Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I think what I said - and I am happy to check the record - but I think that what I said was that he had failed to draw attention to the House that the information on which he based the legislation, the claims about intimidatory behaviour that were contradicted by the University of Limerick Hospital Group, was actually shown to be untrue. I think that I also said, or communicated in such a way as to make clear, that I was unaware of whether he had knowingly or unknowingly passed on that untruth. The only claim I make is that he has not corrected the earlier untruth that he unwittingly or otherwise brought to this floor. He has constructive knowledge now and he knows, or ought to know, that this was shown to be untrue. My point is that when I hear further allegations here today, I worry that politicians are - naïvely or intentionally I do not know - doubling down on dishonesty in order to advance a certain political goal. It would be wrong for a Government Minister to do that, it would be wrong for a Senator to do that, and it would be wrong for any citizen to do that. I think I have made my position clear. I do not know whether Senator Gavan was in a position to know that what he relayed to the House on a previous occasion was false but he owes it to the House to correct the record now that we all know that it was false.My point is that it is important to correct the record when we come to know that something is untrue. People must not be surprised, then, that some people will find it hard - me included - to have any faith in the claims of those making the original unfounded allegations. If claims are made, let us take them very seriously, but let us seek evidence. Let us not seek to use unsubstantiated claims in order to advance the case of legislation that is in all likelihood unconstitutional and when people in the hospital in Limerick and the Garda Commissioner have communicated to leave us in no doubt that it is unnecessary.

Of course, there are things I can see in this legislation that I would be horrified to think would go on. Words like "intimidation" and so on are contained in the legislation. However, it was made very clear at an earlier stage that the law necessary to deal with any such unacceptable behaviour, which, not surprisingly, does not appear to be happening, is already in place. It is considered bad political practice to duplicate legislation when we have the necessary legislative provisions in place to deal with it.

It is obvious to me why such intimidatory behaviour is not taking place. The mainly elderly people who gather in small numbers to witness quietly to the dignity of the unborn are people who believe in human dignity. That means they have respect not just for the unborn, but for the mother of that child and the people whose actions in ending that child's life they so passionately disagree with. That is what respect for human dignity is about. It is about respecting everybody.

However, it is also about demanding truthfulness. The Minister's words today show that he and his officials are investing a lot of time and energy in order to, as it were, cosy up to this legislation, despite its non-necessity and probable unconstitutionality. The idea that the Minister would be spending so much taxpayers' money to deal with a problem that in fact does not exist in order to placate a particular activist group is repugnant to me and many others. I say that knowing that the Minister has claimed, on the record, that he would hear from and consult all sides in relation to abortion. He has not done so. Last week, I quoted the Minister in the Seanad and I also quoted Ms Geraldine Luddy and others addressing the meeting of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health on 8 December. The Minister said he would advertise openly for an independent chair of the three-year review of abortion services. The issue of honesty and consistency-----