asked the Minister for Health and Children whether he has issued or intends to issue policy guidelines to health boards prescribing the approach to be taken and the procedures applicable where the parents of a teenage pregnant rape victim in the care of a health board wish their daughter's pregnancy to be terminated.
Private Notice Questions. - Care of Rape Victim.
asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will give details of the current position of the 13 year old girl, reported to be pregnant as a result of violent rape, who is in the care of the Eastern Health Board; the steps, if any, which are being taken to protect the health of this girl; the steps, if any, which are being taken to uphold her right to travel to another jurisdiction to have her pregnancy terminated, should that be the decision of her family and guardians, in view of the constitutional guarantee of the right to freedom to travel; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
(Dublin West) asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will ensure that the 13 year old child victim of rape, currently in the care of the Eastern Health Board, will receive comprehensive non-judgmental counselling and information on all the options open to her; and if he will confirm that the State will not seek to prevent her travelling in the event of her deciding to opt for a termination of her pregnancy.
asked the Minister of Health and Children if he will publish the Government's intentions in relation to legislation to deal with the substantive issue in view of the most recent revelations regarding a 13 year old pregnant girl; the instructions, if any, he has given to draft a white paper on the matter; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
At a personal level, I was shocked and revolted at revelations of the appalling abuse suffered by a young girl, some details of which are now in the public domain. It is a dreadful situation for any young person or for any family to find themselves in and, as a parent, I feel deeply for them.
I do not propose to say anything which could add to the trauma experienced by the child and her family. I do not, therefore, propose to respond in detail to the questions which have been addressed to me in the specific case. I ask the House to accept that all our comments on this case should be characterised by a deep concern for the plight of the girl and her family. We must also bear in mind that aspects of the case are today being considered in camera by the courts.
However, I want to be as helpful as I can to the House having regard to these considerations. I assure the House the Eastern Health Board has taken all appropriate steps to ensure the girl's safety and well-being. All of her medical and related needs are being provided for and, indeed, the board's professional and caring approach is fully acknowledged. Certain of the questions which have been addressed to me are based on an assumption that a definitive decision has been taken on the pregnancy. As of now, I am not so aware. It is most important that the girl and her family be given the time and space to consider the complex issues involved and to avail of the best advice available to them. I ask Deputies to be mindful of this. I am anxious to avoid hypothetical speculation at this stage in view of decisions yet to be made by the family.
On Deputy Shatter's question, guidelines have been issued by the Department of Health and Children on reporting, investigation and management of alleged cases of child abuse. These guidelines due to be reviewed shortly by a group under the aegis of the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Fahey, have been supplemented by detailed operational protocols prepared by health agencies for their staff.
The Deputy raises the question as to whether we should issue additional guidelines to deal with situations where children who are taken into care have been raped and are pregnant. We would need to think carefully before doing so. I do not believe an immediate response by me would be helpful at this point. I say this because any case of the kind described by the Deputy will be unique, with its own set of circumstances. However, health professionals have considerable experience of dealing with children who have been sexually assaulted, resulting in pregnancy in some instances. All the resources that a health board needs to muster to deal with such difficult cases are available, including medical, legal, social and psychological expertise.
In regard to Deputy Quinn and Deputy McDowell's question on legislation to deal with the substantive issue and what, if any, instructions have been issued by me to draft a White Paper on the matter, I draw the Deputies' attention to the statement made in the House by the Taoiseach on 9 July 1997 on the release of the All Party Committee reports on the Constitution. He stated his intention to commence the preparation of a Green Paper on the issue at an early date. In view of the level of debate on this issue the Government is satisfied that a Green Paper, setting out the various options, is required before definitive proposals can be framed.
In the meantime, the matter has been considered by me and my Department and I hope to be in a position in about two weeks' time to report back to Cabinet on the political direction to be taken in the preparation of the Green Paper.
As is usual in a Green Paper, all options will be explored and I will seek submissions from all interested parties and members of the public at large to ensure this is done. The Government will initiate public debate on the issue with the publication of this Green Paper and the intention is to refer the matter at that stage to the All Party Constitutional Review Group.
