Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Monday, 1 Jul 2013

Vol. 805 No. 1

Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013: Second Stage (Resumed)

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I call Deputy Finian McGrath, who has 20 minutes.

First, I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on this new and important legislation, the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013. I spoke on this issue on 7 December 2012, when I laid out clearly my position on the abortion issue. Today, I intend to speak specifically on this Bill and of course I have major concerns about the legislation before the House. I also support the request to have an open and free vote, as many Members have different views on the life and health issues of the mother and baby. I also believe Members must legislate for the X case and will lay out clearly my position on this matter. My agenda always will be to try to save all human life, while always putting the life and health of the mother first. It never is an easy decision and I trust the expertise and guidance of the medical personnel. The pregnant mother and the medical expert always should be the final arbitrators in such crisis situations. Let us stick to the best medical practice for all patients and it is important when this is stated in the legislation.

However, it is appropriate and fair to be open and honest in this debate and to deal specifically with the complex situation. I always have considered myself to be pro-life in all aspects of my beliefs and political philosophy.

I do not know anyone in this House who is anti-life, and we all want to do our best to save lives. We all need to do our best to save mothers, and we all want to do our best to save young babies and young children. That is my view, and I believe it is the view of most Members of the Dáil and Seanad. However, life is complex, and at times it is not fair and can be very difficult. There are times when extremely difficult choices have to be made. Many of us have had those difficult times in our own personal lives through miscarriages and threatened miscarriages or having a baby with a disability. They have all touched our families, but at all times life is at the top of our agenda. That is the reason I disagree with many of my colleagues that the issue of abortion is complex.

The bottom line for me is as follows. I would do anything to protect and safeguard the life of any woman or young teenager in any difficult pregnancy situation, as most parents and family members would do. There can be no talks about talks when it comes to one's personal and family's health situation. Most medical people would do that, and if a termination is necessary to save the life of a young woman, I would agree with doing that. That is the key point in this debate.

The main purpose of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013 is to restate the general prohibition on abortion in Ireland while regulating access to lawful termination of pregnancy in accordance with the X case and the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the A, B and C v. Ireland case. Its purpose is to confer procedural rights on a woman who believes she has a life-threatening condition in order that she can have certainty as to whether she requires this treatment. That is what the legislation, and this debate, is about.

My personal position is clear on issues of women's health, rape and incest. Termination should be allowed after the best medical advice involving the people directly affected by it. I know many people who have different views on abortion, but they have to examine these issues as well.

There is also the issue of personal conscience and personal choice, something the political parties should respect. People with different moral and ethical views in very difficult situations should be allowed to have a free vote. People should not be whipped into making a decision with which in their conscience they disagree. Many Ministers and Ministers of State have said that in the past, and I strongly support that position. This is a very private, personal, moral and ethical issue and they should be allowed to have a free vote, even though I disagree with many of them. Despite that free vote, I believe most people will move towards the consensus that there is a middle ground in this debate.

As things stand, the 1992 X case judgment remains the basis of abortion law. Hospitals can and do carry out terminations where there is a risk to the life of the mother. Suicide is currently accepted as a risk. In the past 20 years, the sky has not fallen in with women claiming suicide as grounds for abortion, which proves that women are more responsible than many have portrayed them. It is argued that the Government should formalise this situation, and that would be my personal position. I will deal with this later in my contribution.

In recent weeks, the media have repeatedly mentioned the abortion lobby. Those who want the Government to legislate for the judgments in the X case and the A, B and C v. Ireland case are not part of that agenda. They are the majority of people in this country and have been so since 1992. In other words, there is a middle ground in this debate that is often excluded. That is important.

The suicide issue is very important and it is at the heart of the problem. If suicide is excluded, other medical emergencies become easier to legislate for and control to some extent. However, any mental health advocate knows that suicide can and does form a very real risk during pregnancies. To disallow suicide could make for stronger legislation, but it could also lead to tragic circumstances where women who are victims of particularly traumatic experiences are left without the support they need and have a life-saving option taken away.

I acknowledge that my colleagues across all parties in the Dáil have engaged in a commonsense and unemotional debate, and I welcome that. We also had the hearings at the Joint Committee on Health and Children, which I thought were fair and balanced. We have had a decent debate and an open discussion, and all views are on the record.

I refer to section 9 of the legislation.

It is important to consider this section in detail. It deals with a risk to the life of the pregnant woman from suicide. Section 9(1) states that termination of pregnancy shall be lawful in situations where the procedure is carried out by an obstetrician or gynaecologist in an appropriate institution and where three medical practitioners registered on the specialist division of the Medical Council register have jointly certified that in their reasonable opinion there is a real and substantial risk to the life of a pregnant woman arising from suicide that can only be averted by that medical procedure. Many different views have been expressed in respect of this section during recent weeks. I received correspondence from various individuals who are very involved with their churches. This is not a simple matter for the different churches. For example, there are different views within the Catholic, Jewish and Protestant faiths and among those who are non-believers. We must, therefore, move away from any kind of sectarian context when discussing this matter. People, organisations and political parties and groupings - the Independents, Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, etc. - have different views. That is the complex reality of life, particularly in the context of examining matters of this nature.

I referred earlier to rape and incest, which are not contemplated within the legislation. In addition to these matters, I am also concerned about that which relates to fatal foetal abnormalities and which is also excluded from the legislation. I will wait to see how the Government and the other mainstream parties react to this situation. People are genuinely concerned with regard to women who are in crisis situations where there is no hope whatsoever of maintaining life. Those women are being crucified and tortured in a very negative way. Such women have communicated with Members in recent weeks. We must ensure that they are given a voice and that their concerns are heard.

When debating this issue, it is important to consider carefully all the different angles. We heard from the expert group, which provided us with excellent information, and also from the Joint Committee on Health and Children. The expert group provide a number of options and following this debate - when everyone will have had time to express their views and have them listened to - it will be time for us, as legislators, to deal with the matter. I continue to lean towards option 4 as put forward in the report of the expert group. We need legislation and strong regulations to provide clarity for the citizens of this State and the medical profession and in order to do our best to save the lives of mothers and children. That is my position and it is important that I should outline it. We must ensure that the relevant amendments to the legislation will be forthcoming. I have listened to the wider debate on this issue and I have met many people directly affected by its subject matter. I have also considered the various options outlined in the expert group's report. At present, I am minded to support the option of a combination of legislation and regulation in order to regulate lawful access to the termination of pregnancy in Ireland in accordance with the X case, the European Convention on Human Rights and the judgment handed down in the A, B and C v. Ireland case.

I referred earlier that we must listen to the opinions of members of the medical profession, a number of whom appeared before the Joint Committee on Health and Children. When she came before the committee, Dr. Rhona Mahony, Master of the National Maternity Hospital, stated:

It is my opinion that the current framework under which medical practitioners operate in Ireland is not satisfactory and further clarification and guidance is required in this regard ... In the context of the rare circumstance where there is real risk to a pregnant woman's life as a result of pregnancy and prior to foetal viability the concept of equal right to life becomes a contradictory concept. In these situations medical judgement must be made in good faith to save the life of the woman. If she dies, so will her foetus.

These are important points to note and they have arisen during the debate on the legislation. Dr. Mahony also stated, "there must be sufficient flexibility in law and regulation to support medical judgment and in this regard, the protection in law of women and medical practitioners is of crucial importance".

Finally, she said in her submission that society may be reassured that clinicians in Ireland will continue to work tirelessly to preserve life in all circumstances. That was one of the submissions that came to the Joint Committee on Health and Children. We should listen to all views and all strands in respect of this legislation. While I will await the final amendments to the legislation, at the moment I will probably support the legislation because we have to act and we have to provide legal certainty and legal clarity, and I think it is important that we do this.

It is important in this debate that we respect all views and that, after we make a democratic decision in the House, whether the vote is tomorrow or the next day, all views are listened to and everyone is given a chance to speak. I emphasise I would support the dissenters because I am usually the dissenting voice, but in this particular case I will support the legislation.

I have to say that I never imagined when I stood for election to the Dáil for the second time in 2011 that I would find myself here two years later speaking on a Government sponsored Bill to liberalise abortion law in Ireland. I am in no doubt by now that this legislation will pass, notwithstanding the many reservations expressed both privately and publicly by colleagues from all parties and in the face of grave reservations expressed by expert psychiatrists in two separate sessions of hearings of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children. I can only hope that logic and verifiable evidence will prevail and substantive amendments will be accepted to ensure the rights of all human beings are protected with the full rigour of the law.

I have never regarded myself as a pro-life campaigner. I was not motivated to become active in politics because of the abortion issue. In fact, I have spoken previously about the fact that I had a very different view on this topic when I was a student. However, after much reflection, my views have evolved over the years as I learned more about the topic, as I came into contact with friends and family affected by abortion and as I matured and developed my own independent analysis of this most sensitive topic. Crucially for me, I stepped outside the groupthink which dominates this debate in Ireland. It seems that if one does not succumb to the accepted view that abortion is a liberal issue, a women's rights issue and a cornerstone of the progressive agenda, then one is deemed to be a backward, illiberal, Neanderthal fundamentalist who belongs to a different era. The distinct irony of this prevailing view is that it is so illiberal in its intolerance of any alternative outlook.

Of course I respect the right of people to campaign for liberal access to abortion. Many of them do not consider abortion to be the intentional ending of human life, and so they simply see it as a medical procedure which can simply be regarded as a clear-cut choice. I can appreciate this way of thinking because I used to think that way myself. Carried along with the accepted, supposedly progressive, view on abortion, I never considered the other life involved. Given the huge stress and trauma that surrounds abortion, we know that this medical procedure analogy is a sterile yet dangerous inaccuracy. I think the majority of us know and appreciate that an unborn baby is just that: it is a baby. If such a baby is born prematurely, we do not simply shrug our shoulders and say this baby has not come to full term, it is merely a foetus and we will not treat it; of course not. We do everything possible within the bounds of medical science to save that baby's life. We know that a baby cannot live independently outside the womb but that is not a cause to give up on it. This is human life, after all, and we must save it.

Some say this is a women's issue, that it is about women's rights. Therefore, if one is pro-life, one is obviously anti-women. Yet when one steps back from the stifling groupthink and reflects, I think one arrives at a different view. I am a woman and I am very happy to say I am also very much in favour of women's rights, by which I mean all women, not just adults, adolescents or children. I mean babies too. The sad reality, as we look around the globe at how women's rights are advocated, promoted and defended, is that it is clear to me that abortion is, in fact, often a tool for the oppression of women.

We can consider what happens in China, India, Korea and some parts of Europe and the United States of America. The societal preference for boys over girls has led to the obliteration of tens of millions of baby girls who were simply never "born".

A famous feature carried by the Economist magazine in 2010 indicated just how females are discriminated against in this age of abortion. One paragraph from that edition jumped out and frightened me. It states:

Until the 1980s people in poor countries could do little about this preference: before birth, nature took its course. But in that decade, ultrasound scanning and other methods of detecting the sex of a child before birth began to make their appearance. These technologies changed everything. Doctors in India started advertising ultrasound scans with the slogan “Pay 5,000 rupees today and save 50,000 rupees tomorrow” (the saving was on the cost of a daughter's dowry). Parents who wanted a son but baulked at killing baby daughters chose abortion in their millions.

It would be bizarre if we, as legislators, and I hope as thinkers, did not ask the obvious question of what is the net difference between such screening, followed by intentional gender-based abortion, and the intentional killing of the baby after delivery. The answer is none. The net effect is exactly the same, which is to say that an innocent baby is simply wiped out. The scale of this exercise is such that in China, by the year 2020, there will be 30 million to 40 million fewer women than men walking the Earth, growing up, having families, going to work and generally contributing to their society. Having 30 million to 40 million fewer women is hardly a triumph for feminism or liberalism.

The horror of abortion is also to be seen close to home and the phenomenon of designer babies is one element that horrifies me most. This year we celebrate the ten-year anniversary of the Special Olympics coming to Ireland, and that was an extraordinary occasion which saw children and adults with intellectual disabilities - particularly Down's syndrome - celebrated in this country like never before. In a sense it marked the end of marginalisation and the beginning of a new era, when people with special needs were finally embraced and celebrated as they should be.

Many people might not like this juxtaposition of these two issues but I believe in facing reality. In the United States - a country that initially introduced abortion in extremely limited circumstances - the use of prenatal screening is today absolutely prolific and increasingly acceptable in society. There are many studies charting disturbing trends but one by Professor James FX Egan of the University of Connecticut indicated that of the 122,519 Down's syndrome babies expected to be born between 1989 and 2006, only 65,492 were born; almost 50% of those babies were simply obliterated because they were not "perfect", whatever that means. That is genuinely terrifying and shocking all at once, and it again shows that this question of abortion is not a liberal issue. It is far from it, and in a liberal society, we celebrate life in all its imperfect manifestations.

We also celebrate the right of human beings to enjoy life, whether we speak of a criminal on death row, an innocent baby girl or a baby with Down's syndrome. None of us is perfect but our life is worthy and we are all worthy of life. Who is any one of us to determine that one single life is not worth living or protecting?

I did not stand for elected office to pursue a pro-life agenda and my view before all the elections I contested was crystal clear and often repeated on many doorsteps in my constituency and on the airwaves. It was no secret that my party, Fine Gael, unashamedly defended the right to life and issued repeated statements to that effect over the years, including stridently in advance of the last general election. As with most politicians in the last election, I campaigned on a platform almost entirely focused on the economic future of our country. For me and Fine Gael, this was essentially a pro-enterprise agenda concerned with restoring our economic sovereignty and ensuring we emerge from the shackles of our bailout programme, restoring hope and dignity to our citizens.

This is what we in Fine Gael have dedicated ourselves to in the two years and nearly four months since our Government was formed. Along with the Taoiseach and all our Ministers, I have worked day and night to contribute to this country's recovery. I certainly do not want to give up on this work. I firmly believe that we still have much to do. The revelation of the Anglo Irish Bank tapes last week reminded me of this. It reminded me once again of the disease and rot at the heart of the system which I want to contribute to changing.

What of another type of rot - one which could enshrine in Irish law for the first time ever and in contravention of our expressed constitutional obligations a hierarchy of human being in this State and one that says we can select who deserves to live and who does not? People have contacted me in recent months condemning me for having a moral or ethical concern about abortion. Some demanded that I leave my morals or conscience aside in order to support abortion. I find this logic bizarre. There is an emerging consensus in Ireland which suggests that having a sense of morality has something to do with the Catholic Church. It is automatically assumed that if one wishes to consult with one's conscience, that somehow equates to consulting with Rome. This is a lazy way of attempting to undermine the worth of an argument without actually dealing with the substance. This is not just a Catholic issue any more than it is a Protestant or Muslim issue. It is not a religious issue; it is a human rights issue. I wonder what one should consult with when voting on a fundamental human rights issue such as this if it is not one's own conscience. My personal view is that all I can do when making a decision on life and death - and that is what we are considering here - is consult my conscience, which is based on my sense of what is right and wrong.

Who or what else can I consult - the latest opinion poll, the party hierarchy or the editor of the most popular newspaper? I mentioned groupthink, which is a corrosive affliction in this country. We saw it in the Haughey era, we saw it during the Celtic tiger era and we see it on this question of abortion. It is easy to understand why people in positions of responsibility want thorny issues to simply disappear. It is far easier than risking conflict or unpopularity, or worse, paying the price for speaking up. Would the country not have been much better served in the 2000s had more people on the Government benches, in academia or in the media been prepared to raise their heads above the parapet? I am sure there were many conscientious objectors who realised that what was happening was wrong yet they all remained reticent to avoid the wrath of their colleagues, the public, their bosses, the media and so on. Conscience lost out and the country suffered greatly. We all have the right to conscientious objection. It is enshrined in Article 18 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that "everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion". I contend that this freedom of conscience is not just a right but a duty.

I will briefly address some of the substance of the Bill. Given my misgivings about this Bill, I am hoping that some substantive changes might be accepted to improve the legislation in order to make it compatible with our constitutional obligations as legislators. It is fair to say that sections 7 and 8 do not cause me any concern. I welcome the fact that we will be ensuring certainty for medical practitioners and pregnant women in a case where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother in accordance with the test set down by the Supreme Court in the X case. It is right and proper that all women, including prospective mothers, can benefit from the highest possible standard of care in Irish hospitals. No woman should lose her life through inaction during pregnancy. I hope and believe that we are all agreed on that. That is surely a pro-life position.

However, I am deeply concerned about the inclusion of the so-called suicide clause in the legislation, which is section 9. This, in my opinion and that of the vast majority of psychiatrists in the country, is a very worrying step. Not only does it fly in the face of the evidence presented at both hearings of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children where the overwhelming view of the medical profession was that abortion could never be a treatment for or solution to suicidal intent, this clause has the potential to normalise suicidal ideation by enshrining suicide on our Statute Book for the first time. This is of major concern.

