Paul Bradford (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The little clash which has just taken place illustrates, in very clear terms, the confusion and uncertainty relating to this matter. It is also highlights the fact that a significant debate will be required before substantial decisions are taken.

I welcome this debate which, I hope, will mark the beginning of a process of detailed consideration on how we should respond to the report on the judgment handed down in case of A, B and C v. Ireland and on how this Parliament and society in general should deal with this sensitive, substantive and fundamental issue. How the various political parties, this Parliament and society respond to this matter will define both that for which we stand and our aspirations for this country, for families and for children. We must think long and hard before we make any decisions.

There are some issues in respect of which clarification is required. Thankfully it has not been put forward to any great degree during this debate but argument to the effect that - on foot of the ruling handed down by the European Court of Human Rights - particular measures are being demanded of us and that we must make provision in respect of terminations has gained some currency. The fact is that we must make provision for legal certainty. It is the responsibility of the Government and the Parliament to decide the form that legal certainty should take and to then negotiate with Europe in respect of the position we adopt.

I find it a little disturbing when the point is made that the Irish people have voted on this issue time and again and that no further consideration by the people is required. The Minister of State may have been a candidate, as I was, for election to the Dáil in November 1992. She will recall on that occasion in November 1992 when the Irish political parties were fighting a general election the public simultaneously voted on the infamous three abortion referenda. It must be conceded by all sides that on that occasion 99.9% of the political debate was about the general election and not about the abortion issue. There was no referendum commission and no obligation on the political parties or the Government to give information on one or other side of the issue to the public. Three referenda took place but the outcome of them could not be defined as being definitive.

We then had the X case judgment and a decade ago in 2002 we had another referendum in which there was not a singular question about one part of the debate. It was a broader debate and a broader proposal was put before the Irish people on that occasion. Perhaps it could only happen in Ireland that on the "Yes" side and on the "No" side of the question in the referendum in 2002 there were people who termed themselves pro-life and pro-choice. Again, it was a very confused question that was debated by the public. While another referendum has been ruled out politically, I believe it may well be necessary for the Oireachtas to recommend that another one be held. While people would shudder at the thought of another referendum, why should we be so fearful of consulting the public? What is wrong with asking the public a "Yes" or "No" question on a specific point. That specific point, which may be necessary to put before the Irish public, relates to the second part of the question, as I would term it, the suicide ground - the mental health ground.

The first half of what we are asked to determined is relatively straightforward. Every Member of these Houses and every member of society, without exception, wants to put in place whatever legal certainty and clarity is required to ensure that in all cases where the health and life of the mother is physically threatened or there is a concern in that regard, whatever treatment is required will be provided. I know Members of the Houses can come together quickly and effectively to resolve that issue. It is not fair to say that it would be kicking to touch to separate the other issue which is the sensitive one of suicide. I know we are supposed to use careful and temperate language but I have to refer to it as the suicide element of the equation.

The Minister in his closing speech, which was thoughtful and in tandem with his contribution on this matter in the Dáil, spoke about Ireland having to bring forward legislation and that it would not mean abortion on demand. If people check the parliamentary records of Westminster in the late 1960s or those of the congressional debates in the United States in the early 1970s, they would note that when abortion legislation was introduced it was always expected to deal with a tiny number of cases. It was not to be abortion on demand but that is what transpired. That is why we must be extremely careful that the results of our deliberations do not produce abortion on demand.

I want to see at the earliest possible date progress on legislation to cater for the medical difficulties and uncertainties that could arise and which some would say have arisen. However, we need a much more substantive debate on the issue of suicide because, tragically, we can look across the world and note that in virtually every country where that ground was allowed as a reason for abortion it opened the flood gates. I ask the Minister of State to name one country where that was not the case and I will rest my argument, but I do not believe any example can be given in that regard. We need time and consideration in this respect. I thank the Minister of State and look forward to an ongoing debate on this matter.