David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I am talking on amendment No. 5, but I also support the other grouped amendments, with the exception of the Minister’s amendment, and my apologies to the Minister.

We are talking about a review of the Act. It is important for us in the first instance to understand what it is the legislation does because we have had some discussion already. It is incumbent upon those of us who support the Bill to be very clear about what this legislation does. The legislation essentially is about allowing women to safely access healthcare. That is the core purpose of this Bill and it is why I very proudly support it because I believe it is certainly the right thing to do. This is to allow women to safely access healthcare without fear of intimidation. That is, for me, the core of it. It does not and it is not about stifling debate and banning protests, because people who have a pro-life view can protest outside the constituency offices of Deputies, outside Leinster House and in other places.

I want to make this point very strongly because the words "respectful" and "decent" were used earlier to describe protests. The vast majority of people who protest are respectful and decent but that cannot describe a protest which prevents a woman from accessing healthcare, uses intimidation to do so, and where the sole purpose is actually to prevent a woman from safely accessing healthcare. That cannot be described as respectful or decent, from my perspective. That is why I support the Bill.

On the review of the Bill itself, my problem with the Minister's amendment and the reason I tabled amendment No. 5 is that he says the review should take place within 18 months. Theoretically, that could be in the 18th month, which means we have to wait 18 months before a review is even commenced, but there is no completion date. There is no defined timeline as to when the review will be completed. For that reason, I simply cannot support the amendment.

I have called in my amendment for it to be completed within 24 months, which I believe is a fairer amendment and a better way to do this. We cannot have a situation where we can support or agree that we would initiate a review within 18 months and have no sense as to when that would be completed. We have already had a review, which I must say to the Minister in the context of this debate. We had a review of the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act itself. It was a very good review. As the Minister knows, that review made many recommendations that were operational in nature but also were legislative.

In the context of that review, I say to the Minister that there are operational issues which can be implemented very quickly and there are legislative issues which might take some time, but there is a responsibility on the Minister to ensure those recommendations are implemented. When we are talking about reviews, and particularly when we are talking about an amendment which does not have any specified timeframe as to when the review would be completed, we can only go on our experience of the most recent review into the area of abortion services which was done very diligently and comprehensively and set out very clear recommendations. It seems to me there is foot dragging by the Government and an attempt to kick it to the Committee on Health and leave it there for as long as possible. That is not going to be the case any longer because a report will come, it is hoped very quickly, from the Committee on Health.

Reviews are important because I wholeheartedly support this Bill. We as members of the Committee on Health worked very closely with the Minister and his officials, and I commend his officials on the time they gave us in our committee. They were very helpful on the questions we had. While we have some differences of opinion on some of the amendments as we have gone through all of this and we have raised concerns about the enforcement, I certainly do not doubt the sincerity of the Minister and those of his officials who have worked very well to craft a Bill which balances rights. That is what this is about. It balances rights and it achieves that balance without a doubt. I am very pleased and proud to support this Bill, but when we are talking about reviewing the Bill, I believe it needs to be clearer. It is only for the reason that there is no specified time period to complete the review that I will be opposing the Minister’s amendment, supporting my own amendment No. 5, and supporting the amendments tabled by Deputy Bacik, which is an amendment to amendment No. 4, and by Deputy Shortall.

See this speech in context