Carol Nolan (Offaly, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Leas-Cheann Comhairle as ucht an deis seo a thabhairt dom labhairt ar leasú Uimh 43a. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this amendment on the recording and notification of termination of pregnancy. In general terms, it will assist in advancing the creation of an objective, verifiable knowledge base that can then feed into the development of evidence based public health policy. At the level of basic ethical principles, we also believe that at the very least we must give the life and death of the unborn child statistical significance in the context that it has already been decided not to afford the unborn child any constitutional protection or significance. For the record, and because it now seems that we have to be very clear about such things, we have no other motivation in bringing this amendment forward.

Recently, the broader issue of how information or data are used or presented has figured prominently in many areas of our political life. The potential impacts were considered to be so serious that we saw the establishment by the Office of the Taoiseach of an interdepartmental group focusing on the security of Ireland's electoral process and disinformation. One of the primary concerns identified by that group's report, published in October, related to the potential effect that the widespread use of social media can have in accentuating any concerted programme of disinformation. In light of that, we can say with some certainty that the more controversial the subject, the more clearly established is the requirement for the collation of comprehensive, detailed, accessible and fact-based data. This point has been acknowledged by pro-abortion groups. In one particular case study report, one such group looked at meaningful attempts to evaluate the impact of a new abortion law.

Where health data collection systems are inadequate, and where the private sector provides the majority of legal abortions but is not required to report them, the incidence of legal procedures cannot be accurately reported. It ended by noting that public health advocates, international donors and researchers around the world should continue to strive to improve the completeness of reporting of legal abortions, the recording and accurate classification of abortion-related maternal deaths and the attainment of robust estimates of overall maternal mortality, as well as of both legal and safe terminations and unsafe terminations.

To speak more locally, my colleague Deputy Tóibín, said the following during the Committee Stage debate on this particular amendment:

The reason we are collecting so much data is that this is a very serious issue. This is an exceptional situation in historical terms. Up to this, we have only allowed for the ending of life in cases where the life of the mother was under threat. ... This is a radical departure.

The point also was made on Committee Stage that this amendment is very much in line with the data categories required under the existing UK law around the recording of terminations. It also was noted that this represents international best practice. Surely we should have systems in place to ensure this here in Ireland.

In his reply to a similar amendment put forward by another Deputy on the other side of the debate, the Minister said at the committee that if one looks at the website of the UK Department for Health and Social Care, as he did during the referendum campaign, one sees the amount of data that is collected and sent to that Department. While the Minister did not suggest we should mirror what they do, he did accept they collect a considerable amount of data and stated quite clearly that he had no difficulty with this. The Minister also indicated that if the question was simply around the modality of how the information is gathered and put before the Oireachtas or into the public domain, he would be happy to consider it further.

I raise these points now merely to point out that while the committee had issues on how the information should be gathered, there was no fundamental disagreement on the necessity of recording the various statistical data sets. It also was argued in the committee that it was somewhat unnecessary or unhelpful to be as prescriptive about the kind of information that ought to be collected as is this amendment. On this point, Deputy Donnelly asked if the data that are to be collected are usually provided for in primary legislation or in follow-up regulations. He also made the fair but incomplete point that it would be onerous for those tasked with the drafting of public policy if they had to amend the primary legislation in a few years to allow for the collection of certain information. This is a highly incomplete point because had the Deputy read this amendment carefully, he would have seen that provision is made for "such other information as may be prescribed".

We all know that the annual statistics on abortions recorded in England and Wales are based on detailed abortion notification forms submitted by clinics and hospitals to the chief medical officer at the Department of Health and Social Care. That Department then monitors the forms to ensure full compliance with the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967. The UK departmental guidance note for completing the abortion forms, which is intended to help doctors and clinical staff, also makes clear that certifying doctors are expected to have enough evidence of the woman's circumstances to justify forming a good-faith opinion that the ground for the termination exists. Since we are dealing here with an assessment whose outcome involves the potential death of one human being, is it not only appropriate that some consideration is given to the circumstances offered as justification for the abortion in the first place? If there is evidence that a certifying doctor has not formed an opinion in good faith, then those performing the termination are not protected by the Act and may have committed a criminal offence by terminating the pregnancy.

See this speech in context