The only way to avoid the introduction of this flawed element of the legislation is to omit it entirely from the Bill, and I urge the Minister, Deputy Reilly, to read and reflect upon the expert psychiatric evidence presented before the hearings of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children. I also ask him to study the alarming but illuminating statement endorsed by 113 Irish psychiatrists who unanimously declared the suicide clause is simply unworkable.

It seems from recent statements from Ministers that the Government's view is there can be no term limit on the right to end a pregnancy by inducing delivery. If a woman's life is in danger and the unborn baby is deemed to be viable, there is an obligation to bring forward delivery to save the life of the woman while making all efforts to save the life of the baby. This has the potential to cause major medical negligence litigation, but I do not propose to address this point in any detail as others have already made the point cogently. Further to this position, the Government has expressed the view that whether a pregnancy can be ended by means of an abortion depends on the gestational stage of the unborn child. If a foetus is viable then delivery must be induced and an abortion is not permitted. The clear result of all of this is an inherent term limit for abortion in the legislation. If this prohibition on abortion after viability is assumed and articulated publicly by the Government, then why not enshrine it in the legislation?

In JM Kelly: The Irish Constitution, originally authored by former Fine Gael Deputy and Minister, Professor John Kelly, the leading authorities on Irish constitutional law, Dr. Gerard Hogan and Professor Gerry Whyte, support this line of argument and go so far as to state it is disingenuous to suggest the X case allows abortion until the point of birth. Logically and legally by this analysis there is a constitutional term limit already in place, namely, the point of viability outside the womb. The Government and leading academics agree on this point. Given there is agreement between the Government and leading constitutional lawyers in the State, why should this not be expressly stated in the legislation? I am strongly of the view an amendment to the legislation clarifying and confirming the legal term limit for the carrying out of an abortion is necessary. It is also perfectly constitutional and further, it is the absolute minimum protection necessary in a civilised country. Such a provision would give firm legal basis to what is already the interpretation of the Government and it would provide a small degree of reassurance to those citizens with genuine concerns about the possibility of abortion up to full term which, incidentally, does not exist in any jurisdiction, even regimes were liberal abortion on demand exists. They all impose term limits.

I wish to discuss the right to vindicate the constitutional rights of the unborn. I am entirely perplexed as to why the right to legal representation for the unborn is excluded from the legislation. It is the minimum protection required to be afforded to unborn children. It is important to remember at every step of this legislative process that the unborn child is a human being - a person - and has full rights as such under our Constitution. This means that as a constitutional person an unborn baby has the exact same right to life as any other living constitutional person. This concept can sound abstract to many people. They might ask how an unborn baby with no voice and no capacity can benefit from legal representation. In reality, in the pursuit and vindication of human rights, this is absolutely nothing unusual. A baby one day old can be represented in the courts and this happens regularly, for example, in medical negligence cases through the ad litem procedure. Persons of limited mental capacity can be represented in our courts to have their rights vindicated. This is not a luxury afforded the most vulnerable people in our society. On the contrary, it is often the only way in which they have their constitutional and human rights vindicated in a world where otherwise they might suffer greatly.

I understand that some people do not believe that a foetus is a person and, therefore, that it has no legitimate expectation to have its constitutional rights vindicated. However, this is simply an ideological position and is not borne out by the law or our Constitution, which explicitly recognise a foetus as a person having the same and equal rights as other people.

I can only assume that the logic behind this omission in the Bill is that legal representation is not warranted on the grounds that medical decision making does not warrant consultation with all parties. However, it is difficult to think of any other medical procedure or decision in which the rights of a third party and not those of the patient directly are affected. Surely legal representation is more appropriate in these cases, not less.

Decisions made under sections 7 and 8 are purely medical and based on empirical evidence. However, decisions made under section 9, relating to suicidality, are of a different nature. They involve judgments of credibility, veracity and so on by psychiatrists, not simply empirical observations by doctors. As a result, the decisions should be detailed, forensic and investigative and take place over a number of days at a minimum. This difference in nature between the decisions to be made under sections 7 to 9, inclusive, was the central point of the article written by the former Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, Eamonn Barnes, in The Irish Times. These decisions are also quasi-judicial in nature, given the panel system. Surely the unborn should be represented in that scenario. It is impossible to justify a situation whereby the unborn, a constitutional person-----

I must interrupt the Minister of State, as her time has expired. The House might be prepared to agree that she can finish her speech. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I appreciate that. It is impossible to justify a situation whereby the unborn, a constitutional person, would be prohibited from being represented in front of a panel when grown adults, also constitutional persons, are entitled to such representation in front of similar panels where decisions have a profound impact on their rights, for example, in front of mental health tribunals under the Mental Health Act 2001. There are precedents.

It is arguable that the Attorney General has a constitutional obligation to act when there is a public interest in vindicating rights identified in the Constitution. This is acknowledged in a great deal of case law as a privileged role of the Attorney General. The Supreme Court has specifically recognised this role under Article 40.3.3°, the right to life. As per Mr. Justice Finlay in the X case, this right or duty of the Attorney General is inherent in the Constitution and, therefore, should be articulated in the Bill.

Furthermore, under the Constitution all interested or potentially affected parties to a legal process must be given a right to express their points of view, that is, the fundamental constitutional right of participation. Both sides in every case must be heard. This well-established constitutional law principle was reinforced by the Supreme Court in Dellway Investments & ors. v. NAMA & ors. in 2011. Under the formula in the Dellway case, the right to life of the unborn is clearly capable of being directly affected in a material way by a decision taken under section 9 of the Bill.

Since this is a constitutional principle, it is implied into all statutes. It seems likely that the legislation could be challenged successfully on the grounds that no specific mechanism is in place for the position of the unborn, a constitutional person, to be advocated or the unborn's rights to be vindicated.

The Ceann Comhairle will be pleased to know that I am moving to my conclusion. I have mentioned some key aspects of the legislation that need to be amended. The Minister for Health, Deputy Reilly, has stated his intention to accept amendments on Committee Stage. I take him at his word and assume that this means substantive amendments based on evidence, not just procedural amendments. If the Bill is to live up to its title, the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill, it should aspire to do just that - provide protection to all lives, no more and no less. It must protect women whose lives may be in danger during pregnancy. We expect and demand that this be the case.

It must also protect the lives of babies in pregnancy; otherwise the Title will simply be misleading.

Ireland is a great country for mothers and babies where the best possible care has been, and continues to be, afforded. This Bill has the potential to change that and change the compassionate culture of care which we have treasured for so long.

Before concluding, I want to read an e-mail I received last night, which really struck me. It sums up the essence of the problems with the Bill. It was sent to me by a psychiatrist, who said:

Dear Ms Creighton, my name is Dr. [Y]. I am a psychiatrist for the last ten years and I am also a woman and a mother. I have experienced both depression and pregnancy. From all these perspectives, I ask you to think long and hard before the vote on the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill, and to discuss your concerns with your party colleagues. Suicidality is not an easy diagnosis to make. It is dynamic, not static, with the matters contributing to the suicidal state constantly changing. There is absolutely no test one can make to predict whether someone will die by suicide. Finding out one is pregnant for all the wrong reasons is a devastating, life-altering thing but as human beings we try to help people adjust and make decisions in a clear frame of mind. Abortion has never ever been a treatment for suicidal ideation and completed abortion may end up being one of those dynamic factors that pushes someone to contemplate suicide. There is nothing so devastating as guilt to the depressed mind. Two wrongs do not make a right. Please consider diverting energy and resources to supporting people with unwanted pregnancies, not pushing them down a path that may be detrimental to their mental health later when it is too late. Thank you for reading this. Dr. [Y].

I have obviously inserted the letter Y in place of the person's name. This sums up very well why this legislation, as currently framed, is considered unworkable by so many experts. I have genuinely had countless e-mails and letters, particularly from concerned psychiatrists, in the last few weeks. Believe it or not, I have not received a single letter from a psychiatrist welcoming this Bill or saying that it is necessary to deal with suicidal intent.

Compassionate, clinical care is what is needed. My firm belief is that the Government should put all possible resources into providing this for young, vulnerable women. Abortion solves nothing. I know a number of women who have had abortions and deeply regretted it. I genuinely do not know any woman who has had a baby and regretted it. No matter what the circumstances, the initial stress, anxiety, fear, stigma or concern - all of which are genuine - we must support women in their hour of need. That is simply our moral and constitutional duty.

I cannot rise to add my few words to what has to be said without paying tribute to the Minister of State, Deputy Creighton. She has spoken with courage, conviction and passion about an issue that I know is close to her heart. I commend her on that.

Like many previous speakers, I feel obliged to contribute to the debate as it is one on which I believe there is an obligation on Members to indicate where they stand and, indeed, why they have reached the particular conclusions on this critically important legislative issue. Let me state at the outset that I am totally committed to the lives and welfare of women, and that any legislation which seeks to secure and enhance that objective is deserving of our full support. However, section 9 of the Bill before us takes the legislation far beyond this point and, in my view, it does so wrongly and unnecessarily.

Much has been said and written about the Supreme Court decision on the X case in 1992. Evidence was given to the Joint Committee on Health and Children by Dr. Maria Cahill and Mr. Paul Brady, BL, which raised the question as to whether the decision in the X case is binding on the State. In their presentations they quoted the former President of Ireland, the late Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh, and members of the divisional High Court, Mr. Justice Morris, Carroll and Kelly, as basically concurring. I quote them: "A point not argued is a point not decided. This doctrine goes for constitutional cases as well as for non-constitutional cases."

Additionally, in his submission to the Oireachtas committee, Mr. Paul Brady, BL, quoted Mr. Justice Brian Walsh, speaking extra-judicially at the National University of Ireland, Galway, about the eighth amendment to the Constitution.

According to Mr. Brady, Mr. Justice Walsh, speaking in this context of the eighth amendment, stated:

[It] confers no immunity for taking life and its stated objective is the preservation of and respect for life. It is perfectly consonant with the idea of safeguarding of the mother's life without intentional and direct intervention to terminate the life of the foetus. The claim that it admits of direct termination has never been fully argued. In the X case it was conceded. There was no legitimus contradictor to argue against such a construction and therefore the court's decision can only bind the particular case as it was based on a conceded and unargued construction. It is well established that neither a constitutional provision nor even a statutory provision can be construed on the basis of a concession if it were to be binding in rem.

Another important contribution to note and put on the record of the House is that of Dr. Maria Cahill which states:

From a separation of powers perspective it would be remiss of me not to avert to the fact that, as Members of the Oireachtas, you know more than most that head 4 (or Section 9 as it is now known) is not compatible with evidence based best practice. What head 4 therefore asks you to do, as legislators, is to set entirely aside the medical knowledge that you have, to ignore the great clarity that the January hearings brought to this policy area, and to legislate instead in defiance of science and explicitly to contradict best medical practice, in the absence of a legal justification for that legislation.

For my part, I have been impressed by this argument. Nonetheless, and despite the passage of time, it is my opinion that the decision by the Supreme Court in the X case was wrong. At the end of the day, no court or Legislature can turn something that is fundamentally wrong into something that is right. Having mentioned the hearings undertaken by the Joint Committee on Health and Children I take this opportunity to commend Deputy Jerry Buttimer and members of that committee on the positive atmosphere and professional manner which prevailed over the six days of those hearings. However, it came as a great disappointment to many of us that the committee did not effect any significant change to the legislation as initially proposed by Government. Indeed, much of the professional evidence given was totally disregarded. In addition, I consider it bizarre to say the least that women with direct personal experience of abortion who sought to come before the committee were refused the opportunity to do so.

Section 9, which provides for the termination of pregnancy in the case of suicidal ideation, is clearly the most controversial. Without it, all Members who have expressed opposition to the Bill would be readily available to support it. The facts have been well documented, namely, one in 500,000 pregnant women will be suicidal because of their pregnancy; three of every 100 determined by psychiatrists to be at risk of self harm or suicide will go on to take their own lives and abortion is never a treatment for suicidal ideation.

Former Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. Eamon Barnes, in an article in The Irish Times - this was also referred to by the Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, in her speech - sums up the particular problems that arise under section 9 as follows:

There is an immediate and obvious essential distinction between cases arising under sections 7 and 8, on the one hand, and cases arising under section 9 on the other hand. Issues which will, sadly but unavoidably, arise under the former category could be issues of objectively ascertainable physical fact, however difficult such ascertainment would in many cases be for the medical practitioners involved. They are peculiarly suited for professional resolution by such practitioners. While psychiatric expertise would no doubt be of assistance in ascertaining the reality of a claim that a woman is suicidal because of her pregnancy, it could scarcely be asserted that such expertise is peculiarly or exclusively appropriate for the resolution of such a claim. Obviously this would be particularly true of a case where a woman would make a spurious or dishonest claim of suicidal ideation for the purpose of obtaining a termination of her pregnancy under the provisions of the Bill if enacted in its present form.

Further on in the article Mr. Barnes offers us an opportunity to improve the legislation by proposing that the unborn child be represented in any case pursued under section 9.

He states:
Under the Constitution, and in particular article 40, a pregnant woman’s right to life, like that of all others, must be vindicated by the State and its laws. Such a woman has a facility not available to the foetus, the facility to assert her constitutional rights. It could, and no doubt will, be argued that the provisions of sections 9 to 14 of the Bill constitute protection for the constitutional right to life of the foetus. It is necessary to consider if those provisions do in fact constitute such protection, and if they do, whether such protection is adequate and whether the provisions comply with the requirements of article 40, section 3, subsection 3, particularly but not exclusively because of the absence from them of any mechanism for the assertion on behalf of the foetus of its constitutional right to life corresponding to the facility available to the woman.
It is clear that a majority of Members propose to support the Bill before us. I appeal to them, when the opportunity arises in the days ahead, to support amendments which give effect to what Mr. Barnes proposes and make perfect sense in the circumstances.
I emphasise my total support for measures aimed at giving certainty to pregnant mothers about the high quality of care they will receive in maternity units and I do so as a brother, husband and father. In each and every case, it is essential to intervene to save the life of the mother. Equally, however, it is completely wrong to unnecessarily and deliberately take the life of the unborn child. I am convinced of the precious nature of human life in all its manifestations, from the point of conception to natural death.
The Deputies who, in conscience, support this legislation believe for the most part that it will not result in the opening of the floodgates. There is, however, at least a question as to whether the Bill achieves the objectives the Minister and Taoiseach purport to support. For my part, there is a significant risk that, as currently worded, it will usher in abortion on demand, despite the provisions of Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution. For this reason, I will oppose its passage through the House.
As Deputies Kirk and Mathews and others noted, there would be considerable value in availing of the opportunity to take Committee Stage in the Chamber where all Deputies would have an opportunity to contribute. I do not mean to detract from the work that has been done by the Joint Committee on Health and Children or the manner in which the Select Committee on Health and Children might transact its business. However, given the desire on the part of everyone to maximise involvement in the Committee Stage debate, it would be of beneficial to hold Committee Stage in the Chamber.
I reiterate my Opposition to the Bill, as it is currently constructed, and commend again the Minister of State, Deputy Lucinda Creighton, on her contribution.

I am sharing time with Deputy Damien English.

In addressing this pivotal, painful and deeply divisive matter, it is important that we recognise that it is, above all, a faith-based issue. By this, I do not mean it is an issue based in any one of the many religious codes now represented in this country but that it requires us to have faith, do the best we can in legislation and fulfil our duty as lawmakers. Our duty is not a controlling, punitive one, nor is it about controlling the behaviour of the citizens who elected us as it is not for us to assume they are malicious or manipulative. When I was principal of a primary school I never saw the children as they arrived at the school every September as potential lawbreakers or future evildoers. On the contrary, I saw them as individuals, each of whom was unique and packed with promise. I never considered it my duty to lay down rules to prevent from occurring the totality of awful things in which a small minority of them could engage. Anyone who spends time with children knows that where there are toddlers or teenagers, they will come up with things to do that no adult brain could ever anticipate.

One sets down the minimum rules and one has faith. One has faith that they will, like the rest of us, want to be happy, want to have friends and want to achieve something. One has faith that they will learn and show compassion. One has faith because without faith, there is no hope and without hope, life is not worth living.

The Bill requires us to be rigorous in our argument and thinking but it also quite properly requires us to have faith, first of all in women. The language of suspicion that surrounds suicidal ideation in pregnant women is doing a disservice to the women of the State. At best it shames vulnerable women and at worst it demonises them. The language of suspicion holds that if a woman is in a crisis pregnancy and can terminate that pregnancy by claiming to be suicidal, she will make precisely those claims. This is to caricature women and reduce them to one manipulative stereotype. It is unrealistic, nasty and inhuman. The reality is that many thousands of women find themselves in crisis pregnancies every year. We have some figures for those who find their way to British cities. We have no figures for the thousands who stay in Ireland, give birth and cope with the often very difficult consequences. I have seen no useful figures for the women who take their own lives and those of their unborn children because they can see no other way out. However, none of us can have any doubt that it has happened, does happen and will happen. That is what the Bill is about.