I agree with the Minister's view that this is a tragic situation which must be dealt with sensitively by all Members of the House. I appreciate and understand the Minister's constraints in dealing with the case, as it is before the courts. Would the Minister not agree that specific guidelines are required to ensure that health boards deal uniformly with tragic cases such as this, and to avoid the necessity, when tragedies of this nature occur, for resort to the courts to clarify the legal position and the obligations and roles of health boards in these circumstances? Will the Minister assure the House that the Eastern Health Board and all health boards faced with a tragedy such as this will take action to ensure that the constitutional rights of a rape victim and of the parents of that victim are fully protected and recognised?
The Deputy is asking what additional guidelines need to be invoked at this stage. An operational review is taking place. However, regardless of policy directives, individual cases are unique and it is difficult to be prescriptive in a manner that will deal with every prospective case that might come before a court or a health authority. It is clear that the Eastern Health Board has acquitted itself admirably in these circumstances and continues to do so. I emphasise that there are decisions yet to be taken by the courts and by the family which constrain any comment by me. I am anxious to avoid impinging in any way on the constitutional right to privacy that both the child concerned and her family are entitled to in these circumstances. The operational review which will be undertaken by the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, will have to take into account the appalling circumstances we face here today and which are currently being considered by the courts.
Would the Minister accept that in tragedies such as this the role of the health board should be to ensure that full and comprehensive non-direct counselling is made available to the young child who has allegedly been raped and to her parents so that they are fully aware of the options available to them in dealing with the tragic circumstances in which they find themselves, and that no pressure should be put on either the child or the parents by a State body to make a decision in any particular direction.
The Deputy will be aware of the Regulation of Information (Services Outside the State for Termination of Pregnancies) Act, 1995, and what was enacted by this House was found to be constitutional. I assure the House that all appropriate and available guidance and help, legal, psychological, medical and otherwise, is being made available to this person in these circumstances.
I accept the Minister's point that we should all have deep concern for the tragic case of a very young girl subject to violent abuse who now has to live with the subsequent pregnancy. This case has been in the public arena for a number of days and many people are commenting on it. That requires us in this House, in our deep concern, to raise questions and to ensure that the young girl is protected as far as possible and enabled to exercise her rights as a citizen. In the X case, parents took decisions.
The Deputy should ask a question.
I want to ensure that I put the question in a way that the Minister can respond. It is important to recognise that in the X case the parents of a young girl made decisions in good faith and were prevented from carrying out those decisions at the time because of State intervention. It is a concern for us now, that there may be a question of something happening in relation to a decision being made by a young girl, in very tragic circumstances, with her family. Can the Minister assure us that the role of the health board is clear and that the health board can uphold this girl's right to travel if that is the choice that is made? Can the health board uphold the right that she has as a citizen?
I must caution the Deputy against the assumption that a decision has been taken by the family in this case. I am constrained in answering in the particular. In regard to what has entered the public domain, I will make the distinction between what is of public interest and what is in the public interest in this case. They may be two different things based on where the case is at.
Since the previous case came before the courts a number of years ago a constitutional referendum has been passed regarding the right to travel. I do not wish to preclude or pre-empt what, if anything, comes before the court in any given set of circumstances in regard to this case. The proceedings are being held in camera and I am satisfied that any matter that comes before the courts will be dealt with by them. I cannot say any more other than the right to travel for all citizens is not required to be upheld by any authority. It is a constitutional right available to all as a result of the passing of the referendum.
When he says "it" is before the courts, is the Minister referring to the terms of the care order or the position of the health board in regard to a child in its care and her right to travel? Is the right of a 13 year old the same whether she is in the care of the health board or her parents? I understand court action has been taken in regard to the care order. Will the Minister clarify this?
What is before the court relates to the care order, the children's court application. I cannot pre-empt or predict if any other issue will come before this or any other court until such time as we see the outcome. I cannot in any way suggest further matters will arise. I can only deal with the situation as it factually is.
Proceedings are being held in camera in regard to the renewal of an interim care order. That issue and matters which the court requires to hear are being heard. I do not wish to go any further in regard to it as I do not wish to add to the trauma the family is experiencing. I also wish to respect the family's right to take time and space to decide what it wishes to do in these difficult circumstances. I cannot be any more helpful to the Deputy.
