to accommodate, as public representatives, the situation that can develop.

I want to mention briefly the type of situation that brought a lot of emotive argument in the past. An example is a threat to the health of the woman as supposed to a threat to her life. Very little emphasis was placed in the past on how quickly the situation can accelerate from a threat to health to a threat to life, and then it may be too late. There are a number of well known medical conditions that can accelerate so rapidly it may be too late when it becomes obvious to the physicians that action should be taken, or should have been taken and was not. Other speakers have enumerated a number of situations where this, in actual fact, did take place. It is no harm for us to think carefully about this as we speak at this time on these issues. We need to put ourselves in the shoes of the woman who might find herself in that type of crisis situation.

3 o’clock

What would we expect to be done if we were in that position ourselves, as a man or a woman? The least we would hope for would be that society would be, in some way, on our side and, in some way, cognisant of the situation we were going through, that our health could ultimately be at risk and that we had a medical condition which might accelerate rapidly and leave us with little choice.

We must also consider a person in those circumstances who knows they have a condition that would lead to that situation. While everybody ponders it and various opinions on the right thing to do are sought, their condition and chance of life is deteriorating all the time. In those circumstances, there is nothing we should do other than show compassion and care for the person in the eye of the storm, that is, the woman in a crisis pregnancy.

There is also the issue of incest. In this country, we have a peculiar history concerning rape, incest, institutions, mother and baby homes and so on. I have spoken about this before, as many of us have. It was not a problem solely related to the churches. It related to our society, and to other societies in other jurisdictions. It was a blight and a blot on respective societies and jurisdictions that they did not have a bit more care and compassion when dealing with women who found themselves in a crisis pregnancy. Despite the other great achievements of Irish and international society, it was sad that a little more thought and compassion was not put into the area of mother and baby care. There was no recognition that in certain circumstances a woman might find herself isolated, alone and condemned. In many cases, that is what they found.

This gives us an opportunity to again examine all the factors affecting the situation. Of course there are contradictions. Everybody has feelings for those born and those as yet unborn. There is no doubt about that. There are many contradictions. On balance however, in accordance with laws nationally and internationally, we cannot have a ridiculous situation where a mother is kept artificially alive while a baby is allowed to mature for an unreasonable period. It is so sad that we should subject people to that kind of treatment in this day and age.

It is equally sad that the only option for women in that situation was to send them abroad because no facilities were available at home. Surely it would have been better if we had regulations and controls at home as well as the necessary medical back-up before, during and after. That is something that this legislation proposes to do.

It is no harm at all to consider that there were a number of referenda on this subject. At one point it was intended to stop the right to travel. That failed. It was not on; it did not happen. In the back of people's minds, they know that there is a right for the woman to travel to seek the service that is not available in our own country. It is not convenient for her to do it. It is a lonely old trek. However, she can do it. It is legal. As such, it is not true to say abortion is not available in this country. It is not available in this jurisdiction, but it is available to people from, and who live in, this country who want to go to another jurisdiction.

Incidentally, I am not in favour of abortion per se. I never have been. However, there are circumstances that have arisen, which we have discussed, in last several years where there is an obligation for us to move with the times. We have to move along. Society is evolving, as it should. We cannot remain embedded forever in history. The past is not a good place to go, as we know.

It has been suggested that the proposals in the legislation will ultimately mean abortion will be available without restriction, but of course it is available already. It is available via the Internet because women can access abortion medication without regulation and without medical supervision before, during or after, and without any counselling and advice.

One of the things we learned about during the hearings was the urgent need for advice and counselling. Women must be able to rely on medical and sometimes psychological advice and information to help them reach a decision, which might not lean towards abortion in all cases. They might not go that route at all. However, they need the advice. The last thing we should do is isolate women in that situation, to leave them on their own, let them put up with it or work it out for themselves.

With this legislation, the decision is in the final phase. It is now over to the people. It is true the people have decided on this issue before but they will decide on it now. Both sides in this argument have sought for a referendum for many years since 1983. Obviously, they sought it for different reasons. The time is now. It is now incumbent on everybody to ensure that the maximum amount of information is put into the public arena, into the hands of the people. That way when people go to decide, they will have the information at their fingertips and they can vote accordingly. I hope that they will do so in a way which will show compassion. If there is a need for other regulations, it will be shown up in the course of the debate and in the ultimate vote. It may well be a very narrow margin on either side. Then again, it may not. One never knows with these things. It is important that those who make the decision, that is, the people, have all the information available to them without a slant or restriction in one direction or the other. In the final analysis, they will be able to make a compassionate decision, taking into account both sides of the argument without restriction, and recognising what history has shown us over the last several years. They will be able to recognise all the things that went wrong in past. This presents them and us with an opportunity to address those issues and right some of the wrongs of the past.

I am not an expert on these issues. I have to make up my own mind like everybody else. I intend to support the legislation and the Bill, as proposed, as I did in the committee. I did not change my mind, as I said to many people in the course of the debate. My argument now is the same as it was ten years ago. It may be right or it may be wrong. I do not know. The people will decide that. When they decide it, the decision will stand for quite a long time. It is something with which our society will have to live for a long time.

My last point concerns something we changed in the course of the committee hearings. We removed the proposal that the court could no longer review a decision of the Oireachtas, and that is as it should be. We were right to do that. It was important to do that clearly and unequivocally in the course of the argument. In a modern democratic republic where we have a dual system of the courts and the Parliament, the courts must ultimately have the opportunity to review and challenge, as they have done many times in the past.

That proofs what we are doing.

The point I want to refer to is this. Some say that nobody trusts politicians. That is like saying that nobody trusts the people, because the people elect politicians. When the people go to elections and elect politicians, I presume they do so in the clear knowledge that these politicians will represent them and their views. If people claim not to trust politicians and stand aloof from it, then they must stand aloof from politics too because everybody who gets involved in a public debate in one shape or form gets involved in politics in one shape or form or another. It is no harm to remember that if we do not trust politicians, then we do not trust the people because the people are obviously guilty of some misbehaviour if they elect politicians who are not trustworthy because they do not represent them. I do not accept that argument at all. Those arguments can resolve themselves. It is a matter for the people to elect the people they want to represent them. It is a matter for those who are elected to represent the people to the best of their ability, fairly, equally and in a way that they can look back on afterwards and say that they did the best they could. The time has come to trust each other to some extent. It is also time that we recognised the huge contribution that women have made to society and that Irish women in particular have made to our society. It is time to trust them, particularly in this year, with the current celebrations of the suffragette movement and International Women's Day. These things may only happen once a year and are all coming together. The fact is that the women who made these contributions to society over the years have to be trusted. They were trusted and we have to trust them now.

See this speech in context