Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent) | Oireachtas source

What we might call the first half of this amendment introduces a statutory and regulatory requirement to provide for the dignified disposal of bodily remains of foetuses which have been the subject of termination of pregnancy, including the dignified disposal of ashes generated by the cremation of such remains in accordance with section 25(1)(b). It also proposes that the bodily remains of a foetus which has been the subject of a termination of pregnancy shall be disposed of only by way of section 25(1)(a) via "burial in a burial ground for the purposes of section 44 of the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act 1948" or section 25(1)(b) "cremation carried out in a crematorium". The amendment is absolutely clear that the pregnant woman who has been the subject of the relevant termination of pregnancy "shall be entitled to choose the manner of the disposal of the bodily remains of the foetus subject to" regulations made by the Minister. In the event that the woman declines to choose the manner of the dignified disposal of the remains in question, the Minister, pursuant to section 25(1), shall provide for the manner of a dignified disposal of the bodily remains of the foetus. As the proposers of this amendment, it is our hope that these provisions achieve a sensitive and appropriate balance between the rights of the woman to determine the manner of a dignified disposal with the right of the unborn child to a dignified resting place.

This amendment seeks to bring the legislation close to that in the UK. It is, in fact, milder than the legislation in the UK. It is all about the dignity of the remains. I do not know why there would be any controversy about this but there was before Committee Stage. We were accused of hijacking the Bill and everything else by the media. We merely sought to have a dignified and respectful ending of the life of the baby and a dignified disposal. We saw all of the different allegations during the referendum about how distressing it was for mothers to have to bring back their babies in a box etc. All we want is to have respectful disposal. It is no more and no less. We are not trying to impose anything on anyone or debase or undermine anyone. I could not understand why there was such a frenzy in the media and on the part of some Members as well. That was headline seeking. All we wanted was a dignified disposal and resting place for the unborn child.

We had such controversy, such costs and rightful disgust at what happened in Tuam and elsewhere. I could not understand why, with this amendment, we could be accused of seeking to undermine and so on. That goes to show the intolerance of the so-called tolerant people. All we are asking for in this amendment is something very similar to what is in the UK. It is a tad milder than what they have over there. I make no apology for tabling it. Like the other amendments we put down, it was tabled in good faith. We did not hog the proceedings and we did not table a large number of amendments.

I am not criticising the Bills Office: that is the way it has to operate. However, it added to the numbers of amendments because some of our amendments were divided up into two, three or four. We were very mindful of the need to have a short and concise debate so we kept the amendments to a minimum. Many of us spoke to a minimum. Deputy Tóibín stated earlier that 50,000 words had been spoken by the people who were saying we were filibustering. Those on the pro-choice side turned out to be filibustering themselves.

See this speech in context