Catherine Noone (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

-----at any time and in any way that we conducted our business. It is easy to say that something was biased. It is quite a challenge to reject such an allegation on an ongoing basis because once one has to explain one has lost. The allegation resonated and became quite difficult to withstand at times. All of us decided what witnesses to call and I, as Chair, did not decide to call any witness. It is very difficult to get a medical practitioner in this country to attend a committee of these Houses and tell us that the status quoshould be maintained. That is the reality.

Everybody present is au faitwith the contents of the report and I hope they will not mind my going over, from a factual point of view, how we arrived at our decision. I will give my opinion of how we arrived at our decision. We all held varying views on every side of the matter. There was a view out there that we were all of the one view going in and we all came out with the one view. That is absolutely not the case. Every party had different views within it and every individual on the committee had different views. The committee was a composite of a variety of views.It might be helpful to explain how we came to our decisions in four key areas. On the need to hold a referendum on Article 40.3.3°, we made this decision on the conclusion of module 1. This very fact was misrepresented, misunderstood and tactically used by certain members to show bias on behalf of the committee, which was inaccurate. The decision was made on the basis of the following: the evidence from the Citizens' Assembly, which was clear that the issue needed to be addressed by the people after many years of avoidance; the evidence of the constitutional experts, which showed that legislation that went beyond the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 was not possible under Article 40.3.3°; the findings of the UN in the Mellet and Whelan cases; and the stated position of the Government that there would be a referendum, as articulated on numerous occasions by the Taoiseach. We took that decision on those grounds.

The second of the four points I would like to make is on the repeal simpliciternature of the referendum. The committee made decisions on the type of referendum needed after hearing all of the evidence in modules 1, 2 and 3. We took account of a number of matters. We agreed with the recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly that the issue of the regulation of the termination of pregnancy needed to be taken out of the Constitution and be dealt with by way of legislation. Our legal advisor presented us with six options to change the Constitution, which gave varying degrees of legal certainty and of flexibility to change the law in the future. Repeal simplicitergave the highest level of certainty and flexibility. We rejected the option favoured by the assembly, which was a replacement of Article 40.3.3° to give exclusive power to the Oireachtas, as it had the potential to remove the supervisory jurisdiction of the court and we felt that oversight by the courts is a crucial facet of our democracy. I would welcome clarity from the Minister because certain Members have brought up the issue of a potential replacement of the eighth amendment. If he could bring any clarity to bear on that question I would be grateful.

The third point is on the provisions that should be incorporated in new legislation on the termination of pregnancy. This was covered by the Citizens' Assembly under a variety of different headings. The strong cross-political support on the risk to the health of women was based on the expert medical evidence which showed that, in many cases, it is not easy to draw a line between the risk to life and the risk to health. The evidence showed that our medical practitioners feel poorly served by the current laws in that they may delay acting until a woman becomes so sick that her life is at risk. That is not a good situation for doctors or, indeed, patients and their families. We were told that our restrictive laws make us an outlier in the developed world. The fact that women have to travel means that terminations are taking place later in the gestational cycle. At that stage they require surgical rather than medical terminations which are more invasive and have a greater potential for harm. I know that everyone present knows this, but I really want it on the record that this is how we came to our decision. The issue is a matter of clinical judgment for medical professionals in consultation with the pregnant woman and her partner or spouse, if appropriate.

The committee accepted that it should be lawful to terminate a pregnancy where a female becomes pregnant as a result of rape or incest. This is a standard provision in most developed countries. We did not agree with the assembly that a termination could take place up to 22 weeks. It can be difficult to prove that a rape occurred without going through a lengthy prosecution process and the committee agreed that we should avoid any form of verification as this could result in further trauma for the victim. Many Members have already spoken about that today. We agreed to a general provision allowing termination up to 12 weeks in view of the complexities involved in legislating for rape and incest.

Many Senators have spoken about fatal foetal abnormalities. The evidence from parents who either travelled or were forced to carry their dead baby to term was difficult and shocking, and it elucidated a society that was cold to the suffering of those families. The vast majority of members wanted to see change in this area. The evidence showed that current laws lack compassion for families who receive dreadful news with regard to much-wanted pregnancies. The evidence also showed that those who wanted termination in such circumstances and who travelled endured split health care, which is blatantly discriminatory.

The joint committee rejected non-fatal foetal abnormality as a valid ground for termination. We recognise the burden that this places on families in such circumstances, however it was felt that these issues were best addressed by way of enhanced social services. Issues around stigmatisation of people with disabilities and misinformation about the policies of other states with regard to Down's syndrome in particular were to the fore in committee members' minds.