Dáil debates

Tuesday, 20 March 2018

An Bille um an Séú Leasú is Tríocha ar an mBunreacht 2018: An Dara Céim (Atógáil) - Thirty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2018: Second Stage (Resumed)

 

6:45 pm

Photo of Seán BarrettSeán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am glad to have these few moments to set out my views. I have been contacted on many occasions in the past few weeks by members of the media wanting to know what my views were with respect to the legislation we are now debating but I have refused to tell them until I expressed them here in the Chamber. It is a long time ago - in fact, it is 35 years ago - that I was the Chief Whip of the Government that dealt with the 1983 Bill. We went into government after Fianna Fáil left in November 1982. We accepted the wording that was given at that stage by the outgoing Government but when we went into government, we were advised by the then Attorney General that there were flaws in the wording. We took the advice and we amended the wording and proposed an alternative wording for the public. We were defeated comprehensively by 87 votes to 65 and, in fact, a number of our own Deputies crossed the floor and voted against us, as was their right.

It was a very controversial issue then and a very unpleasant period. All sorts of charges were made against those of us who were doing what we felt was the right thing to do, not promoting abortion in any way, but seeking to talk about the wording. However, it changed into a debate about whether a person was either for or against abortion, and if anyone was against the wording that had been previously published, they were regarded as being pro-abortion. Indeed, my poor late mother, who was a daily communicant and daily massgoer, suffered terribly in Dalkey and, in fact, had a visit from the local curate. She told me she was taking stick from some of the regular churchgoers because her son was seen to be pro-abortion. That was the atmosphere we were dealing with at that time. I am pleased that we have now become more mature and we are able to discuss these issues in a mature fashion.

The fact is I will not be supporting the deletion of the wording from the Constitution. I will be voting "No" to the proposal to delete the wording, even though, at that time, we were seen as being pro-abortion. I honestly believe that the past 35 years - maybe we could call it maturity - have shown it is only right and proper that there are certain issues where it is not up to this House or the other House to decide alone on such important issues, and that they should be referred back to the people for their views. That is why, while I accept there are some who hold a different view from my own, and so be it, I am convinced this should be decided by the people. I am saying to the people to keep what we have. We should keep what we have because the right to life of the unborn is important.

I am fortunate enough to have five healthy children and 13 grandchildren. One only realises this having listened to the stories of other people who are not as fortunate as I have been. Indeed, I have a cousin who had, I think, three or four miscarriages and finally delivered a baby, but the baby only lasted a week and then was buried. She is happy that she produced a live baby and had the opportunity to bury that baby gracefully and respectfully. It is very hard for men, perhaps, to understand the passion and the desire that women have in regard to their own children and the production of children.

On this issue, however, I think it is far more important that we realise it is not a matter for 158 Deputies to make such an important decision and that we would recommend to the public the taking out of the wording from the Constitution. My strong advice to the public and to my supporters is to leave what is in the Constitution there. If people want to try to change it in the future, they should go back to the people. However, I do not think that it should come to this House, with the possibility that instead of 12 weeks, it will be stretched out to 16 weeks or 22 weeks. These are issues the public will not have control over.

I honestly believe this is a turning point.

I am saying all of this in a reasonable way in the context of the issue being debated. I hope that when the debate is finished, people will get on with their business and that the current wording will remain, but it will be up to the people after we have had our discussion and expressed our views. I call on my supporters to vote "No" and leave the wording in the Constitution.

I have only spoken a few words, as there is no need for a long debate. This is simply a matter of whether we believe it is up to the people to make these decisions or just to those of us who are fortunate enough to have been elected to the House. I see nothing wrong in holding a referendum if that is the wish of the people.

With those few words, I will hand over to my colleague.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.