(Dublin West): I appreciate the need for the most extreme sensitivity in this very sad situation. The personal aspects of this tragedy would be more properly dealt with in total privacy by the victim, her family and advisers. It would not be appropriate to raise it in this manner except that it has come prominently into the public domain and public bodies are involved. Therefore, some key issues must be addressed.
Does the Minister agree it would be unthinkable that the State would repeat its action of 1992 when it sought essentially to intern within its borders a 14 year old victim of rape, an action which caused enormous public outrage? Does he further agree that if a child victim of rape — and he can speak in general terms — decides after proper counselling not to continue with the pregnancy the State has no business in interfering in any form with that decision?
While accepting that the Minister does not want to speak on many aspects of this tragedy, will he nevertheless rule out that the Government and the State will in any way seek to interfere with any decision taken which would be totally proper? If, on the other hand, the child decides to continue with the pregnancy, will he guarantee that every assistance, including material resources, will be provided to ensure a life of dignity and reasonable material comfort? Will he agree the squalor in which this child's family lives is an indictment of the pathetically slow progress in providing proper accommodation for travelling people?
The State qua State did not involve itself in interning a citizen of the State at that time. I do not wish to become involved in any emotional or rhetorical oratory. On that occasion it was the Attorney General, operating an original jurisdiction as a guardian of the Constitution, who decided it was in the public interest to seek to clarify the situation in those circumstances. The State was not involved. The Attorney General cannot be politically directed in these matters. This original jurisdiction is available to an Attorney General if he feels it is required in the public interest. The previous case arose prior to a referendum which was adopted by the people. It stated that nothing in Article 40.3.3, proscribed the right to travel of any citizen from this State to any other state.
It is not my statutory responsibility to go into the history of accommodation of any family. Much work has been done by successive Government in improving the situation for the travelling community and more work will need to be done in the future.
(Dublin West): Will the Minister ensure the Eastern Health Board respects and facilitates whatever decision is arrived at after due consideration by the child and her advisers? Will he agree the terms of the Supreme Court judgment of 1992 might encompass the circumstances of this case and could come into play? Will he also agree this highlights the need to legislate urgently for this human situation under the terms of the Supreme Court judgment?
I assure the Deputy the health board will do everything it possibly can to support this child and her family. It has done this since the case was brought to its attention and will continue to do so. It has exercised its statutory responsibilities admirably.
The Whitaker Commission Review Group points out in its report that the substantive issue relating to Article 40.3.3 remains to be addressed in some fashion and sets out five options for consideration. The Taoiseach said we will embark upon the difficult journey of building consensus on how to deal properly and adequately with this issue. This can mean different things to different people. I assure the Deputy I will bring to Government in a matter of weeks proposals on a consultation process which will include all interested parties and which will culminate in the preparation of a Green Paper which will be sent to an all-party committee, made up of representatives of the public as constituted in the Houses of the Oireachtas, which I hope will come up with a workable solution on how to deal with this matter. I will not pre-empt or preclude available options on how to deal with the matter.
I concur with the Minister and other speakers that the circumstances of this case are particularly upsetting and that statements made in the House should in no way add to the upset of the family of the young girl concerned. What does the Minister intend to do about the so-called substantive issue, or what has been done about it since he took up office? He seemed to imply nothing had been done in the five months since he took office.
Or in the past five years. Let us share the blame.
I accept that. Nonetheless, when in Opposition the Minister's party was vocal in saying it would prepare, to use the Minister's phrase, the political direction to be taken by the Green Paper. In his response today, however, there is no indication of what that direction will be. The Minister has an obligation to tell the House what the political direction for the Green Paper will be. Will a particularly upsetting case of this nature be included as part of the political direction given by the Department?
