Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is important go back and state amendments Nos. 33 and 34 accept the three day provision. The Minister's concerns about giving false commitments are not appropriate in this context. I want to say again with regard to the point on the Dutch model made by Deputy Catherine Murphy that the people we spoke to were very clear. We asked how could an Irish person avail of it if there is a five-day waiting period. We asked whether Irish people would have to book a hotel in the Netherlands for almost eight days, with five days before and a couple of days afterwards. We were told that when they get there five days after the first point of contact they can have the termination. It is a real five days.

For all of the reasons outlined by the other Deputies, in Ireland three days in the context of the other provisions will not mean three days and could provide a barrier. In this context I plead with the Minister, particularly on amendment No. 34. I heard what the Minister said about the emergency provisions, and I get that in the case of a woman escaping a domestic violence situation or a woman in direct provision a doctor can state it is an emergency, that the woman clearly does not have the ability to return within the time and that he or she will make a call under the emergency provision to waive the three day period. That is fine but there is probably only a small number of doctors who have this confidence. They are experienced doctors who are prepared to take that risk. We had a discussion on Committee Stage about how younger doctors might not be so confident to make that evaluation and take the chance. Therefore, given that it is only a small number of circumstances, the provisions of amendment No. 34 would mean it could be waived if there is a risk it might exceed the 12 weeks. Essentially, the Minister is stating it is trying to do the same thing. However, it would make it easier for doctors.

See this speech in context