Paul Bradford (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Senator John Gilroy said that anybody opposed to section 9 is ignoring what he termed the legal and medical grounds for its inclusion. In fact, we have very much taken into account all the scientific evidence that was presented to us. I support this group of amendments and particularly the comments by Senator Rónán Mullen. Regardless of who brings the challenge or commences the case, this legislation will almost certainly be tested from the point of view of its constitutionality. The final case for the defence of the Bill, when all the hard questions have remained unanswered, particularly in regard to section 9, will come from the Minister and his colleagues who will point to the current protection for the unborn as per the Constitution. That particular protection is very specific in its language. The Minister of State, Deputy Alex White, is much better than I at legal language, but I urge him not to ignore this series of amendments. He said previously that he is not interested in any amendments other than minor technical amendments. He has undertaken to reject any and all substantial amendments; at least he was reported by our friends in the media as having said so.

If this legislation is to stand up to constitutional scrutiny, then it must tie in with the 1983 amendment to the Constitution. The question of delivering a viable unborn life, where practical, is a matter upon which the Minister of State, as a legal scholar, must reflect. He must also have regard to the duty that must be imposed on medical personnel. As drafted, the Bill does not provide the security which, in the context of their intentions, was to the fore in people's thinking when they voted in the 1983 referendum.

Notwithstanding the fact that amendments are not being accepted, I ask the Minister of State to provide us with his legal opinion on why the measures being put forward are not in accord with Government policy. This has been a lengthy process and the last thing anyone wants is for the legislation, when it is finally passed by the House, to be deemed unconstitutional. I am aware that we cannot be presented with the advice provided by the Attorney General. One of the bizarre aspects of parliamentary procedure is that when the Attorney General advises the Government, we are not allowed to see that advice in order to assess its strength or discover whether the various pros and cons have been examined. In the context of amendment No. 6, will the Minister of State indicate how he and his colleagues in government are so comfortable and content that what is being proposed is fully constitutional and that what is contained in the amendments is not constitutional?