This is an issue on which the people must have their say, on which they will be the final arbiters. If the people are to be arbiters on Cabinet confidentiality and other matters regarded as of less importance, they should be the final arbiters on an issue such as this which exercises the minds of many people. In Opposition we proposed, so the people would know our view on this matter, the holding of a constitutional referendum, accompanied by heads of legislation to be enacted if that was considered the best option subsequent to completion of the Green Paper process, as occurred, for example, in the case of the divorce referendum. Alternatively, legislation passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas could be put before the people by way of a referendum, using the procedures set out in Article 27 of the Constitution. That proposal was put by the Taoiseach when Leader of the Opposition as a possible option to be considered. In the final analysis those are the possible options which could be used in trying to reach a conclusion on this matter.
The Minister rightly pointed out that the constitutional review group identified various possibilities, but for the first time he has made clear he is opting for one of those possibilities, the holding of a referendum. Is that correct?
If legislation is regarded as the route by which this matter will be decided, we will invoke the Article 27 procedure in which case the legislation will have to be put to the people by way of referendum. That is the view of Government.
Abdication by Government.
It is not possible to deal with this issue by way of consensus without giving the people a say in the matter. I do not wish to divert from the specific issues we are dealing with, but many people spoke about the importance of consultation with the public on other issues, a point with which I agree, and on this issue too the people would like to be consulted. If legislation is the sole route by which the matter will be decided, subsequent to it being considered by the all-party committee and the Green Paper process, we will invoke the Article 27 procedure so that the people will have a say in the matter.
Is the Minister saying that if the Government ultimately decides to publish legislation on the substantive issue, having gone through the consultative process, the totality of the legislation will be presented to the people by way of a referendum? If so, has he considered the difficulty of explaining the complexity of such legislation for the purpose of a referendum? Has the Taoiseach considered the difficulties that arose regarding the recent referendum on Cabinet confidentiality which was an extraordinarily simple concept compared with the type of legislation that might be required in this case? Having regard to the constraints put on Members and Governments by the Supreme Court, has he considered how Government would even explain the complexity of such legislation to the people? Has he considered how a reasonable debate on such legislation could take place? Would he acknowledge that to propose to deal with matters in this way is an abdication of legislative responsibility? As the Minister with responsibility for children, has he obtained the advice of the Attorney General on the position of the Eastern Health Board, or any other health board, in circumstances in which a child victim of rape is pregnant and in care and seeks to exercise the right to travel to another jurisdiction to terminate her pregnancy? Has he asked the Office of the Attorney General what role health boards should play in that context? If any such case should come before the courts, has he inquired if the Attorney General intends to appear on behalf of the State in such proceedings?
We have moved well down the track at this stage. I have heard no criticism of a possible option along the lines of the divorce issue. The Deputy will recall that referendum was passed by a small majority while the Heads of a Bill were in the public domain.
That was not the same.
A similar procedure was used.
It was very different.
It was a totally different procedure.
It has been suggested that the heads of a Bill would be too complex for people to understand, but I do not share that view. Draft heads of a Bill were in the public domain at the time of the divorce referendum and the people were aware of the type of legislation that would be enacted if the issue were passed. Deputy Shatter claimed this is a complex way to deal with the matter. As far back as May we stated the Article 27 procedure might be appropriate in certain circumstances. I do not wish to predict the outcome of a process not yet finalised. I am merely stating a possible solution to the problem for the purposes of being candid with the House. It is clear from the short discussion we are having on this question that there is not unanimity on the matter. There does not appear to be unanimity on any option. Deputy McDowell asked me to outline the process that will take place.
I do not wish to preclude or predict what, if any, other issues might arise in a court hearing on this case. Issues are currently being held in camera before the court. The privacy of the family concerned must be maintained and respected. These issues may not arise because an important decision has yet to be made by the family and they are entitled to time and space to make it.
Does the Minister agree the courts will determine the outcome of these tragic circumstances? Does that not raise a question about the rather vague approach he has put forward? When the 1992 amendment was put to the people, the Minister published the Heads of a Bill to show what might happen if people did not vote the way the Government wanted. Is the Minister not conscious of the fact that this is not the only case likely to emerge during the time frame he mentioned? The people have already spoken in a number of referenda. The Minister's proposal to introduce a Bill is different from that adopted during the divorce referendum.
The Minister is not clear about his approach or about the need for legislation arising from the Supreme Court decision. There have been delays but we do not want any more. We do not want to come back here in the future to discuss the life of a young person which has been damaged in this way. No one wants to see the courts making decisions which we, as public representatives, have an obligation to make.