Every pregnancy - crisis or desired - is unique, just as every pregnant woman is unique. The suggestion that women en masse would deal with crisis pregnancies by presenting to the medical profession and claiming to be suicidal disrespects every woman who has had such a pregnancy and who may have one in the future. That disrespect happens when we deal with this issue in the abstract. Because it is abstract, it is possible to be absolute. Absolutes are difficult to apply when the issue is not abstract. When it is a real human being in perhaps terminal distress, when it is a woman we know, care about or gave birth to, then the absolutes fall away as to arguments such as the floodgates argument. When we know and respect the woman who has a crisis pregnancy, we cannot bring ourselves to see her as faking determination to die in order to get a termination. Nor can we see her as part of a horde of other manipulative women in the same situation. When we know her and love her, we have faith in her. We must have faith in the tiny minority of women who, in crisis pregnancy, resolve to take their own lives rather than carry the pregnancy to full term. They are entitled to be heard, treated and taken care of when their lives are at substantial risk.

We must also have faith in the medical professionals who will deal with this tiny minority of suicidal pregnant women. They are professionals who chose to enter a caring profession and are scientists. Dr. Tony Holohan, chief medical officer in the Department of Health, told us that psychiatry is a clinical science and one that is based on scientific method and endeavour. It is not a hocus-pocus assessment. There is a genuine clinical method and evaluation. The simple assertion that there is uncertainty in that clinical evaluation in no way negates the science behind this practice of psychiatry. Doctors caring for women seek at all time to assure her health and the health of her baby. When a woman walks into a hospital before she reaches 40 weeks of gestation, the doctor will do anything and everything to treat whatever symptoms the woman may be showing to ensure the gestation period can be prolonged.

The health of the woman and her child is always of the utmost importance. Why then would we assume that a pregnant woman presenting with suicidal intent would not be treated in exactly the same way and with the same seriousness? Why does suicidal ideation or intent not have a place alongside the serious symptoms that threaten the lives of both mother and child? No doctor faced with a pregnant woman who has an extreme obesity condition complicated by diabetes could predict the outcome for the mother or her child. Medicine is not black and white, it is messy and it carries no guarantees. It is uncertain, it is about addressing risks and deciding on the best available medical practice and then treating the symptoms and the illness. Under this legislation a pregnant woman who presents with suicidal ideation would be offered medical and psychiatric help. That is only right. No doctor or psychiatrist can definitely confirm that the patient will or will not kill herself. All they can do is deal with risk in good conscience. They are mandated to care for two lives.

Many times it has been stated that termination of pregnancy will not treat or solve suicide. That much has been said in the House by one psychiatrist after another and that for me is an indication that a psychiatrist treating a suicidal pregnant woman will automatically seek to treat her using methods which have a track record in treating and solving suicide rather than using methods which do not treat or solve suicide. They will work to save both lives. We can have faith in that. Further, I believe that if we respect psychiatrists and obstetricians then we must have faith in them. Having listened to so many of them - it is clear not all of them agree with each other on aspects of the legislation - I do not believe that suicidal intent, though rarer than symptoms such as infection, haemorrhaging or high blood pressure, would not be treated with the same quality of care used to treat any other symptom. I remind the House that the provisions of the Bill ensure that no single psychiatrist will ever make a decision to terminate a pregnancy on his or her own. That will not and cannot ever happen.

Throughout my contribution I have emphasised the importance of our duty to remember our limitations as legislators and to demonstrate our faith in the professionals who will implement the provisions of this law when it is passed. In that context I wish to address the suggestion that legal representation should be brought in to argue for the rights of the unborn foetus in the case of suicidal intent on the part of the mother. The central problem implicit in such a suggestion lies in the lack of faith in the medical consultants involved. If consultants are mandated to protect both lives, as is the case in the Bill, then bringing a lawyer into the room implies that they cannot be trusted to protect the unborn life without legal intervention.

The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill is about the sanctity of two lives. It is about legislators doing their duty and relying on other professions to do their duty as well. It is about checks and balances and appeal procedures. Above all, it is an opportunity for Members of Dáil Éireann to move away from frightening absolute allegations about manipulative women lying about their desperation and instead demonstrating our faith in the citizens who elected us.

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for the time to outline my thoughts on Second Stage of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013. As an elected Deputy for Fine Gael affiliated with the Christian democratic movement and representing the people of Meath West, I have a privileged duty to serve the needs of all my constituents while also to legislate on behalf of the people as the nation. People who know me and those familiar with my track record as an elected politician at local and national level will see how I try to take into consideration every detail set before me and how I do my best honestly to achieve what is right, possible and due within the laws and institutions provided by our Constitution and the apparatus of the State.

I do this, as always, conscious that I have been very blessed in life with the strong foundation and support of my family and community. I am proud of my Catholic faith and in my life as a young adult I hope that I have wholeheartedly put the needs of others before my personal concerns. For that reason and many more, I have found the legislation which this Dáil has inherited from the referenda passed by the people of the Republic a difficult task to consider. However, I accept it is required on foot of the Supreme Court judgment and a number of referenda, most recently in 2002.

The past nine months have been difficult in terms of trying to get one’s head around the issue, to read into it fully and to get everyone’s position in order to make the correct decision. I thank the many people who took the time to write, e-mail or telephone me on the issue. I sincerely thank those who met me in Leinster House, my constituency office in Navan or in their homes during the past nine months. I appreciate that people consciously took time out from their busy lives to share with me their views on the Bill and the wider abortion issue. The conversations I had with the majority of people were constructive. We had good debates, and on the whole we could finish with a handshake in the knowledge that a respectful understanding of views was shared. In many cases people were offered meetings at 11 p.m. at or 8 a.m. in order to squeeze them in. The fact that no matter what time I suggested, people turned up, is an indication of how serious they considered the issue and how important it was for them to get their views across. I respect and accept their position. The majority of written correspondence I received was sent in good faith and I did not get the abuse referred to by others. There will always be e-mails where all one can do is press the delete button. That is what I did with e-mails that went beyond rational debate. It is as simple as that.

I am pleased the Bill restates the general prohibition on abortion in Ireland. While I have concerns with certain detail of the Bill as it stands, I take solace from the fact that the thrust of the Bill is to save lives - that of the mother and of the unborn. The majority of people who came to me are of a similar view in that they are pro-life or anti-abortion. I have grown up with the belief that it is a fundamental right of the unborn to be brought into this world and that everything possible to vindicate the life of the unborn must be carried out. Sadly, that is not always possible due to the risk of the loss of life of the woman.

The Constitution provides for, and we have a duty to legislate for, complicated medical scenarios. There must be clarity and certainty in the law with respect to the clear and definitive guidelines on when clinicians can intervene to save the life of a woman. I understand that the purpose of the Bill is to provide clarity, following the X case judgment and subsequent referenda, on the circumstances where a medical termination is permissible in cases where there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as opposed to the health, of a woman as a result of a pregnancy.

The proposed legislation should be strictly within the parameters of the Constitution and Supreme Court judgment in the X case. The Bill is meant to only cover existing constitutional rights. The Minister for Health, who is present, and the Taoiseach have informed the House that this Bill does not create any new rights, nor should it, despite some individual Members of the House wishing for that to be so. Individual Members have spoken of their desire that in the future, the legislation would go further. It will not and cannot. The Bill only deals with the Constitution as it stands today, which is what we should be discussing. We must focus on that debate and not muddy the waters with anything else.

The general scheme of the Bill is based on a number of important principles, two of which require greater clarity and explanation in the wording of the Bill and to be clearly set out in the regulations arising from the legislation. From discussions with the Minister, among others, I accept that it is not always possible to get into the Bill itself every word we would like to be included. Where that is not possible, it must be done by regulation to provide further clarity or definitions. Not all of us are doctors and have signed up to the ethical guidelines under which they operate. We often wish to see matters outlined more clearly or in more detail, but I accept a balance must be struck between what can be put into legislation and what can be in regulations. What is important is to get across the principles of what we are trying to achieve.

The two key principles at stake are, one, that the equal right to life of the unborn will be upheld and the obligation on the medical profession will be to save both lives where possible, and two, that medical termination of pregnancy can only be legally permitted in situations where the doctors involved in the assessment process have unanimously certified that it is the only treatment that will save the woman’s life by averting the real and substantial risk to her life. The decision must be unanimous, not two out of three or one out of three. All three must agree. These principles cannot be stated too often and must be as clear as possible.

Amendments may also be needed in order that the monitoring and control of these principles in practice are upheld. This is very important and I note many people have proposed all kinds of changes and amendments. On Committee Stage, any amendments that would help to tighten up this measure and make it clearer, as well as making reporting on and monitoring of the practice of the legislation must be very clear in intent. Such amendments must be accepted on Committee Stage, if possible, if so doing helps the thrust of the legislation to guarantee what the Bill is intended to achieve.

Sections 7, 8 and 9 deal with the three scenarios that probably concern people in this regard and on which people mainly focus. Section 9 is probably the measure that is of greatest concern to everyone. In discussions with most people I have met, there now is an acceptance of the provisions of sections 7 and 8, that is, when there is a risk of life to the woman arising from physical illness and where there is a risk in an emergency. During the debate on this issue, an acceptance has emerged that greater clarity is needed in this regard, that this can only be done through regulations and that such regulations require underlining legislation. This is the reason Members are debating this Bill today. Consequently, over the past year, the provisions of sections 7 and 8 have become acceptable to most people I have met although there always will be a few who will never accept even those two sections. However, the issue that of most concern with the people I represent and meet is section 9.

This section is of concern to me and I refer in the first instance to the actual principle of the inclusion of the risk of suicide. However, I accept this already is a right in the Constitution and while I might not like it, I accept it is there. It has been put to the people a number of times and on each occasion they have voted to keep this right. In the words of the submission made by Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness during the second round of committee meetings, the transcripts of which I read through in their entirety, "The removal of this ground for termination of pregnancy would require a further referendum”. She went on to state, "This constitutional position has been conceded, however reluctantly, by the more rational and legally aware representatives of anti-abortion groups". I consider myself to be one of those people who is rational and legally aware and consequently recognise that this right already is in the Constitution. I have no problem with other groups who have a particular argument to make or who do not like a certain section of this Bill. However, I ask that everyone agree on the current position in respect of the Constitution and what is actually in it, in order that one can have a proper, rational debate around this issue. The Constitution does not always reflect everything one would like but one should accept what is there. I believe Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness brought great clarity to precisely what is in the Constitution. Moreover, in his opening statement, the Minister also referred to the current situation in respect of what are people's rights. While the practice might be different, I refer to what is in the Constitution.

While the aforementioned principle is one part of it, the second major concern is that in allowing for this principle or when trying to put into practice this constitutional right, the legislation could unintentionally open floodgates or be open to abuse. This is probably the major concern most people have brought to my attention. I refer to the genuine fear that were this legislation to be drafted wrongly or were a word to be tweaked or were something to happen, it would open up, and therefore lead to, an increased delivery or number of terminations that would take place. People do not want that and the people whom I meet, talk to and represent do not desire it. While they voted in referendums in a certain way to allow for the risk to a woman, to a mother, they do not want that to be abused. This is my interpretation of what people say to me and what I am trying to represent. Members have a duty to keep this legislation tight.

From talking this through with the Minister at various meetings, I believe the intent is to keep this right and to make sure it reflects the X case. There must be a guarantee this will happen, therefore, whatever is required on Committee and Report Stages must be done to ensure this. The procedures as set out in this Bill should be sufficiently rigorous to ensure that very few cases will be dealt with under this section. The Bill is meant to reflect the X case and hence, its practical implications should be very restrictive in nature. Both Committee Stage and the regulations to be introduced offer a chance to tighten this up. I have great faith in the medical profession, which has in place certain codes of ethics. Obstetricians do all they can to protect the unborn and to ensure the babies are brought to a point at which there is a chance they can survive outside the womb. That is what they do by nature and one must ensure the legislation allows for that and states this is what is sought. The best place to point this out probably is in the regulations.

All Members have concerns and views about the gestation period and the lack of detail thereon in this Bill. I am told there are constitutional reasons for its non-inclusion but perhaps the regulations are a suitable place to include and deal with this issue because it would go against the very nature, education and training of obstetricians and so on in the case of the unborn being at 25, 26 or 27 weeks, as a few more weeks could make a major difference in this regard. In its present form the Bill allows for the termination of pregnancy but the associated guidelines should point to an expectation, where at all possible, that the treatment given to the mother both for physical illness or even in respect of the risk of suicide should be such where the baby can be born and kept alive outside of the womb, ideally at 30 or 32 week or so on. There are some difficult timeframes involved in this issue that must be addressed and discussed further. Efforts must be made through regulation to point out clearly there is an expectation at all times that the life of the unborn will be protected.

While I would like to go on a little further-----

I am sorry but your time is up.

I believe this legislation can be got right. I believe this Bill can be implemented and will not open up floodgates. However, that will be down to how tight Members can get it. They must tick every box in this regard and it must be monitored correctly, which covers reports involving the Minister. The reporting and presentation of information to this House and the public to enable them to ascertain what happens in practice also can be dealt with on Committee Stage. I believe the intentions are right in this regard, which are to implement the existing law. Members must ensure it happens in practice and this is what people need to know and need to trust. This can only be proven over time and will be down to how this is monitored, controlled and allowed for. Reporting forms part of that and this can be addressed and followed over the coming years.

If it ever happens that this legislation produces a result Members did not expect or seek or that the Minister genuinely did not seek, they must be able to return and address this it through debate, referendum or whatever it takes in years to come. If it turns out that legislation allowing for the X case in a referendum is abused, Members must be able to deal with that. I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing the time to discuss this issue.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this Bill. I listened with interest to what some of the previous speakers had to say and it is fair to state that even those who are supporting the Government in this regard have concerns about the possible ramifications of the Bill and are seeking Committee and Report Stage amendments. I ask the Minister to consider good practice in this regard in respect of legislation that probably has caused the most soul-searching for Members in many a long year and ask him not to rush the legislation. I ask him to agree that the legislation be brought into the House for Committee Stage or in other words, that Committee Stage be held in plenary session, as well as Report Stage, that adequate time be given in the House for both Stages and that Members not rush the legislation only to regret later there were aspects of the Bill that were not teased out. I note the serious concerns in this regard raised by Deputy English and I believe he is reflecting a wide view of opinion around the House, even among those who support the Bill, which is that one must be very careful regarding every word and every comma included in this Bill. Members should never give in to arbitrary deadlines and in this case, rushing the Bill would be dealing with an arbitrary deadline.

I accept there are many conflicting views on the proposed legislation and that there are few topics that cause as much debate and soul-searching as this one. I also accept the bona fides of all Members of the House on this subject. Many Members have thought long and hard before coming to a decision as to whether to support this legislation. At the outset, I wish to set out that I, like all Members present, believe in the absolute importance of protecting the life of the mother during pregnancy and that I am concerned that Ireland will continue to maintain the very high standards of maternal care that have been provided in the past. That our maternal mortality rates are low by international comparisons is widely acknowledged. However, it must also be recognised that constant vigilance is needed.

In particular, the case of the death of Savita Halappanavar, and the subsequent finding of the Coroner's Court and the Health Service Executive inquiry, raise worrying questions that must be addressed. I extend my sympathies to Savita's husband and to her family on her death, which was tragic.

In ensuring the protection of the life of the mother, we are also constitutionally bound to protect the life of the unborn. The Constitution, which is written in layman's language, can only be changed by the people and it states our obligations clearly in this regard. It states: "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right."

Along with all here, I believe there is an imperative to defend and vindicate the right to life of the mother, and all the parts of this legislation that seek to do this without impairing the equal right to life of the unborn have my support. There are amendments that can be made to the sections dealing with a physical threat to the right to life of the mother to improve them. These can be made in committee, and I hope the Minister will be open to suggestions in this regard. However, we must not forget at any time that we also have duties to the unborn and that the fulfilment of that obligation should not be seen in conflict with our obligations to the mother.

Regarding the unborn, our Constitution acknowledges the right to life and requires us, in regard to this right, to "guarantee[s] in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right". The question is whether this legislation does that. Before I address that issue, however, I wish to address the fundamental issue of the reason for such a provision in the Constitution and the core values of our society.

