Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Before I address the legislation, I point out that I have listened to most of the contributions. Even those who were opposed to the referendum taking place or opposed to the legislation, have all, bar one, in my opinion, recognised the will of the people on 25 May. It is very unfortunate that there are still some within this Chamber who use terms during the debate on this legislation to suggest that people "did not understand what they were voting for" or were stupid. That is grossly offensive to the electorate and I reject it.

I canvassed my constituency, as I am sure other Deputies canvassed theirs. We met people who were for and against the removal of the eighth amendment. I believe it was a very civil debate at the doors. I met many people who had not made up their minds or who had no clear preference before meeting canvassers, who were open to either voting for or against, and who were engaged with the canvassers on both sides. I believe the vast majority of people who went out and cast their votes on 25 May did so from an informed position. They were informed in a number of ways. They were informed through the Referendum Commission, through the debates that took place on television and radio and through the canvassing teams for and against the proposal. I find it incredible that some Deputies would insult the people by stating they were stupid or that they did not understand what they were voting for. I think they should reflect on that.

I want to mention Deputy Butler's contribution. We all know what was Deputy Butler's position prior to the referendum. She was very firm in that position and it has not changed in terms of her beliefs. However, she came into the Chamber and gave a speech which was very difficult for her - we could see it was very difficult for her. The type of leadership she has shown tonight in this debate is to be welcomed. She has come in and said she accepts the outcome of the referendum. She has difficulties with what is being proposed but she is going to support the legislation. That needs to be recognised. All too often, people who were opposed to this referendum were criticised for, in the opinion of some, opposing it for the wrong reasons or for ill-informed reasons.

If someone who campaigned against the referendum proposition comes to the House, accepts the will of the people and indicates support for the legislation and an intention to work constructively with the Government to pass the best legislation possible, that person should be commended.

I note the call by some Deputies for pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. There is a slight contradiction in what they say. On the one hand they say we should have pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill because it is such important legislation and would benefit from examination by the health committee. In my experience as a Member of the Dáil, the purpose of pre-legislative scrutiny is to ensure that what is proposed is good legislation. In that context, one looks at all of the pros and cons. However, this is a slightly different case because the general scheme of the Bill was published as part of the referendum campaign. As such, people knew exactly what the legislation would look like.

While it is not possible to say that it will be enacted word for word, the Government, in fairness to it, published the general scheme and has stuck to it. Of course, in the course of its passage, the legislation may be amended. However, those amendments will not be so fundamental as to change the general scheme of the Bill. Indeed, the general scheme as published differed from what was proposed in the Oireachtas committee's report, in particular regarding the three-day provision. It appears also that those Deputies who are demanding pre-legislative scrutiny are those who have difficulties with the legislation. In the same breath in which they call for scrutiny, these same Deputies have stated that they intend to hold the Government to account to ensure that what was proposed in the general scheme of the Bill will not be changed. One cannot have it both ways. One cannot demand that the general scheme of the Bill be adhered to and at the same time assert that there should have been pre-legislative scrutiny to see if we could have changed the legislation. There is a slight contradiction there.

I sat on the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution and have spoken of my personal beliefs growing up and where I got them. People often learn certain principles from their parents and my parents were pro-life and opposed to abortion in all circumstances. Growing up, as I have said previously, I shared those views. As a 46 year old man looking back at the 20 year old person I was, I know now from the information I have gathered as a legislator, from meeting advocacy and support groups and medical professionals, from sitting on the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution and from the debates in the House on the protection of life during pregnancy legislation that the beliefs I held strongly then, having been taught them through my parents, were ill informed. I did not have all of the information and my views and beliefs were not based on fact. Many people have said to me that I have been on a bit of a journey. I remember what I said in reply to a woman I met in the course of the campaign when she said that. I met her at her door and she was one of those women who had once had to travel to England to secure a termination. She had followed the proceedings of the Oireachtas committee very closely and had known my personal position going back a number of years and how my views had changed. She said to me, "You have been on a journey and I thank you for that." In reply, I told her that the journey I had been on was as nothing compared with the journeys undertaken by hundreds of thousands of women who were forced to travel by the eighth amendment. I did not state that flippantly and I meant it genuinely. If the journey I have been on ensures that no other woman has to take that journey, I have no regrets in supporting the legislation.