The previous Government carried out extensive research on this issue. Perhaps the Minister could indicate if that research has been published or is due to be published as it would give us an insight into this major problem in our society.
My reply will be succinct because I do not want supplementary questions being asked which are not relevant to this private notice question.
We are all acutely conscious of the predicament in which this family finds itself. Successive Governments have been unable to progress this issue since the previous case came before the courts. Time may be required to engage in consultation and I do not apologise for trying to achieve consensus on this issue. I do not underestimate the difficulties but this is the only way to deal adequately and comprehensively with the matter. A divisive approach is not the solution. I do not have a solution in mind nor does anyone else in the country. It would be best to allow me to go to Government within two weeks to propose a course of action, which will involve all parties in this House and interested parties outside it, to get to grips with this matter as quickly as possible.
As regards the individual case, it is not appropriate or helpful to go into any further detail for the reasons I have outlined, which are based on what I know of the case and its current sensitive and delicate stage. I ask the indulgence of the House in both these matters.
Has the Minister prepared draft instructions and will he publish his report to Cabinet in a fortnight's time? How long will it take to draw up the Green Paper and for the all-party committee on the Constitution to consider its report?
Those issues will be decided upon by Government in the next two weeks.
Will the Minister publish the report?
When we make a decision, the Deputy and the public will know the direction in which we wish to take this complex issue. I cannot conclude, prior to going to Government, what the decision will be except to indicate it is the Government's intention to set up a consultative process, provide a Green Paper as quickly as possible, and try to arrive at a decision on the basis of all-party agreement by way of the All Party Constitutional Review Group.
Is it the Minister's intention to publish his report in full, including the political direction to be taken?
Once the decision is taken, I will outline precisely what the Government direction will be.
It appears, and I do not claim any expertise in this matter, this case does not fall neatly or clearly into the X case decision. Will the Minister agree there are many people who are surprised and appalled that there should be or may be a legal obligation on a 13 year old child who has been raped to carry her pregnancy to full term? Will he ensure that that issue, in all its moral, political and legal implications, is part of the remit of the Green Paper?
That will be the remit of the Green Paper. It will include these appalling circumstances so that they may not be repeated.
It is right and proper that the focus of our discussion should be on the plight of this 13 year old girl and the likely constitutional implications. While I agree entirely with the Minister in relation to his reticence and enjoin on myself the same reticence, as a former Minister of State with responsibility for children there is another aspect——
I gave the Deputy the floor to ask a short supplementary.
Is the Minister aware that this girl is one of a family of 12, and certain questions have to be asked and answers demanded? Is the Minister taking the necessary steps to ensure the welfare and safety of other members of that family in the circumstances which pertain?
I recognise Deputy Currie's interest and expertise in this area. All issues relating to the best interests of the family are a matter for consideration by the Eastern Health Board. The issue before the court in relation to this one member of the family is taking immediate priority.
I draw the Minister's attention to the last three lines of his reply which states:
The Government will initiate public debate on the issue with the publication of this Green Paper and the intention is to refer the matter at that stage to the All Party Constitutional Review Group.
Will the Minister accept that referring the matter to the review group would seem to imply a desire on his part to seek a constitutional amendment? That flies in the face of the decision of the people in l992 where they refused to overturn the Supreme Court decision in the X case and at the same time accepted the right to travel and the right to information on abortion, which was put in place by the last Administration. That decision was made in the context of the draft heads of a Bill which the Fianna Fáil Government almost threatened to put in place if the amendment it sought was not carried. It is now incumbent on the Minister to bring forward that Bill and implement it. That would be in line with the decision of the people in l992.
That line did not exercise Deputy De Rossa when Minister.
It did.
This matter is being referred to the All-Party Constitutional Review Group, given that the solution may be both constitutional and legislative. Were it to be solely legislative, the Article 27 procedure would be invoked. This would require a referendum, on which I believe the All Party Constitutional Review Group should have a say, being a committee with some expertise in this area.
We must move on to the next business.
The Minister is abdicating his responsibilities.
I reject that.