In this debate there has been reference at times to the beliefs of certain churches in this regard. I believe the issue is much more fundamental than that and goes to the core of our beliefs as a modern 21st century developed society. Most societies in the world have a core set of individual or human rights, and that is particularly strong in Europe where we have the European charter of human rights. At a world level the concept of human rights is well developed at United Nations level, and more fundamental human rights are being defined all the time. The European Union would claim to be founded on a set of human values and includes among those a prohibition on capital punishment or the judicial taking of life irrespective of how heinous the crime perpetrated by the convicted person. Our Constitution has a comprehensive set of fundamental rights, including personal rights, that in all runs to 11 pages in a text of 90 pages. In other words, more than 10% of the Constitution is given over to fundamental rights.

One of the personal rights enumerated in the Constitution is the personal right to life of all citizens. Article 40.3.10 of the Constitution states: "The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen." Article 40.3.2o states: "The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen." The Constitution clearly vindicates the life of every citizen.

I do not know of anybody who disagrees with those rights or who claims they represent the beliefs of any one religion. They are in my view universally accepted rights of our people, and these rights extend to all citizens irrespective of anything they may or may not have done. Any examination of Article 40.3.3o must take place in the context of the above, and the question we must ask ourselves is whether the right to life of the born citizen should extend to the unborn. That was the issue the 1983 amendment sought to clarify.

This leads to the fundamental question as to whether unborn human life is human life, and if it is, whether it deserves the same protection as all other human life. I accept there are fundamental differences in opinion in this regard with many in our society believing that unborn children are not fully human and not deserving of fundamental independent legal protection, and that their right to life is totally at the discretion of the mother. I understand that is the position of the group in society who would label themselves the right to choose group. I recognise that they hold their beliefs sincerely and that they see the unborn as being totally dependent on the mother and, essentially, her property. Just as I can accept their bona fides, can they not accept that there is another way of looking at this issue from a human rights perspective? That is that the unborn is a human being and the fact that it is in the womb does not change that fundamental fact, and that, as such, it is deserving of the protection of the law and human rights. Science would seem to indicate that this is so and to believe otherwise creates other dilemmas, particularly because as medicine develops it will be possible to deliver babies and sustain them outside the womb at ever earlier stages of development. I also believe that as society develops into the future the human view of preborn life will grow, as will its protection, just as the vindication of other born human rights has developed enormously over the past 100 years.

I examined this legislation believing as I do in the humanity of unborn human life and agreeing fully with the injunction in the Constitution to vindicate that right, balanced against the equal right to life of the mother. In regard to the provisions where there is a physical threat to the life of the mother, I have no principled difficulty if at all times the objective is to vindicate her right to life while at the same time, as far as is practicable, seeking to protect the unborn. If a termination of pregnancy takes place in such circumstances that the child is viable outside the womb, all must be done to nourish and protect that life. If it is necessary to carry out a procedure before the unborn can live independently outside the womb, I accept that this is acceptable on the premise that saving one life is better than losing two. We must ensure that this legislation does that totally in conformity with the Constitution.

I cannot accept section 9 of the Bill in regard to suicide ideation. The arguments in this regard are well-rehearsed and well known.

I am of the view that this section does not protect the right to life of the unborn for the following reasons: it will allow for the first time in Irish law the intentional killing of the unborn; it is generally accepted among experts in the field that abortion is not a recommended treatment for suicidal ideation in pregnant women; there are well established and evidence-based treatments for people who are suicidal as a result of mental illness in pregnancy; it is widely accepted that it is impossible to predict with any certainty whether a person who states they are suicidal is likely to commit suicide; there is no obligation on the person presenting under section 9 - which deals with suicidal ideation - to accept any other medical treatment that is recommended; it is accepted that suicide in pregnancy is very rare and there is no evidence that a provision such as this will reduce the risk of suicide in women and some would argue it could have the opposite effect; and there is no provision in this Bill, as pointed out by a retired Director of Public Prosecutions, to guarantee, and, as far as is practicable for the State - by its laws - to defend and vindicate the right to life of the unborn under this section. I hope I am wrong but I am of the view that this legislation will open the floodgates to widespread abortion.

Unfortunately, my time is limited so as I conclude my remarks I will state that I cannot support this legislation and I will be voting against it on Second Stage. Those across party lines who will join me in doing this will be making the correct decision. In many cases, they will be punished by their parties for doing so. I hope those who are pro-choice will respect the views the minority and accept that their stand is being made from a human rights perspective. I ask those who are fundamentally pro-life but who are of the view that they must support this Bill and that it will not open the floodgates to work with those who oppose it in order to strengthen and improve it to ensure the latter will not happen. My fundamental objection to the Bill will not change, but I recognise that the Government has the numbers. The Taoiseach has repeatedly stated his pro-life credentials. Let him now prove these credentials by at least tightening up many of the provisions of the Bill that are open to abuse and wide interpretation and that are likely to have consequences contrary to those outlined by him.

My own preference, however, is that the section dealing with suicidal ideation would be deleted from the Bill in its entirety and that the Bill would be passed after the inclusion of amendments to deal with outstanding issues. In such circumstances, the so-called X case dilemma could then be dealt with in isolation in a way that would retain the fundamental meaning of article 40.3.3o as understood by any layman or laywoman and as originally passed by the people. It must be remembered that it is the people who own the Constitution and not anybody else.

Is dóigh liom go mbeidh an tseachtain seo thar a bheith tábhachtach ó thaobh bun-chaighdeán agus bun luachanna an phobail seo - muintir na tíre - a leagan amach. Tá súil agam go mbeidh deis againn plé iomlán a dhéanamh ar an mBille istigh sa Teach seo, go mbeidh Céim an Choiste istigh anseo sa Dáil seachas i seomra coiste agus go ndéanfar plé ar Chéím na Tuarascála anseo freisin. Tá súil agam nach gcuirfear aon srian ama ar an mBille seo. Chomh maith le sin, tá súil agam nach ndeifreoidh muid ar aghaidh ón Dara Céim den Bhille go Céim an Choiste agus nach ndéanfar iarracht ansin deifriú ar aghaidh ó Chéim an Choiste go Céim na Tuarascála gan deis labhartha a thabhairt do na daoine ar fad atá ag tacú leis an mBille seo, ach atá, duine i ndiaidh duine, tar éis a rá go mba cheart leasuithe a chur leis agus go mba cheart é a dhéanamh níos láidre agus go mba cheart cosaint i bhfad níos fearr a thabhairt do shaol daonna an phaíste sa bhroinn.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this significant and hugely sensitive legislation. With reference to what Deputy Ó Cuív and others have stated, it is important to stress that the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill is a very narrowly confined item of legislation. It is also important to remind ourselves that the Bill is the result of the Government decision of 19 December last concerning the implementation by the State of the judgment in the European Court of Human Rights in the A, B and C v. Ireland case. That decision approved the implementation of the said judgment by way of legislation with regulations "within the parameters of Article 40.3.3o of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the X Case". In other words, both the Government decision and the Bill remain resolutely within the parameters of the Constitution.

We are introducing legislation to recognise the existing constitutional position and ensure that regulations can be brought forward to give the medical profession clarity and certainty when dealing with cases where a mother's life is at risk. To see evidence of that this is the case, I direct people to the table on page 57 of the Report of the Expert Group on the Judgment in A, B and C v. Ireland. That table summarises the position regarding abortion law in 27 countries of the Council of Europe. It details whether abortion is available in each of the countries on the following grounds: to save a woman's life; to protect physical health; to protect mental health; foetal abnormality; rape or incest; economic or social reasons; or on request. Whereas every other country has abortion available in two or more of those categories, the table accurately states that in Ireland abortion is available in just a single category, namely, where a mother's life is at risk. If and when this Bill becomes law, abortion will still be available in Ireland in that single category of a mother's life being at risk. It will not be available to protect a mother's health, in cases of fatal foetal abnormality or in cases of rape or incest. Thousands of Irish women will continue to travel to the UK each year for abortions and, in many cases, they will never seek or obtain the medical aftercare and emotional support they need upon their return home.

This legislation is extremely confined, recognising the existing constitutional position and no more. I would like to believe that in time, and once it becomes clear that this legislation had not opened any "floodgates" - to use a term uttered by a number of Deputies - as a just and humane society, we would look further. I would, for example, like to believe we will seek to ensure that a mother would not be obliged to carry her child to full term when the tragic reality is that the child would not survive outside the womb. Who can possibly imagine the grief of mothers who wished for terminations in such circumstances, who were obliged to travel abroad to obtain them and who then went through the torture - as one couple described recently - of having their much wanted and loved babies returned by couriers in cardboard boxes?

I am aware, as I am sure are all Deputies, that not every woman would wish to terminate her pregnancy in the case of a fatal foetal abnormality. For those who do, however, it is my personal belief that they should be enabled to do so here in Ireland. I would like to believe that we, as legislators, would be able to reach a position - at some not-too-distant point in the future - when we can provide for this. For now, however, the Government is doing what successive Administrations since 1992 have failed to do, namely, legislating for the X case and providing the clarity that the medical profession and pregnant women need and deserve.

Opponents of this Bill suggest there is no need to legislate. Without wishing to inflame the debate in any way, I must state that they are wrong and in order to see why, it is only necessary to consider the circumstances of the woman known as C in the A, B and C v. Ireland case. The woman in question became pregnant unintentionally while in remission from a rare form of cancer.

When she discovered that she was pregnant she consulted her GP and several medical consultants but felt the information she received about the potential impact of the pregnancy on her health and life was insufficient. Fearing for her life in 2005, she travelled to England for an abortion. Upon her return she suffered complications of an incomplete abortion, including prolonged bleeding and infection. In short, the woman went through the most horrific, harrowing ordeal. Her argument to the court was that the absence of legislative implementation of Article 43.3.3° meant that she had no appropriate means of establishing her right to a lawful abortion in Ireland on the grounds of a risk to her life. The court agreed.

The court found that Ms C had travelled for an abortion "as she mainly feared her pregnancy constituted a risk to her life". The court said that "the uncertainty generated by the lack of legislative implementation of Article 43.3.3°, and more particularly by the lack of effective and accessible procedures to establish a right to an abortion under that provision, has resulted in a striking discordance between the theoretical right to a lawful abortion in Ireland on grounds of a relevant risk to a woman's life and the reality of its practical implementation".

The court concluded that the Irish authorities had "failed to comply with their positive obligation to secure to Ms C effective respect for her private life by reason of the absence of any implementing legislative or regulatory regime providing an accessible and effective procedure by which she, Ms C could have established whether she qualified for a lawful abortion in Ireland in accordance with Article 43.3.3° of the Constitution".

The judgment is absolutely clear - successive Irish Governments failed to put in place a system that would have enabled women to determine if they qualified for a lawful abortion in accordance with the Constitution. The harrowing ordeal Ms C suffered is clearer still. She had been seriously ill with cancer. She was pregnant. She had no idea if the pregnancy could end up causing her death and she could not get the answers she needed in Ireland as to whether she qualified for an abortion or not. She could not get the answers, the court found, because of the lack of a legislative or regulatory regime to give effect to Article 43.3.3°.

Will anybody tell me now that this Bill is not necessary? Will anybody tell Ms C or any woman who found herself in a remotely similar situation that this Bill is not necessary? As provided for in the programme for Government, this Administration is facing up to its responsibilities and putting in place the combination of legislation and regulations that will - I fervently hope - ensure that no woman ever finds herself in the same situation as Ms C.

Let me cite another crucial aspect of the A, B and C judgment. The court acknowledged that providing the clarity required under the judgment would be a "sensitive and complex task". However, it noted that many states had previously managed to specify the conditions governing access to a lawful abortion and put in place the required implementing procedures. Immediately after that point, the court added: "Equally, implementation could not be considered to involve significant detriment to the Irish public since it would amount to rendering effective a right already accorded,after referendum, by Article 43.3.3° of the Constitution." Therefore, this is a right that the court has judged that the people of Ireland, through the passage of Article 43.3.3°, have conferred.

This returns me to my earlier point - in this Bill, we are simply providing legislative clarity to the existing constitutional position. To those who would somehow still insist we are making fundamental changes or "opening the floodgates", I would refer them to a key piece of testimony during the Joint Committee on Health and Children hearings on the Bill. Professor Fionnuala McAuliffe of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists was asked specifically about the numbers of women who would seek terminations under the legislation once implemented. She responded as follows:

As to what numbers we are anticipating, the view of the institute is that this legislation provides a legal framework for existing, current medical practice. We are facing pregnant women whose lives are threatened by the pregnant state and need either termination or pre-term delivery. This legislation provides a process for that so that we are not working in a legal vacuum or unsure as to whether a woman's life is in immediate danger or in danger down the line. It provides us with a legal framework for current medical practice. That is our stated view.

There are those, of course, who wish the Government would ignore the constitutional position and would remove the risk of suicide as a ground for an abortion in this legislation. Apart from the obvious perils of any Administration playing fast and loose with the Constitution, those people focus on the argument about abortion not being a treatment for suicidal intent. This is missing the point that a very small number of women may become suicidal because of their pregnancy and that, in such circumstances, a termination is required to save the mother's life.

The chief medical officer of the Department of Health, Dr. Tony Holohan, was also asked about numbers at the committee, specifically in relation to risk of loss of life from suicide. He said:

My general expectation is that it is not likely to be significant. We have made provision for the grounds of suicide because it arises as a consequence of the constitutional position and the Supreme Court judgment and because it would be impossible to rule out the possibility of suicidal ideation and a risk to a woman's life as a consequence of self-destruction that could only be averted through termination. Removing this provision entirely would be based on a belief that it could never arise. I would not expect it to be a very widespread or common occurrence but I would not say that it would never happen and I will not put a number on it.

I am aware that for many opponents of the suicide ground, this is a strongly held and utterly sincere view stemming from the deepest personal convictions, and I respect those views. What I cannot respect is the view of a small number who suggest that somehow women would fake being suicidal, simply to obtain a termination. The idea that there are numerous women so desperate that they would fake suicide, I simply cannot accept that view of Irish women. I find the view that women simply cannot be trusted deeply insidious. It is a very difficult issue but the notion that one cannot trust either women, doctors or the medical profession and that large numbers of people would fake suicide is one I cannot accept. I understand why people may be concerned but I do not accept the further argument that has been made by some.

If and when the Bill becomes law, it will preserve the equal rights to life of the unborn and of the mother, as per Article 43.3.3°. It will ensure that there is clarity as to the circumstances when a mother's life is at risk and a termination can be carried out. It will end the uncertainty for pregnant women and the medical professionals treating them. Frankly, this should have been done a long time ago. I am glad the Government is legislating for this now.

Over all of this hovers the case of Savita Halappanavar, a young healthy woman miscarrying a much longed for and desired baby.

In this particular tragic case, everything that could go wrong appears to have gone wrong. The very least that can be expected in these very dangerous situations is that the pregnant mother and her doctors should have clarity in how to save her life. The ultimate issue is that the legislation is about saving the life of women in the small number of cases where a woman's life is in danger because of pregnancy. That is the core important issue.

As a society we have a very long and tortuous history with regard to women having children outside marriage or on their own. There is also a strong history and legacy of the care provided by the medical profession to pregnant women, and people on all sides of the debate have remarked about the importance, standard and quality of the care to pregnant women in Ireland. I ask those who doubt the need for the Bill to consider again those cases - few in number, partly because of the advances in medical science and technology - where a woman's life is in danger. Numerous doctors have spoken both to the committee and outside this House, and they need legal clarity to carry out their job and save the life of a mother when it is at risk. The Government is seeking to achieve this with the legislation.

As I said at the outset, this is very confined legislation. It gives effect to the A, B and C v. Ireland judgment in the context of the constitutional measures that the people of Ireland enacted and which are reflected in Article 40.3.3o of the Constitution, as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in the X case. It is no more and no less. It is of the utmost importance that we legislate for this in order to provide protection for the life of the mother when it is required.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Bill, and I speak as a Deputy who does not label herself as either pro-life or pro-choice. I strongly disagree with attempts to pigeon-hole people into one or either camp.

For too long the debate on abortion has been polarised and we have not heard sufficiently from the middle ground. I believe most Irish people, like me, are turned off by the extremes of the pro-choice and pro-life lobbies. Abortion is much more complicated than some of the public debate indicates. In my view, it is about finding the correct balance between two sets of rights, that of the woman and that of the unborn. To see the issue as merely a matter of choice for a woman is to deny human rights for the unborn. At the same time, to insist on an equality of rights between the woman and the unborn is simply unrealistic.

The majority of Irish people have a very nuanced position on abortion and they certainly do not want abortion on demand, but nor do they want us to pretend that in life, very real and serious dilemmas do not arise for people. A majority of people want a sympathetic but robust system that would rule out abortion on demand but would allow for abortion in a number of specific cases such as, for example, where the woman's life is at risk, in the case of fatal foetal abnormality or in the case of rape and incest. We need to ask the question, "What would I do if I was in any of those positions, or what would I do if my wife, my daughter or my sister was in any of those positions?"