I turn now to the position of my own party. It is well known that there are differing views within the party as there are within every other party. I am very proud of the way in which our party conducted itself in the lead-up to the referendum. We had a very robust internal debate, the old workings of which were there for everyone to see. The debate took place at a public Ard-Fheis which was open to the media. No one was bullied into silence as was suggested here tonight. No one was forced to adopt a position against his or her will. Everyone had an opportunity to attend the Ard-Fheis, speak openly for or against what was proposed and to then abide by the decision taken. That is what happened and it is on the record. I might get into a slight bit of trouble for saying the following, but what the hell. Even if the legislation is enacted in the morning, there will, unfortunately, be some women who still have to travel. We must recognise that. I am not saying we have to deal with that in this Bill. We cannot do so because we gave a commitment to people on the general scheme of the Bill. However, if some women will still be forced to travel, we still have some way to go as a society, as does Sinn Féin, before we recognise that and cater for every woman in every circumstance.

There are a couple of things to say about the legislation itself. I note the three-day provision. It was not something which arose at the joint committee as Deputies Fitzpatrick, O'Reilly and Jan O'Sullivan will testify and it did not form part of the committee's report. I understand the reasons for which it was included. Some people have said it was done for political reasons and some people have cited other reasons. While I understand why it was put in, however, it is important to ensure it does not become a barrier. That is where the debate on Committee Stage must focus. If it has been included for a very good reason, let us be confident in that reason. However, I have learned over the last number of years, in particular as a member of the joint committee, that we must listen to the medical profession. If the profession has concerns around the three-day provision, we need to listen, whether or not it is politically acceptable. If there is a strong groundswell of opposition to the three-day provision, the Government must be open to it. The last thing we want to do is pass legislation which makes things even more difficult for the medical profession in the provision of services. We should be open on the three-day provision and we should obtain some guidance from the profession on it. There is no doubt in my mind that the provision will impact more on certain sectors of society, including, for example, women in direct provision, women with disabilities, women from regions where the only available general practitioner has a conscientious objection and women who are victims of domestic violence.

The three days could prove problematic to these women and, as I said, we need to take the guidance on this.

We should also be open to looking at the whole area of risk during the passage of the legislation. The committee was very clear that risk and harm cannot be categorised. I know the legislation refers to risk to the life of the woman. It does not categorise the risk when it comes to the life of the woman but it does seek to categorise risk to the health of the woman. We need an explanation as to why the Minister has decided to categorise this risk when all the evidence presented to us before the committee indicated that risk cannot be categorised and that this must be a medical judgment at a given moment in time based on all the circumstances. This needs to be looked at, and I hope the Minister is open to doing so.

Another area is the ancillary recommendations made by the eighth amendment committee. I can completely understand why they are not in the primary legislation before us tonight. Many of them will be policy decisions. Some may not need to be in primary legislation and some may. Some may need to be in regulations or secondary legislation. A message needs to go out, however, that the Government is not cherry-picking the report, that there is a commitment, not just from the Government but from all parties in this Chamber, to fully implement the ancillary recommendations. Just because they are not in this legislation does not mean they are any less important than the issue being debated within the Bill; it just means this is not the appropriate place in which to put it. I am sure there is no rowing back on the Government's commitment on the ancillary recommendations and I look forward to working with Dr. Peter Boylan, who has been appointed to oversee the implementation or the preparation of the services, in this regard.

I wish to make a point about viability because a number of Deputies have raised it. Again I go back to what was discussed in the Oireachtas committee and the general scheme of the Bill. I do not believe it is for us to put down a timeframe in primary legislation. I know we have the provision regarding the 12 weeks but I am talking about the viability of the foetus in later stages of pregnancy. Again, we need to be guided by the medical profession in this regard. I am sure this issue will be dealt with in regulations or even Medical Council guidelines. While some people have concerns about this, I think they are unfounded, and as we discuss the legislation and tease out all these issues through Committee and Report Stages, I think this will become more apparent.

The very last thing I will say concerns a number of Deputies who spoke tonight and complained about not having enough time to discuss what is in the Bill. There is no guillotine on this debate, to the best of my knowledge-----

See this speech in context