Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I agree entirely with Senator Bacik in her comments on where we are with this legislation and the importance of January. I hear comments about it being a political deadline and think that is really offensive. I will not be in a crisis in January, but 300-plus women will be. It is not a political or a ministerial deadline. It is not a target but a recognition that, eight months after the referendum, the women of Ireland expect to be able to access services. In fairness to the clinicians of Ireland, despite what we often hear, many of them are stepping up to the plate and showing great clinical leadership in being ready to provide a service. That service will evolve and need time to be embedded, but clinicians are getting ready to start such a service in the new year. I thank Senator Bacik for the foundations she laid on the issue long before it became mainstream.

This conversation very much ties in with the conversation we have had about the word "serious" because it is in the same section. Section 9(1) states:

(1) A termination of pregnancy may be carried out in accordance with this section where 2 medical practitioners, having examined the pregnant woman, are of the reasonable opinion formed in good faith that—(a) there is a risk to the life, or of serious harm to the health, of the pregnant woman,

(b) the foetus has not reached viability, and

(c) it is appropriate to carry out the termination of pregnancy in order to avert the risk referred to in paragraph (a).

It is important, when we talk about these sections, to acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of terminations will take place pre-12 weeks. This refers to occasions where we have moved beyond 12 weeks, are in difficult and exceptional circumstances and dealing with tragic cases. I think the people of Ireland want to know that, beyond 12 weeks, termination will only be allowed in certain circumstances where there is a real and substantial risk. We are using language related to serious harm to the health or the life of the woman.

The wording in the section was considered at great length and needs to be read together because the formulation of words set out in the Bill is based on a policy position approved by the Government. It was set out in the general scheme of the Bill published last March to regulate the termination of pregnancy. I take Senator Ruane's point and hear her frustration, but we cannot second-guess and I have no right to do so why people voted "Yes" or "No" in the referendum and whether they had read the Bill. I certainly know, however, that it was debated extensively. It was waved at us by our opponents as bad and by proponents as largely good in terms of the grounds proposed. Many who campaigned for a "Yes" vote answered questions on the detail based on the draft legislation. Not everybody did so, but many did.

I have dealt with why the qualification "serious" was included from a legal perspective and established that it is about more than just normal risk to health that can come with pregnancy. Senator Devine is right to refer to the fact that Deputies in the Dáil also raised this issue, on which we had a lengthy debate. I need to reaffirm the view that the policy position approved by the Government and set out in the general scheme of the Bill to regulate the termination of pregnancy which was published in advance is that in the event that there is a serious risk to the woman's health, a termination of pregnancy may be carried out where it is appropriate to avert the risk. The term "avert" has not been changed since the general scheme of the Bill was introduced. As used in the Bill, "avert" means to avoid or prevent a serious risk of harm to a pregnant woman's health, to stop or turn it aside.The section clarifies that in the event that there is a serious risk to the woman's health, a termination of pregnancy may be carried out where it would be appropriate to prevent that risk. The language used in the Bill, again, has regard to the need to clarify that the scale of the risk of harm involved goes beyond that normally involved in a pregnancy and a termination of pregnancy is appropriate in cases where it can prevent such harm. An important point I need to make is that termination of pregnancy is not restricted to cases where the medical practitioner believes that the termination is necessary. We have just had that debate.

The word "appropriate" somewhat balances some of the concerns people may have in respect of the word "avert". In other words, it is not the only possible course of action in order to avert the risk of serious harm to the woman's health. Senator Marie Louise O'Donnell is correct in stating that there is not a list of what "avert" is and what conditions it covers. I see that as a strength rather than a weakness, although some Senators may not agree with me on that. I am referring to allowing our clinicians, in their reasonable opinion formed in good faith, to make decisions rather than having to dust down or take out some prescriptive list. That is my perspective.

A constructive suggestion at this stage, as put forward by Senator Bacik, and one similar to the conversation on "serious", is that we take the conversation on "serious" and "avert" together in the engagement we will have. This whole section is interlinked and the word "serious" appears in the section relating to aversion. If we are going to engage on this, we should probably engage on section 9(1) in its entirety. I would be more than happy to facilitate that engagement happening in advance of Report Stage.