Ideally, in such cases, decisions on termination should be made by the woman concerned on the advice of her medical professionals. Unfortunately, as we know these cases are not provided for in this country under the original 1983 amendment. This Bill is a minimalist response to the A, B and C v. Ireland judgment and is designed to meet the basic requirements of that ruling and the political needs of both Government parties. I welcome the fact that the Bill clarifies the position where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of a pregnant woman arising from a physical illness that can only be averted by a termination. This provision in section 7 is essential for the protection of women and it provides clarity and certainty for medical practitioners. Two medical specialists must certify this risk, which need not be immediate or inevitable. In the case of an emergency relating to a physical illness, certification for the procedure may be issued under section 8 by one medical practitioner, which is reasonable.

Provision under section 9 relates to the risk to a pregnant woman from suicide and this is one of the main sections which has given cause for concern. A requirement to legislate in such cases arises from the X case judgment in 1992 and the outcome of the subsequent referenda in 1992 and 2002. On both occasions the people voted not to remove suicide as a ground for legal termination. In spite of these decisions, no legislation has been produced until now. The January and May hearings of the health committee provided an opportunity for people to tease out the full implications and consider the difficulties involved in legislating for termination in these circumstances. The evidence provided and the views expressed by the medical and legal witnesses were not conclusive. There was conflicting evidence and advice.

It is important to point out that if suicide was excluded from this legislation, the constitutional right would still exist. However, there remains genuine concern that the inclusion of suicidal ideation as a ground for termination could result in a significant rise in the rate of terminations. The evidence would seem to suggest that the number of women who become suicidal in pregnancy is extremely low. In the case of women at risk of suicide due to an underlying psychiatric condition, termination is rarely viewed as a treatment to avert this risk, but what about a case where a woman presents as suicidal because of her pregnancy? Even where three medical practitioners certify that there is a real and substantial risk to her life, the concern remains that this could, in time, result in a significant increase in the number of terminations on these grounds. One of the problems is that we have no way of knowing whether this will happen. I believe the Bill is a genuine attempt to prevent this happening and that there is no deliberate intention to allow for a liberal abortion regime. However, we cannot be oblivious to the experience of other jurisdiction in this regard.

The concern is that medical specialists will be put in an almost impossible position. From a starting position of "do no harm", doctors will be faced with having a duty to save both lives without adequate legal protection. What about a psychiatrist who, in good faith, deems a woman seeking a termination under section 9 not to be suicidal? How will he or she be protected from prosecution or sanction should the person, for whatever reason, later commit suicide? Would the absence of legal protection for the psychiatrist under this scenario lead to a default position where no medical practitioner feels able to deny a request under section 9? It is because of this that there needs to be a thorough annual review mechanism for the legislation in order that we can be assured that it is not having unintended consequences.

It has been suggested that a sunset clause should be included and this would seem like a reasonable safeguard. The Bill, as it stands, is flawed and needs considerable strengthening in this regard.

I also have serious concerns about the absence of any gestational limits for terminations under section 9. I believe most people would find this unacceptable. The Bill, unusually, distinguishes between the termination of a pregnancy and ending the life of the unborn. As a result of there being no gestational limit, doctors will find themselves with a very serious ethical dilemma. Under this legislation, we would have the extraordinary scenario where a woman may be granted a termination on the grounds of suicide and her child may be born unwanted and possibly with multiple disabilities arising from its early delivery. There is nothing in the Bill which sets out the rights of that child or how the State will provide for such a child. In the interests of balancing the mother's rights and the child's rights, I strongly believe that gestational time limits should apply in section 9. It is not acceptable to provide for a scenario which many people would find abhorrent and which will put doctors in conflict with their ethical demands and their medical guidelines. It is not sufficient to claim that there are constitutional obstacles to setting time limits. If it cannot be done here, there should be a clear commitment to hold a referendum on it with other referenda in October and before the legislation is commenced. Both of these key issues were raised at the committee hearings but, as far as I could see, they were not satisfactorily addressed.

During the committee hearings, strong points were also made by many health professionals about inadequate resourcing of our maternity and psychiatric services. The picture drawn was of a system which is very close to being dangerous. Pressures arising from the implementation of this legislation will undoubtedly put patients at further risk and this is an issue which requires the Minister's urgent attention.

It is a matter of regret that this Bill does not currently cater for fatal foetal abnormality. I understand that several hundred couples every year face the harrowing situation where the baby they are expecting is diagnosed as being incapable of survival outside the womb. We have all heard the heartbreaking stories of women who have been faced with this awful diagnosis. These are babies who are very much wanted but who cannot survive once born. I think most people would view it as callous and wrong that early delivery cannot be carried out in Ireland in these circumstances. It is a scandal that such couples must travel to the UK for this treatment and return home heartbroken to await the ashes of their baby to be sent on at a later date. I would strongly urge the Minister to amend the definition of "the unborn" in the Bill in order to cover babies who are incapable of survival outside of the womb.

In my view, and I believe it is the view of many Irish people, a person who becomes pregnant as a result of rape or incest should be able to have a termination in an Irish hospital. It is inhuman to expect a person in those circumstances to proceed with a pregnancy. Again, we should ask ourselves, what I would do if I or a family member were in that situation. It is worth noting that if termination was available in the case of rape, we would not have an X case judgment.

The Bill provides for the making of regulations by the Minister. This is a standard provision, however, it does not identify the sections under which it is intended to make such regulations. This is very unusual. Clarity is required on this point and, in addition, it would be essential that all of the proposed regulations would be published in full at an early date in order that they can be considered in conjunction with the provisions of the Bill.

On the matter of a free vote, I have to ask what the Government parties are afraid of. This is undoubtedly an issue of conscience and for that reason, party members should be allowed to follow their consciences.

Free votes are commonplace in the UK Parliament and in other jurisdictions and there is no reason why they should not be a feature of our Parliament also.

I strongly urge the Minister to accept Members' amendments or to bring forward his own to substantially strengthen this Bill. As it stands, it is not acceptable. An annual review of the operation of the legislation is required so that its impact is closely monitored. A sunset clause would address many concerns. I would also strongly urge the Minister to ensure that gestational time limits are provided for under section 9. Consideration must urgently be given to providing for fatal foetal abnormality. Overall, it is impossible to see how this most complex of issues can be dealt with adequately and in a way which reflects public opinion without revisiting the constitutional provision. Anything else is likely to be an Irish solution to an Irish problem, which does not, in fact, provide a solution at all.

This issue is about rights and responsibilities - the right to life of the mother and the right to life of the unborn child. These are rights that are enshrined in the Constitution, interpreted by the Supreme Court and confirmed by the people in two separate referenda. It is our responsibility as legislators to put in place legislation which vindicates both. It is our responsibility as legislators to put in place the very best where the perfect may not be available to us. It is our responsibility as legislators to act in good faith, having listened to those representing all interests, and to understand that the vehemence of argument and action on this issue comes from deeply held beliefs and values.

Let us remind ourselves that this Bill deals with women whose very lives are threatened by pregnancy either physically or through the possibility of suicide. It is narrow in its focus and precise in its measures and carefully articulates the commitment in Article 40.3.3o of the Constitution to the right to life of the mother and the right to life of the unborn child. For 21 years, we have been in a situation as a result of the Supreme Court judgement in the X case where there was no legislative framework and no clarity for medical professionals or women. When that is the situation, doing nothing is not a moral possibility for legislators. Doing nothing has put us in a situation where the master of one of our major maternity hospitals can be left in real fear of going to prison were a hospital consultant to take action to terminate a pregnancy for a medical reason, as was outlined in the hearings.

The urgent imperative to act is the culmination of two decades of difficult cases, Irish and European case law, reports, Green Papers, deliberations by an Oireachtas committee and periods of intense public debate. However, the anonymity of the individuals in the X case or the C case protected us from a full and painful understanding of what the absence of legislation meant for women. The courage of Praveen Halappanavar changed that. Our nation was appalled by the death of Savita Halappanavar and a new realisation developed that we must have legislation that removes the fear from medical professionals when they believe they should take action to save a woman's life. The bravery of Praveen in relentlessly seeking absolute transparency suggests to me that any future case will not be conveniently ticked anonymously behind the next letter of the alphabet.

I hope the discussion around the Bill has helped to develop a new realisation that pregnancy can sometimes cause emotional, physical and mental trauma and can, when a woman seeks her own death, add to her determination to die. I also hope that it has helped us move further in our understanding of mental health and the requirements on us as legislators to deal with the few - very few, thankfully - vulnerable women who despair of life to a point where they determine to end their own life and that of their unborn child. Let us be clear that right now, one medical professional can authorise a termination based on suicidal ideation.

After the Bill becomes law three separate medical professionals must agree before a termination on such grounds. What could be a clearer example of our determination to vindicate the rights of the unborn and the rights of the woman?

Action is required and the Government is acting. It has rejected the easier option and listened to women and medical experts. It has set out to repair the gap which has developed between the people, us as legislators and the maternity hospitals with regard to pregnancy. We are making explicit the standards and regulations guiding the delivery of one of the best maternity services in the world. We are acting on expert advice to provide clarity for pregnant women and their medical practitioners. We are introducing legislation which adds protection and checks and balances to a situation where no such protection or no checks and balances exist. What the legislation does is change this for the better. It ensures, as I have mentioned, that not one but three medical experts will examine the mother's situation and that of her unborn child. This is not the situation at present. This is a radical improvement in how the rights of the mother and the unborn are safeguarded. Article 40.3.3° remains a constitutional imperative, interpreted by the Supreme Court in the X case and now to be framed in legislation where the rights of the unborn will continue to be vindicated. This point seems to get lost again and again in the discussion. It is worth noting the Bill has support from Members on all sides of the House.

It makes me angry to hear suggestions that pregnant women cannot be trusted and that they would seek to manipulate medical professionals to achieve terminations. These suggestions are rooted in a view of women which is contemptuous and disrespectful. Since when has it become permissible to make assertions that pregnant women are duplicitous and untrustworthy? Since when has it become permissible to make such bald and dismissive statements about people presenting with mental health issues?

Our goal must always be to reduce the demand for abortion. It is important that we foster a culture where women feel supported and enabled to continue with pregnancy even when stressful. We have made welcome progress in this country in reducing the levels of unplanned pregnancy and in providing better support and encouragement to women in difficult circumstances to continue with their pregnancy. I commend the work of the Crisis Pregnancy Agency. It needs to be supported and developed further.

My colleague, the Minister, Deputy Joan Burton, mentioned the excellent document produced by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service on the Bill we are debating. This document tells us that between 1980 and 2011 152,061 Irish women travelled to the UK for a termination. They go every day, every week and every month. They have gone every year decade after decade. They have gone secretly and anonymously, very often hiding the purpose of their journey under a cover story. They are our friends and our daughters. They are Irish women. Over a 20 year period more than 150,000 women travelled to have an Irish abortion in England. On average 4.1 per 1,000 Irish women choose to make the journey. This is more than some European countries which have the legalised abortion and fewer than others. The numbers have reduced in recent years, but the journey continues and will continue. We may believe we do not have abortion in Ireland, but we are just pretending a termination in the UK is not abortion in Ireland.

The Bill does not address the sufferings, issues and lives of the women who take the plane to Britain every week, and it is important to acknowledge it does not address their problems. Most of the anonymous women who travel will continue to do so because of this fact. Reflecting on these figures raises questions about the phrase "opening the floodgates" because the numbers have been decreasing not increasing year on year. The document provided by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service further highlights how 25 of the 27 European Union member states permit termination to preserve a woman's mental health and in cases of rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormalities. I have spoken about this previously. The exceptions are Ireland and Malta. Taking the figures on Irish women who travelled to the UK for termination in 2011 we must realise some European countries have lower rates of abortion than Ireland. This is the reality.

We are elected to serve and not to control. We are elected to craft the best law we can to deal with human frailties and realities which are painful, contentious, complex and infinitely challenging. The legislation gives doctors, whether they be gynaecologists or psychiatrists, clarity on their responsibilities. It requires them to work together to bring to bear different disciplines on very difficult cases. It requires them to vindicate the right to life of the mother and of her baby. It requires them to acknowledge that she may take her own life and the life of the baby she carries. When such cases happen we must be confident we have put in place the best possible legislation to provide as much protection as possible for mother and child.

This issue is a matter of conscience for those supporting the legislation. I state this because of an underlying assumption in the debate that conscience is an issue only for those opposing the legislation. I will not stand to have the hard work, compassion, resolution and decisions on one side of this issue to be presented as lacking in conscience. Throughout the Chamber and the spectrum of opinion people of conscience care about this issue. They care passionately based on life experience, clinical encounters with women in crisis pregnancies, the views of experts and abstract data. It is a matter of conscience and morality for us all just as it will be a matter of conscience and personal morality for the pregnant woman and for medical professionals in the years to come.

It is important to stress the Government is responding to existing legal realities. We are doing what no previous Government had the resolution to do, taking a tragic reality and bringing clarity to it; putting expertise and care around a woman who is determined to die and have her unborn baby die with her; and providing a clear framework for medical professionals and for women in their care whose lives are at risk. As I stated at the outset, the Bill sets out to save a very small number of women and their unborn children. It is narrow in focus and precise in its provisions, but what it does above all else is ensure checks and balances and protection and concern around two lives.

I thank the thousands of people who contacted me on this issue by phone, e-mail and letter. I thank them for their contribution, even those who were less than amicable. I have learned a lot about interaction and about myself and I am grateful. Like other speakers I reject that the Bill is about women's rights and reproductive rights; it is about providing legal and medical clarity on existing rights for women in pregnancy. We need to keep this clear.

As I have stated before, and will do so again although it is personal, I believe that life, from conception to natural end, is a gift bestowed on us by a God in whom I very much believe, and because of this I genuinely reject some of the comments made earlier by my colleague regarding groupthink. I also absolutely and fundamentally reject the view that just because I think differently it makes me a lesser person and a lesser Christian with a lesser moral and ethical code. I absolutely reject this and the guilt associated with it.

Section 7 centres on the case of Ms C. There is no doubt the reason she took her case to Europe was because she could not find a clear path. The Bill absolutely and fundamentally provides a clear path by providing assurance for the doctors and the practitioners that there is security in the law. What is contained in section 7 is no different from what is contained in section 21 of the current medical guidelines. The difference is the legislation provides security for the medical practitioners carrying out the services which they have always wanted to carry out.

Section 9 seems to be the section causing problems for most of the people who are against the Bill. This is interesting, as the basis of their argument is that we are introducing for the first time in Irish medical practice - I love this term - the "deliberate destruction of human life". I researched ectopic pregnancies last week. They occur in one in every 50 pregnancies in Ireland. Unfortunately, the only possible medical intervention when a woman presents with an ectopic pregnancy is either the destruction of the foetus or the destruction and removal of the fallopian tube. In this context, a termination is the only means of saving the woman's life. Not one e-mail, telephone call, item of correspondence or statement to me in the past year mentioned ectopic pregnancies. From this, I take it that no one has a problem with the medical reaction to a woman presenting in a hospital with an ectopic pregnancy.

However, people have a problem with a medical reaction in respect of a pregnant woman who is suicidal and for whom all other treatments have failed. I sincerely reject the inference that a woman will pretend to be suicidal to access a termination. I cannot understand why any woman would put herself through an examination by two psychiatrists, her general practitioner, GP, and an obstetrician when she had the legal right under the 2002 referendum to get on an aeroplane or boat and access a legal abortion or termination across the water.

Our debate boils down to a question of location. When we voted overwhelmingly in 2002 for the right of women to travel and to have access to information, we were more or less saying that abortion was okay as long as it was not done on our doorstep. I have never met a woman who believed that getting on a boat or aeroplane to England to do what she had to do was a jolly dance. Women in this difficult situation make the journey lonely and distraught. They suffer tremendous guilt afterwards. That is what we do as women. They have the legal right to travel.

The argument is not that the floodgates could open to UK levels, but that it would become available in Ireland in the first place, but this legislation is not about liberalising abortion. It is about providing legal clarity to the very few women who have genuine medical conditions in pregnancy that cannot be treated by any other means. The important phrase is "where the risk to life can only be averted by a termination". Words are important. Funnily, I have only learned this in recent years. If something can only be averted by a certain action, it means that other actions have been tried. The idea that this is a box-ticking certifying exercise for psychiatrists and that people will pretend to be suicidal is ludicrous and does psychiatric practitioners a disservice.

Psychiatrists treat patients. They will continue to treat them if this legislation is passed. Nothing will change. Under today's medical guidelines, one psychiatrist - not four, three or two - has the ability to sanction a termination should a woman present with a risk of suicide. If this legislation is passed, two psychiatrists and an obstetrician must agree, in conjunction with the lady's GP, that a termination is the only medical treatment that will save her life.

I regret my colleague's comments about surrendering to groupthink. I have had endless sleepless nights in the past year thinking about this issue and wrestling with one argument or another. I have been curious about how other people reached their decisions. It has taken me a long time to reach a decision. I am happy with my position, that is, supportive of the Bill.

I received an apt text from a friend this morning. Things come to one in the right time and place. The text quoted a famous French proverb: "There is no softer pillow than a clear conscience." I support this Bill. My conscience is very clear and I am happy with my decision.

I am happy to contribute to this debate on the profound issue facing us. I wish to clarify my opinion so as to remove doubt. A referendum to repeal the 1983 eighth amendment to our Constitution is necessary. It has caused significant problems since it was made.

It is a woman's right to choose whether to continue with a pregnancy. The great 20th century feminist Rosa Luxemburg stated that the most revolutionary thing one could do was to proclaim the truth. The difficult and tragic truth, particularly for the women involved, is that 150,000 Irish women left this country between 1980 and 2011 for safe abortions abroad. This is an indictment of Ireland. Since its foundation, a misogynistic streak has run through the State, reflected in the failure of the mother and child scheme, the dreadful abuses suffered in the Magdalen laundries and the issues that gave rise to the Private Members' motion a few weeks past on symphysiotomies. This streak must be challenged and overcome.

The Government is preparing to hold referendums on a range of issues in the autumn. It should grasp the nettle and call a referendum to repeal the eighth amendment. Let us have that campaign. We should not be afraid of robust and difficult campaigns that test us all. If we are in politics for just one thing, surely it is to transform our society for the better, regardless of our political views.

As demonstrated in recent opinion polls and previous referendums, the majority of Irish people, including me, would like to see a certain type of reform, but it cannot be delivered in its entirety by this legislation. For this reason, a referendum is required. However, there is scope to amend and strengthen the legislation to make it more pro-woman.

I listened to the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Fitzgerald. She was right to claim that the undertone of this discussion was that women could not be trusted or that they would try to deceive the system when their lives were at risk. Her claim is particularly true in the context of the suicide debate. Those who have made this implication should reflect on their remarks.

It is worth pausing for a moment to remember how we got into this difficult situation. It started with the X case more than 20 years ago, when the High Court sought to prevent a young suicidal girl from leaving the country to have a termination. The massive and sustained outpouring of sympathy and solidarity across the country put pressure on the State. Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed the decision. I was young when that debate occurred, but I remember discussing it with family and friends. No one who lived through the time would not remember it.

The next step in this whole process was the A, B and C case. That case was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights in August 2005. The challenge was heard at a full hearing before its grand chamber in December 2009. The case was taken by three women, supported courageously by the Irish Family Planning Association, who had travelled abroad for abortion services. They argued that the criminalisation of abortion services in Ireland jeopardised their health and well-being in violation of a number of articles of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The first applicant had children in the care of the State as a result of personal problems and considered that a further child would jeopardise the successful reunification of her existing family. The second applicant was not prepared to become a single parent. The third applicant was in remission from cancer when she became pregnant. Unaware that she was pregnant, she underwent a series of check-ups and claimed that she could not obtain clear advice about the risk to her health and life, and to the foetus, if she continued to full term.

The three applicants, who all became pregnant unintentionally, told the court that the impossibility of obtaining an abortion in Ireland made the procedure unnecessarily expensive, complicated and particularly traumatic. They argued that Ireland's restrictive abortion laws stigmatised and humiliated them, risked damaging their health and, in the case of C, her life.

In January 2012, the Government established an expert group to advise on the implementation of the A, B and C v. Ireland case. In late November 2012, the expert group finally reported after much delay. The report states: "The X case is clearly the law of the State, as declared by its highest court. It is binding on all courts and generally."

That is why it is particularly appalling to hear some people pronounce that they are going to vote against this legislation and that somehow they think they have a right to prevent legislation to give effect to the constitutional rights of other citizens in this country. How dare they make such an assertion when the Supreme Court has been crystal clear on this most important of issues.

On 18 December 2012, the Government announced that legislation and regulation would be introduced to give effect to the Supreme Court ruling. Since then we have seen the publication of the legislation and a detailed discussion and debate at an Oireachtas committee where experts in the field have been able to articulate their views. Most succinctly and clearly, the views of Dr. Rhona Mahony, the master of the National Maternity Hospital, crystallised this discussion. She said:

It is very disappointing that 20 years after the X case we do not have legislation. Women need to know that they are going to get the appropriate health care that they need, and doctors need to be protected to do their jobs.

This minimalist legislation is the very least the Government could do - no more. It is simply providing a framework for people's existing constitutional rights. Like others, I believe there is scope for further reform, in particular, concerning fatal foetal abnormalities. Legal experts have said they believe there is scope in this legislation to make that provision by way of amendment on Committee Stage. The Government should seriously examine that possibility. If it has been given legal advice to say that is not possible, it should publish the advice and make it absolutely clear why not. All of us across the House have listened to, and could not help but be touched by, the experiences of women and their partners in this situation. If there is any prospect that this legislation can cater for them to prevent it from happening again, such an amendment should be made.

Some Deputies have touched on the issue of conscience in today's debate. Above any other issue, this is one of conscience. It is a simple, straightforward piece of public health legislation to ensure that 50% of our population get the medical treatment they require. This is, above all else, an issue of conscience. This morning, we had to listen to a Minister wrestling with her conscience in public for nearly half an hour because she cannot support this most basic legislation to protect people's constitutional rights.

I find it ironic that, particularly within the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael parties, certain people's consciences will not allow them to vote for this Bill. Yet their consciences are quite happy to take money from the pockets of Irish mothers through reductions in child benefit and back-to-school payments. Their consciences have no problem in cutting the respite care grant, taxing maternity benefit or slashing funding to our health services. All of those things are economic necessities according to some positions taken in this debate. However, for them, this most simple, straightforward and essential piece of health care reform legislation is a matter of conscience. That needs to be challenged and people need to be called to account in that regard. At the end of the day, all of us here, regardless of our divergent political views and analyses, will cast our votes in what we believe is the appropriate way for the future of the country and the people whom we represent. However, no vote is more a matter of conscience than any other.

I would be the first person to argue for more free votes, having been in a political party when I entered this House and having voted against the draconian Whip system. This issue is, however, no different from any other. If people do not agree with their party's position, they should vote against it. It is as simple and straightforward as that. I think they would be respected more for doing that, rather than trying to imply that they are being coerced into voting for legislation.

I also wish to discuss the campaign surrounding this legislation. Last Friday, we saw the shocking behaviour of a minority of people within the anti-choice campaign, when large billboards were placed across from the Rape Crisis Centre. What an appalling thing to do. I know that many decent and reflective people, who might disagree with my position - or the position of others - on this legislation, would really question the motives of those participating in that act and ask what they are trying to do. In many ways, it relates to section 9 of this Bill, which is what a lot of people seem to have a problem with. Whether or not it is implied, what they are really saying is that some women somewhere may seek to manipulate this legislation and pretend they are suicidal when they are not in order to avail of a termination. That is absolutely appalling and demonstrates an underlying misogyny in those analyses. We have all dealt with people facing difficult mental health challenges. I am sure that some people have dealt with a range of issues related to this debate, but it needs to be dealt with in a sensitive, compassionate and caring way. The idea that anybody would pretend that they are experiencing suicidal tendencies is awful. It demonstrates either a deliberate misrepresentation of people's experiences or a dangerous lack of understanding of mental health in this discussion.

On Report Stage, I will seek to see if there is scope for amendments to the legislation to make it more pro-woman and stronger where possible. I do not think a higher bar is needed for section 9 and I think that the number of three doctors could be reduced. I am not sure why the Bill provides for three doctors in the case of suicidal ideation, rather than two for example. I would have thought that in such a crisis situation one would want to be able to make decisions in the best interests of the woman as swiftly as possible. I will therefore seek to amend that provision.

I will also seek to amend the legislation regarding fatal foetal abnormalities.

If the Government has legal advice that this Bill cannot provide for cases of fatal foetal abnormalities under any circumstances it should publish it. I cannot understand why we would not do everything in our power at this point to ensure this legislation is as comprehensive as possible. I will be voting in favour of the legislation, which, as I said earlier, is the minimum we can do. However, it is the right thing to do. I welcome that the Bill is, by and large, being discussed in a robust but respectful manner. I hope the Government, having passed this legislation, will move in the autumn to hold a referendum to repeal the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution and to ensure that we bring forward in the medium to long term a regime in Ireland which permits any woman who seeks to terminate a pregnancy because it is not right for her to do so. Every reason why a woman has a termination is valid. It is her body and her choice.

I have no doubt that following enactment of this legislation I and others from across the House will be campaigning for a referendum to repeal the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution and to vindicate the rights of 50% of our citizens to have full autonomy over their bodies and to ensure that no State can coerce them into continuing with a pregnancy that they do not want.

I now call the Tánaiste whom I understand is sharing time with Deputy Eamonn Maloney.

Those of us who have the honour and privilege to be elected to this House assume a unique responsibility. We have a particular duty of care to the men and women of our country, that in upholding our Constitution we enact laws which will protect them.

We are all aware of the significance of this Bill and of the complexity and sensitivity of the issues that it addresses. We are aware, too, of the deeply held personal beliefs of many in Irish society, on both sides of this debate; differing beliefs that are reflected within my own party, as in other parties. What we should be very clear about, however, is that at its heart, the core purpose of the Bill is the protection of women's lives.

Every year, some 70,000 women give birth in Ireland. For the vast majority, the outcome is a welcome and happy one. Despite the many pressures on our health service, Ireland is still, statistically, a safe place to give birth. As we sit here in this House today, being pregnant in Ireland means being in an uncertain legal and medical position. Those 70,000 women do not today know for certain whether if their pregnancy results in a life-threatening situation they will be able to obtain all necessary medical care. It is as simple as that. The purpose of this Bill is to give that certainty to those women, their partners, families and loved ones; a certainty to which they are entitled not only in law but in all common decency: the certainty of knowing that if they if they become ill to the point where their life is at risk, their doctor will be able to act to save them, not a general vague assurance, a nod and wink or a throw of the dice but legal certainty. This is about legal certainty around a woman's right to life during pregnancy. It is about trusting women when it comes to their medical care and providing for a very basic human right. No amount of confusion, scaremongering or misinterpretation changes this reality.

It is 30 years since the 1983 amendment that introduced a constitutional ban on abortion and 21 years since the X case which tested it, a test that some opponents of this Bill want to disregard, or, even better, overturn. It is worth recalling what the X case was about, namely, a 14 year old girl who became pregnant following rape by a neighbour and was suicidal. Her family, in attempting to protect her, found themselves before the courts. In the end, the Supreme Court found that suicide is a risk to the life of a pregnant woman, a risk that is rare but one that is real and cannot be ignored. Yet, more than ten years after X, it was left to another woman to ask the courts and not her doctors to determine the treatment to which she was entitled in case of risk to her life. This was Miss C, a cancer patient in remission, who successfully appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. That is the judgment to which this Government pledged to respond.

Some opponents of this Bill want to turn the clock back to Ireland of 1983, an Ireland where a woman's right to life is not self-evident but can be parsed and weighed by lawyers, one that would risk the life of a suicidal 14 year old rape victim, as though suicide was not fatal, where a cancer patient who is pregnant cannot get an answer from her doctors about the treatment to which she is entitled, where a young woman is miscarrying and at risk of infection, but whose care is tragically delayed and an Ireland that sits back and simply accepts that this is how women are treated. We are no longer that Ireland. I am the leader of a party that has fought for decades to change that Ireland, to make it a more modern, equal and compassionate place, to take the State out of people's bedrooms and to liberalise our laws. We have campaigned for over a decade, and through three general elections, to legislate for the X case. I want to pay tribute today to the men and women, elected representatives and activists, who know what it is to be denounced from the pulpit in their communities for views that, today, are part of the mainstream of public opinion. The Taoiseach, too, has unfairly experienced some of this vitriol from a small section of society that seeks to impose its ideology on the majority.

The tragic death of Savita Halappanavar served to underline the urgent need for legislation that should not have taken 21 years and six successive governments to introduce. When a new Government was formed in 2011, it was then that the decision was taken that this would not be the seventh Government to ignore an inconvenient truth. This is a Government that is legislating for the X case as per its negotiated programme for Government. It established an expert group to consider how it might implement the judgment of the European Court of Human rights, which, within the confines of the Constitution, made recommendations grounded in medical practice, common sense and the law. This is a Government that will legislate for Ireland as it is today, an Ireland whose laws tolerate difference and do not seek to impose the views of one section of Irish society on the whole.

This country, and this Government, is not going back to the days when one church determined the boundaries of women's lives, controlled the most intimate details of people's private lives and held sway over the kind of maternity care women could receive in our hospitals, with devastating results. Those days are over. Ours is a free country, where freedom of religion and freedom of conscience are respected, upheld and defended. This House is a Chamber of democrats and we will legislate in line with our Constitution for today's Ireland.

Am I proud that this Government is finally enacting a law to protect women's lives in pregnancy? Yes I am. Do I believe that this is a perfect piece of legislation? I do not. I have no doubt that it will fall short in the face of hard cases. It cannot offer a woman, facing the trauma of having to carry for nine months a baby that will never survive outside the womb the compassion that she deserves nor can it offer compassion to a woman or a girl who is the victim of rape or incest and pregnant against her will. However I, too, am a democrat. The people voted in 1983 to insert an equal right to life of a mother and her unborn child into our Constitution. Now, 30 years later, we are giving effect to that right, nothing more and nothing less.

The debate about this legislation, giving effect to this constitutional right of women, has at times been fraught. Many people in this House and outside it, on both sides of the argument, hold very sincere personal views, and I respect that. What we are being asked as legislators is a very narrow question but it could not be more important. That question is whether we believe that a woman has an equal right to life as set out in the Constitution. The answer, as expressed by this Government in this legislation is, "Yes she does".

This Bill is the product of lengthy consideration, including the considered work of an expert group drawn in the main from medical and legal experts; its report, the subject of substantive consideration by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children and the Government; careful and respectful consideration of the heads of Bill by the same Oireachtas committee; input by many interested parties; careful drafting and preparation of the Bill; and thoughtful discussion of it in the Oireachtas. This is the right thing to do for the women of our country. I, and my Labour colleagues, will be voting for this Bill tomorrow.

As the Title indicates, the Bill is specific in what it seeks to do, namely, protect the life of any woman who finds her life threatened as a result of pregnancy. It is long overdue legislation which I will support.

During the hearings on the heads of the Bill by the Joint Committee on Health and Children, people on both sides of the argument clearly indicated the legislation will facilitate a small number of pregnant women who find themselves in specific circumstances. That such cases rarely arise is not a reason to refuse to legislate. As lawmakers and human beings, our role is to protect people who find themselves in a position where they require legal protection.

The language used to describe the Bill has been interesting. While I accept that all Deputies are entitled to speak freely and express their views, I have always had a difficulty with the use of the term "pro-life" to describe one side of the argument. I have not met a single Deputy who is not pro-life. No one can take the high ground by appropriating certain language or claiming to care more for other human beings than others. That is not the case. No one has a monopoly in this regard because we are all pro-life.

As I stated during the hearings - this may be a view peculiar to men - pregnant women do not take decisions to terminate a pregnancy lightly. It is not the type of predicament that any woman wants to find herself in and it must be traumatic and emotional for those who experience it. It must be horrific for a woman to become suicidal as a result of an unwanted pregnancy. Legislators must have the courage to take this issue into consideration when making laws and that is what the House is doing.

I have very strong views on another issue which was raised during the hearings. The majority of Irish people believe that the relationship between a pregnant woman and her doctor is special and private. I have had great difficulty throughout my adult life with the idea of legislators interfering in this relationship. It is good that this view was also expressed in many of the contributions made by speakers on both sides of the argument during the hearings.

I am trying to ensure my words are consistent with the contribution I made at the joint committee's hearings. Despite what has been said about this Bill, it is very restrictive. As the Tánaiste noted, some of us hoped it would be broader but we must deal with the here and now. Some of us wanted it to provide for circumstances in which unfortunate women find themselves pregnant following rape and do not want to carry the pregnancy to its full term. This issue needs to be addressed, as do cases involving incest. The Tánaiste also referred to fatal foetal abnormalities, which is an issue about which I have expressed my views previously.

We have heard many contradictions and much hypocrisy during the debate on this Bill, both at the hearings and in this Chamber. Some speakers argued that the Bill, if passed, would open the floodgates as if every pregnant Irish woman would seek to terminate her pregnancy. I cannot understand this view given that the floodgates have been open since the 1960s. Terminations may not have taken place here but for 40 years women have been taking an aeroplane or ferry to other jurisdictions to have terminations carried out. It is disingenuous for people to argue that this Bill will open the floodgates. While we may wish it were otherwise, thousands of Irish women travel abroad every year for terminations. The hypocrisy of legislators referring to floodgates being opened is compounded when one takes into consideration that the law of the land allows people free access to information about abortion and does not prevent women from leaving the jurisdiction to have an abortion. People who speak about floodgates and so forth should be mindful of the existing legal position regarding terminations.

Deputies who were in the House in the early 1980s will remember a document published by the former Deputy, the late Jim Kemmy, who founded the Democratic Socialist Party, of which I was a member. In 1982, the party published a document entitled, An Outline Policy on Women's Rights. Some of those who speak as if they started some great crusade and are speaking up for the women of Ireland kept their heads down when individuals such as Jim Kemmy and Michael D. Higgins were raising the issue of abortion in the early 1980s. The Democratic Socialist Party opposed indiscriminate abortion but proposed making abortion available where a woman's life was endangered by pregnancy, where a pregnancy had resulted from rape or incest and in the case of fatal foetal abnormalities. This policy was considered barbaric by many when first outlined more than 30 years ago. In the aftermath of the recent tragedy in Galway, however, it now appears to be reasonable and sensible to the vast majority of public opinion.

The 1983 amendment was, for the pro-life movement, the solution to any future challenge. The Bill is about achieving a balance that gives due regard to the life, health and well-being of women. During the Oireachtas committee hearings into the heads of the Bill, I listened to a contributor from one of the maternity hospitals. He made an interesting point speaking off the cuff. Sometimes off the cuff one talks more truth than one does when using a prepared speech. He made a comment about the opinion of Irish men regarding the Bill. He said that we have no great record when it comes to the welfare and care of women.

I have listened to some of the contributions from some of the people who would have opposing views to mine, talking about a free vote and conscience, etc. I ask these people, who talk about wrestling with their consciences on this Bill which will protect women in difficult circumstances, where their conscience was during treatment of the women and girls in the Magdalen laundries. Where was their voice during the clerical sexual abuse which went on for 80 or 90 years? They were not to be heard. They talk about telling other people about examining their conscience on this Bill. Perhaps some of the people using the word "conscience" should read the Women's Aid report of two weeks ago about domestic violence in Ireland and they might have very little to say about using their conscience.

I believe the Bill is necessary and well overdue. I stand in solidarity with the very few women who might find themselves in this awful position and I will be supporting the Bill.

Few topics have generated the debate and discussion that the topic we are discussing today has. The item has substantially occupied my thoughts in recent weeks and months. I very much respect that there are varying opinions. Regardless of the side of the debate one is on or the perspective from which one arrives at one's conclusions, it is fair to say that we all wish to see the protection of women as paramount.

As a man, I am conscious that I will never go through what some women go through regarding this issue. In that respect I feel somewhat handicapped in terms of giving a true reflection of what should be given. In recent weeks I have spoken extensively to many women and others on all sides. I compliment the people on coming forward, articulating their views and informing the debate. Unlike some in this House, I believe everyone has the right to articulate his or her views and values in an open and respectful manner, including representatives of the Catholic Church and the Church of Ireland, Buddhists, atheists and others. We have a duty and obligation to listen to people's views and, ultimately, to arrive at our own decisions. Having said that, I do not wish to condone the intimidation some Members have experienced.

I commend the Government on allocating appropriate time to discuss this life-changing issue. It is appropriate that it has done so and it is appropriate that the Dáil is sitting today to afford every Member on every side of the House the opportunity to participate in the debate. I hope this is not done as a mere window-dressing exercise and that the Government will listen to the many concerns being articulated from all sides of the House. I compliment my party leader on affording us a free vote on what I believe to be an issue of one's own conscience. The Taoiseach, Tánaiste and leaders of other political parties would have done well to follow that example.

This item has been on the political agenda since 1992. However, it is unfair and disingenuous for Government to claim that nothing has been done or that no attempt was made to try to resolve the issue until now. That is political point scoring on what is a highly sensitive and emotive topic and is not fair. People have used the tragic and untimely death of Ms Savita Halappanavar as a reason for introducing this legislation. Having seen the report into her death, we all know that had this legislation been in place, the outcome would not have been different, unfortunately.

There are many aspects of the Bill with which I am comfortable, aspects that will give clarity to the medical profession in dealing with issues of physical illness which will ensure Ireland will remain one of the safest places in the world to have a baby. However, there are aspects of the Bill with which I have grave reservations and concerns. We have seen the tragedy of suicide devastate many families and communities. Unfortunately we have seen an alarming increase in the rate of suicide in recent years. Every week, Deputies from various political parties articulate the need for the Government and the general body politic to do something to address this awful issue. I acknowledge the Government allocated €35 million to this last year, but there is the need to ensure it was fully spent and that the €35 million allocated to it this year will all be spent to ensure our communities have the necessary resources to support people with mental health difficulties.

We all agree with the need to remove the stigma that has been attached for all too long to a person and perhaps even to the family of a person who had committed or died by way of suicide. However, based on what Dr. Tony Bates of Headstrong said recently, we must be extremely careful that we do not go too far and normalise the taking of one's life. By specifically including this provision in the Bill, perhaps unintentionally that is what could happen. While I am not an expert on mental health, I have been involved locally in an advocacy group.

I have brought experts in this field to talk to people in our communities to ensure they know that it is good to talk and that people know there are alternative options.

I wish to share a personal experience with the Dáil which has brought me to my position on this debate. I was a pupil of a boarding school some years ago. On a particular night, having arrived back at the dormitory, I was faced with a friend who had just taken an overdose. At that time he was in a very dark place in his life as a result of an issue that occurred in his family. Thankfully, we got him help and support and through the fullness of time he came out of that dark place. Now, he is living a normal and full life.

I do not subscribe in any way to the view of people who say that we do not trust women or that they might be making up the claim that they are suicidal simply to get an abortion. I trust the women of Ireland. However, in my experience just because a person may be suicidal at one time does not mean that the thought or ideation will remain with that person indefinitely. We should do things differently if we really want to support women in a difficult position as a result of unplanned pregnancy, and this is what we are talking about. For any woman going through a planned pregnancy, it is probably one of the happiest developments or news in her life when she realises she has finally conceived. However, in terms of an unplanned pregnancy we should put in place the necessary supports to help them to deal with the various difficulties they face.

I sat through 90% of the latest Oireachtas hearings, I listened to psychiatrists during the course of the hearings and I met several psychiatrists in my constituency. The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Creighton, alluded to this point earlier. We have all received correspondence signed by 113 psychiatrists who have stated that there is no medical evidence to support an abortion or termination as a treatment for suicide. I have grave reservations. I refer to two eminent people in their professions. Professor Veronica O'Keane stated: "I would completely agree with the evidence given by the other witnesses that the best way to manage and help women with serious mental illness is to treat the mental illness." Dr. Seán Ó Domhnaill, a psychiatrist with experience in perinatal psychiatry stated: "In my experience, as in the experience of all the psychiatrists who have given evidence here this week, abortion has never been indicated and is not reported in any journal or textbook as being a treatment for either mental illness or depressive disorder." It is not only I and other Members who are saying this.

I also have grave reservations in terms of the lack of term limits in this legislation. We could envisage a scenario whereby to conform with our constitutional obligation under Article 40.3.3° a baby is prematurely induced and thereby may have a high risk of developing incurable conditions such as cerebral palsy, autism or other conditions such that the child could be left severely disabled for the rest of his life. These are two of my main concerns about this legislation.

Some people have said that despite a Member's personal beliefs when elected, he is elected as a legislator and must legislate accordingly. Some people have said that the only reason this legislation is before the Dáil is as a result of the Supreme Court decision of 1992. We all acknowledge that the Supreme Court and the High Court are the highest courts in the land and, ultimately, they will give their opinion and assessment on our Constitution. However, it also worth noting that during the course of the Oireachtas hearings the retired Supreme Court judge, Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness, stated that she did not believe the Government had a legal obligation to legislate. Dr. Maria Cahill of UCC stated that we are not obliged to act on the basis of the A, B and C v. Ireland judgment because those cases involved physical and medical risks to the mothers' lives and as such they were not relevant to abortion on threat of suicide. She believed that we could remove the issue of suicide while conforming to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.

While I am prepared to fulfil my constitutional duty as a legislator, I do not believe, having listened to expert medical witnesses and legal opinion, that we do not need to legislate for this. I remain to be convinced of the need to include the threat of suicide as real and substantial threat to the life of the mother. I do not say as much lightly nor do I come to it with the view that my beliefs are stronger or deeper than others or that my conscience is in any way purer than someone coming to it from a different perspective. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, my position is derived from my personal experience of dealing with someone who was suicidal at one time in his life and who subsequently received the appropriate treatment and support. As a result, at a later time he was no longer suicidal.

I do not concur with the view of previous speakers who have said that when we talk about this it is as if we do not trust the women of Ireland. I trust the women of Ireland and I support the women of Ireland, but I believe we would be far better placed to support the women of Ireland by putting in place the necessary supports, resources, counselling and psychiatric assistance to help them to deal with any unwanted or unplanned pregnancy.

I hope that the wide-ranging debate the Government has facilitated is not a mere window-dressing exercise for it to be able to say that it afforded everyone an opportunity to have their say. I hope this will be an opportunity for the Minister of State, the Minister, the Cabinet and Members of the Government parties to take on board the many reservations and deeply held concerns of many other Members when the Government brings forward the legislation on Committee Stage.

The Minister has alluded to the fact that amendments will be accepted. I hope they will not only be technical amendments but that real and substantial changes can be made. Reference is made in the Bill to an annual report going to the Minister of the day to ensure the restrictive legislation, as he put it, will not enable wide-ranging access to abortion or the opening of the floodgates in that regard. However, it is not specified or clearly addressed in terms of when the report will be made, whether Members of the Dáil will have an opportunity to debate it and if the report will be discussed by the Joint Committee on Health and Children. One could ask whether the report is a mere window-dressing exercise to soft-soap those who have grave reservations about the Bill. I hope that will not be the case. I would like the report to be given a strong legislative basis. I hope we will have an opportunity to ensure that happens on Committee Stage.

The heavy boots of war are on, and we are being whipped into line by the Supreme Court judgment in the X case that was made 21 years ago, which found that abortion was legal under the Constitution if there was a real and substantial threat to the life of the mother.

The Bill is a reflection of the fact that we have not met the needs of women in the intervening years. What we need to do even at this late stage is to eliminate systematically the root causes of abortion for the 5,000 women who travel abroad for abortions each year. I believe the situation is due to a lack of primary and practical resources and emotional support for women in crisis in this country. No woman deserves to have an abortion and no compassionate person wants a woman to suffer through the personal tragedy of abortion. We all have met women in this House in the past few months who have had abortions in their teens and early 20s. They told us about the mental and emotional darkness they entered after they had the abortion. Many were in tears as they told us about the immense psychological toll their abortion had on them which caused guilt, depression and great sorrow. Abortion advocates pit women against children. Lack of resources and support are the real enemies. We cannot overlook or fail to provide proper support for women. Abortion hurts women and lack of support often forces women into abortions abroad. As a civilised country we should be empowering rather than abandoning women.

I hope calm will prevail in the debate on this very sensitive issue. I am extremely anxious that any legislation will not be rushed through on Report Stage. I accept ample time has been given to Members on Second Stage to debate this important issue. The most important aspect of the legislation is that it shows the need to bring clarity for the women of Ireland and those treating them. The silent majority in this country do not see suicidal intent as a valid reason for an abortion procedure. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court held that the threat of suicide was a ground for getting an abortion. I said it before and I say it again that I am very concerned about the inclusion of suicidal intent as a ground for abortion. It has been pushed by many people as a means to deliver abortion on demand in this country. Suicidal intent is impossible to predict and equally impossible to define. The risk of suicide should not be included as a ground for abortion. I pointed that out in my meeting with the Taoiseach and the Minister for Health.

Given the alarming rates of suicide in this country, if we knew how to predict when people would take their own lives, then we would know how to prevent suicide. Suicidal intent is due to immeasurable and painful circumstances. It is something internal to a person, impossible to predict with any degree of accuracy, and therefore not a sufficient reason for abortion. Abortion is not a Catholic or religious issue. It is a seriously lethal violation of fundamental human rights. The demands of justice, generosity and compassion require the right to life be guaranteed to every person regardless of age, sex, race condition of dependency, disability or stage of development. If we as legislators ever allow abortion on demand, one could ask what answers we would give the unborn victims when explaining our actions. One only has to look to the UK where 6 million babies have been killed by abortion since 1967 and the USA where 55 million have been killed since 1973. That toll is a staggering loss of babies’ lives and equates to the entire population of England and Ireland.

The issue of abortion in cases of potential suicide is very much a serious concern. It is a particularly grey area and one that could be open to abuse. If the suicidal intent provision is included in the legislation, it will require medical guarantees and judgments, which will be extremely difficult given that a decision would have to be made in what would necessarily be a fraught and rushed scenario. I would welcome a view from the Minister on these particular issues. If we decide that abortion is the only way to treat suicidal intention then are we concluding that abortion is the only form of necessary mental health treatment? The Minister for Health is a medical person and I hope he will respond to that point also. One could ask what alarm bells or markers will help to identify that a woman is going to commit suicide and how we will know that these markers are accurate. That is a considerable issue for the ordinary person in the street who has no legal background. We need answers to those questions. Is there evidence to suggest that abortion is an appropriate treatment for suicide? What evidence exists to suggest that a woman who had an abortion had a better quality of mental health afterwards? Could the Minister cite the studies in those cases? If a woman presents with suicidal intent, will any other treatment be considered other than abortion? If this is not a mental health problem, then why are we introducing legislation that compels two psychiatrists to make this decision?

While I fully agree with the need for legal certainty and clear guidelines for pregnant women, I do not believe the unintentional death of a baby while medical care is given to the mother should be regarded as abortion. The Catholic Church - of which I am a member - despite accusations to the contrary, does not teach that the life of the child in the womb should be preferred to that of a mother, but that both are sacred, with an equal right to life.

Can I get a guarantee such intervention is only ethically permissible provided every option has been exhausted to save both the mother and child? In addition, where a seriously ill pregnant woman needs medical treatment that may put the life of a child at risk, such intervention is ethically permissible, provided every option has been exhausted, to save them both. As matters stand, the Medical Council's guidelines are clear. Women in pregnancy must receive all necessary medical treatment to protect their lives, even where the death of a baby unavoidably results. The Supreme Court has already established that women with complications whose lives are at risk must have or be allowed therapeutic intervention.

I revert to the United Kingdom, which is not that far away from us, where 6 million abortions have taken place since it was introduced into law in 1967. This is now leading to a situation where people consider it a right to abort on grounds of sex or even to take matters to extremes, such as eye colour. This also has been the case in Jersey, where a rigorous process of assessment was introduced and one now has pre-stamped forms in respect of selected-sex abortions.

Why are Members afraid to get the maximum consensus on the correct things to do? The only way to achieve this is by a country-wide referendum as 21 years have elapsed since a referendum was last held on this issue. A new referendum would be the only way to gauge the view of the country and then to adhere to the wishes of the people on this matter. While there has been much levying of abuse on the situation in Ireland and the lack of availability of abortion on demand, it might be more appropriate to consider the benefits of such a determining by the State. How can the Minister allay the real concerns of the many decent people throughout Ireland and beyond at the prospect of this legislation, which ultimately could lead to abortion on demand? At the outset, I stated the case where the life of the mother is at risk for medical reasons is clear-cut but the inclusion of the threat of suicide is less so. Furthermore, it is for the Irish people and legislators to make our laws and not feel compelled by the perception of international scrutiny or pressure that goes against our culture and beliefs.

On a personal level, I would prefer to have a free vote on this legislation. As a Government and as elected public representatives from all parties, Members must examine their consciences as to the rights and wrongs in this legislation and on their right to be judge and jury over the lives of the unborn. Many Members have on many occasions raised the issue of human rights violations by authoritarian governments around the world, such as those of Burma, North Korea and Syria. As legislators, are Members safeguarding the right to life of the unborn in this legislation? This is a matter on which I seek greater clarity.

As I stated, abortion is not a Catholic issue but is an issue of human rights. Collectively, Members must look at the long term and take serious cognisance of the long-term implications of this legislation on Irish society in years to come. Before I conclude, I must repeat that I am completely opposed to abortion on demand and would not stand over any legislation that would introduce abortion on demand into Ireland.

I now call on Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan, who I understand to be sharing five minutes with Deputy Grealish.

There will be a little more for Deputy Grealish.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle. Like everyone else, I have been receiving e-mail and correspondence in abundance and have tried to read all the correspondence that came to me personally. Moreover, I have read extensively from what has been produced in the media, as well as listening to and reading what was discussed and presented at the health committee's proceedings. One obvious point concerns the diverging public opinion on this issue, as well as the diverging medical and legal opinion. I do not believe that at this point in time, Members could possibly have agreed on a Bill that would suit and be agreeable to everyone, as well as to all the aforementioned divergent opinion.

At the outset, I express my support for the right to freedom of speech and the right to freedom of opinion and acknowledge the deeply held views of those who express their opinions on the subject, while also disliking the methods certain people used in expressing that opinion. As for the diverging opinion on whether it is necessary to legislate for the X case or otherwise, from the Bar Council approximately 2,300 barristers have acknowledged their divergence of views. Equally, 864 members of the College of Psychiatrists of Ireland also have diverging views in this regard, as have doctors, social workers, counsellors and psychotherapists. It has been interesting to consider the statistics and reports being used by the opposing sides in the debate to confirm their views, as the same statistics and reports are being interpreted differently and there always will be some expert opinion that will be found to back up one's own views. However, I wonder where the issue would be now, were it not for the sad and untimely death of Mrs. Halappanavar and her baby? Members are aware of how long this issue has been debated. It has been subjected to referendums, Supreme Court cases, working groups, a Green Paper, an all-party Oireachtas group that deliberated and took submissions over 12 months but which failed to reach a consensus, the recent expert group report and then the deliberations of the health committees. However, the tragedy of Mrs. Halappanavar's death created the impetus for the current position whereby Members are debating the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013 and I acknowledge the role of the Government in this regard.

I am struck by a terrible irony that Mrs. Halappanavar and her husband probably came to Ireland for a better life than they would have had in India. Moreover, they came to a country with very fine medical facilities and in which pregnant women are very well looked after. They came from a country where women are not treated in an equitable way, in which there are forced child brides and in which the caste system leads to girls and women being treated appallingly. Consequently, it is very sad that Mrs. Halappanavar lost her life here, as is the reason. For example, one has been told by Dr. Boylan that the termination probably would have saved her life and the consultant obstetrician at the hospital refused the request for a termination because of the legal position in Ireland. One can consider the findings of the jury in the inquest in Galway, as well as the Galway west coroner's report. The jury reached a unanimous verdict of medical misadventure and endorsed Dr. MacLoughlin's nine recommendations. It was recommended that the Medical Council lay out exactly when a doctor can intervene in similar circumstances and for An Bord Altranais to have similar directives for midwives. Moreover, the importance of absolute clarity and legal protection for those involved was stressed, as well of course as other clear recommendations on procedures regarding blood samples, management of sepsis, communication, early warning, score charts and note-taking. In that regard Dr. MacLoughlin's work must be highly commended.

One then comes to the work of the independent chairperson of the HSE report, Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, which outlined the inadequate assessment and monitoring, the failure to offer all management options to a patient experiencing inevitable miscarriage and the non-adherence to clinical guidelines related to effective management of sepsis. The investigating team was satisfied that concerns about law, whether clear or not, affected the exercise of clinical professional judgment. I also read the aforementioned report's recommendation 4b, which outlines an immediate and urgent requirement for a clear statement of the legal context in which clinical professional judgment can be exercised in the best medical welfare interests of patients to meaningfully assist the clinical professions to exercise that judgment. This raises the vital need for legal clarity, which would tie in with the fears of people such as Dr. Rhona Mahony that, in the exercise of her professional judgment, under the law as it stood she could be found to be breaking that law.

The other highly telling comment was from the chairman himself, who stated that had Mrs. Halappanavar been his patient, he would have terminated her pregnancy sooner to save her life. I accept from the statistics that Ireland is a safe place for women and that women who are pregnant get excellent maternity help. However, the procrastination and the dithering over the years, as well as the kicking to touch, have contributed to the death of this lady with the result that her husband, parents, family and friends will now be without her presence for the rest of their lives. Consequently, procedural issues and legal issues must be addressed and I believe this aspect of the Bill brings the legal clarity that is needed. While I support that aspect of it, I have difficulties with the suicide aspect, to which I will turn shortly.

Abortion is a term that does not sit easily with many people. I am conscious of those who have been hurt and upset in a variety of ways and disturbed by the issue.

I am conscious of people who are alive today who were given up for adoption because the choice or the decision was made not to travel for a termination. I am conscious of people with disabilities who also might not be alive today if we had had a liberal regime on abortion. I am conscious of women who chose termination which, as it turned out, was not the right choice for them and who have been hurt mentally and emotionally.

I am conscious of women who had to continue carrying a baby with fatal foetal abnormalities, knowing the baby would not survive outside the womb. I would like to see that amendment included, and I was in the Chamber to hear the exchange with the Taoiseach last week. When a woman learns her unborn child will not survive outside the womb, I believe a compassionate country will ensure she can have a termination in her own country if that is her choice. That is a clear wish of the majority of the people. It is also a clear legal view that this can be done, namely, that a set of factual circumstances, such as fatal foetal abnormality, could also legally justify a termination. These women, and their husbands and partners, should not have the additional difficulties of travelling outside this country if their choice is a termination in those very difficult and tragic circumstances.

When I spoke on Deputy Clare Daly's Bill some months ago, I said I did not agree with abortion on demand and I did not agree with abortion being used as a form of contraception, which is the case in some countries, but I do live in the real world and I know that in the real world women and girls make that decision. As we speak, women and girls are making a journey to another jurisdiction for a termination, that is, those who can afford to do so. There is a socio-economic argument also in that some girls and women are precluded from making that choice due to their economic circumstances.

I will not vote against the Bill because of the aspects with which I agree, as I have outlined, but I will not support it as it stands due to the suicide aspect of termination being presented as a treatment for someone who has suicidal thoughts and tendencies. As a teacher, I did the ASIST suicide prevention training, and I am also involved in an organisation in the inner city that is very active in suicide prevention and in counselling those bereaved through suicide. My objections come from that and from what I have been reading on that aspect. The Bill is also saying that every suggestion of suicide must be taken seriously, but somebody presenting with suicidal thoughts needs immediate intervention and psychological assessment followed by whichever of the following interventions are appropriate to that person: counselling, psychotherapy, medication, nursing care or social care. There are a range of interventions and options to deal with suicidal thoughts and tendency but I have not seen any evidence that a termination should be included in those interventions.

There is a real difficulty that a woman, pregnant due to being raped, who is very distressed, extremely upset and disturbed by what has happened, and in many cases we know the role of alcohol and drugs in sexual assault, could be assessed as not being suicidal because she has a will to live, despite that trauma of rape or incest. She will not be able to have a termination in this country, and that is and will be a dilemma for the medical profession which will have to deny her a termination. That will be a termination at a very early stage of pregnancy or even at a stage where it is not known whether she is pregnant, and if she has the means she will travel for that termination, if that is her choice. Her choice may be to continue with the pregnancy. It seems there is one option only for someone presenting as suicidal, which is termination.

The fact that there is no gestational limit also presents difficulties for me. A delivery at 23, 24 or 25 weeks could mean serious developmental issues and if it is further in the pregnancy, what will happen to that baby? Those are serious issues that are not being addressed. As this section is worded it will put enormous strain on our allegedly already overstretched medical services and mental health services because there are other mental health issues for pregnant women, and we do not have adequate resources for them.

There is no mention of the role of the father in all of this. I know medical science is trying to eliminate the role of the male but the father is involved. An issue arises if the father wants a termination and the woman does not or if the woman wants a termination and the father does not. In the case of the termination in a suicidal situation, does the father have any role in the life of a baby at 23 weeks or further?

The criminalisation aspect is very unfair and needs to be eliminated or at least significantly reduced. I will vote on the amendments but if the Bill remains in its current form, I will be abstaining, which is not something I like doing. I do not believe I have done that in my four years as a Member of the House. I hope the Bill will be presented in sections to allow a vote on each of those sections.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill and I thank Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan for sharing her time with me.

This is one of the most controversial Bills ever to come before the Oireachtas since the foundation of the State. I have never seen such a campaign by all sides to get their point across in trying to convince Members of both Houses to support their case. I want to put on the record of the House my absolute disgust with the content of some of the material that I have received in the post. Having to view this material has been very stressful for me, but particularly for the two ladies who work in my office. That type of campaign must stop now.

As an opponent of this Bill, who will not be voting for its passing in the Dáil, I commend Deputy Micheál Martin on allowing a free vote in Fianna Fáil and I call on the leaders of Fine Gael, Labour and Sinn Féin to allow the same. This is a conscience vote and a Whip system must not be put in place. It is very wrong to force Members of both Houses to vote on something that goes against all they believe in, and I admire those who have the courage and conviction to stand up to the party Whip system, vote against this Bill and suffer the consequences of doing so. All I can say to them is "well done".

Last week, I attended a meeting in the audio-visual room in Leinster House, which was attended by Sr. Consilio. I commend Sr. Consilio on the tremendous work she does in her centres throughout the country, which I have seen at first hand in my constituency in Galway West. Sr. Consilio told us that in excess of 30% of the women she treats in her centres for some form of addiction, be it alcohol or drug abuse, have had an abortion. Emily, a woman who had an abortion 33 years ago, was also at that meeting and she told us her story. Thirty-three years ago she went to the United Kingdom as a young lady and had an abortion. She told us that she has regretted it every day since, asking herself if it would have been a boy or a girl, the path the child would have taken in life, where he or she would be working now, and whether she would be a grandmother. She put forward a very strong case on the effects of an abortion, and I compliment and commend her on coming in to meet us that day. I can vouch for that as I have met numerous ladies who have gone through the same turmoil after having an abortion. If one were to study the facts, one would see that women who have had an abortion are more likely to have suicidal tendencies than women who find themselves pregnant.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and outline the reason I cannot support this Bill. Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world for pregnant women, and the latest studies from the UN and the World Health Organization confirm that fact. I understand that an element of the Bill is to give certainty and clarity to medical professionals on when they can intervene to save the life of the mother where there is a real and substantial risk to the mother's life due to medical complications. Clinicians must have clarity on how they can intervene and to ensure they do not face criminal sanction as a result of an intervention designed to save a mother's life. I do not have a problem with that as it is based on fact and medical evidence.

However, I cannot support this Bill due to section 9, which allows for termination of pregnancy on the grounds of suicidal ideation. I share the view of the psychiatrist who came before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children earlier this year who stated that abortion is not an appropriate course of action or a cure for suicidal ideation. That seems to be a widely held view among mental health professionals. The largest ever study of the effects of abortion on mental health, which was published by the British Journal of Psychiatry, confirms clearly that abortion is associated with a moderate to high risk of mental health problems following the procedure. That report also links abortion to a 155% greater risk of trying to commit suicide. A Finnish study published in the European Journal of Public Health states that women who had abortions are six times more likely to commit suicide compared with women who had their babies. Unfortunately, this Bill proposes to legalise a situation whereby the life of an unborn child can be destroyed in an attempt to address the suicidal ideation of the mother. Taking the life of a child is not the answer and will not stop suicidal ideation. The experts in this field have confirmed that.

I am also very concerned that this Bill does not include a time or term limit beyond which abortion could not be carried out. That poses the risk of late term abortions under section 9 or, potentially, the induced delivery of a premature baby to a physically healthy mother, which could result in that baby surviving but suffering lifelong and very serious health problems including brain damage, learning difficulties or respiratory problems.

The Government's explanation for bringing forward this Bill is to legislate for the Supreme Court decision on the X case in 1992. However, this is not necessary. The X case is in a separate category of judicial decisions because of what was not decided. I wish to quote from an article by Dr. Maria Cahill, lecturer in constitutional law in UCC, who, in The Sunday Business Post on 23 June last, stated:

In the X case, the attorney general did not contest whether abortion was an appropriate treatment for suicidality. That is why neither the High Court nor the Supreme Court heard any legal arguments or medical evidence on the question of whether suicidality should be treated by abortion. The point was entirely overlooked or conceded without argument and therefore, according to the Supreme Court, no precedent exists on that point.

The latter is important and, as a result, the legal reality is that there is no obligation on the Government - deriving from the Constitution or the Supreme Court judgment - to propose legislation for abortion based on the threat of suicide. Similarly, the judgment handed down by the European Court of Human Rights in the A, B and C v. Ireland case does not require the State to legislate for abortion on the grounds of suicidal ideation. While I have no difficulty with the elements of this Bill which provide clarity and certainty for clinicians on when to intervene in pregnancies - when it is based on clear facts and medical evidence - I do not believe that the threat of suicide should ever be grounds for abortion.

It is 21 years since the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the X case. In the intervening period a wealth of psychiatric research and knowledge confirming that abortion is not the answer has become available. It would be wrong for us, as legislators, to pass a Bill based on a 21-year old court decision without considering the most up-to-date research. This is an issue of moral conscience and personal belief. I am of the view that by opposing this Bill I am acting in the best interests of our citizens. We have a duty to protect the most vulnerable in our society and no one is more vulnerable than the unborn child.

I know something of this issue. I have been a Member of this House on every occasion on which it has been discussed during the past 30 years. I know it is a difficult and sensitive issue for Members on all sides. I do not believe I am revealing any secrets when I say that when we first dealt with this issue in 1983, I expressed the view that the measure which it was proposed to include in our Constitution and which became Article 40.3.3o thereof was deeply flawed and misconceived. During the debate on the 1983 amendment, I detailed for the House many of the flaws it contained. I was criticised and vilified for doing so. Unfortunately, many of the predictions I made with regard to how it might be interpreted, what might be its effects, the impact it might have on women and the steps the State might be obliged to take at a later stage, proved to be correct.

It has not yet been noticed - particularly in this debate - that this year marks the 30th anniversary of the adoption, by referendum of the people, of Article 40.3.3o. The discussions in which we have been engaging in recent weeks to some extent replicate those which took place in this Parliament 30 years ago. The amendment adopted in 1983 was the product of a campaign by individuals and groups who were intolerant of the views of others and who targeted for opprobrium those who did not adopt their groupthink. Unfortunately, a similar approach has been adopted in recent weeks by some of those - I emphasise that it is only some - opposed to this Bill.

I appreciate that some of my friends and colleagues in Fine Gael face a dilemma in respect of the legislation. I have lived through 30 years of referenda, discussions and debates on this issue, within both my party and this Chamber and outside. It is important that we should treat each other's views with understanding and respect. Those of us in Fine Gael are all part of one family. It is important that we should tease out issues in a manner that is constructive, realistic and based on fact. The facts are important. It has been suggested that this Bill liberalises the law on abortion. That is not the case and it is a gross distortion to suggest otherwise. The Bill simply reflects the current law and provides the necessary legislative structure. The current law is contained in Article 40.3.3o, which, as stated, has been with us for 30 years and which was articulated by the Supreme Court 21 years ago in respect of the X case. The position has not changed in 21 years.

The Bill is not, by any means, a liberal law. It is highly restrictive and its central theme is respect for the right to life of both women and the unborn. It involves providing the legislative structure required by the courts, including the European Court of Human Rights, to ensure members of the medical profession and pregnant women know the procedures applicable where intervention is required to save the life of a pregnant woman. The Bill has nothing to do with China, the United States or any other of the jurisdictions that have been mentioned during the debate. I regard it as extraordinary that anyone could suggest any relationship between the single baby policy in China or intentional gender-based abortions and this Bill. It is also not only unfortunate, but also alarmist and inaccurate to relate this restrictive measure to the creation of designer babies or the termination of a pregnancy where the prognosis gives rise to the possibility of a child suffering intellectual disability. I had hoped this type of hyperbole would not feature in our discussions.

This is not a measure in which compulsory terminations or abortions are prescribed, nor is it a measure for abortion by simple choice on demand. It would be almost impossible to draft a more restrictive and careful law than that before the House. This is a measure to prescribe a considered structure which provides clarity and certainty and to implement a law that has been in place for 30 years and a Supreme Court application of that law which is over 21 years old. That is an important aspect to remember during the course of the debate. We are not changing the law in any shape or form. The measure before the House is consistent with constitutional principles articulated by our Supreme Court not only in 1992, but applied then and since in practice in various cases that have come before our courts. It will also, for the first time, result in Members of this House fulfilling their obligations, as legislators, and not continuing to abandon their role to the courts as has been the case for 30 years. Had we adopted a measure of this nature some years ago, perhaps Savita Halappanavar, whose life was tragically lost in October 2012, would still be alive.

We have a very good system in the context of providing maternity care and protecting the safety of women and children. However, there are occasions on which that system tragically fails us. If a failure does take place, it is crucial that we should address any legal infirmity which could contribute to its occurring or which has placed at risk the life of a mother or resulted in a loss of life. I am proud to be a part of a Government that is facing up to its responsibilities in this area.

Some of those who have contributed to the debate referred to the 4,000 to 5,000 Irish women who effect terminations in the UK each year. However, those women have remained strangely absent from the contributions of a number of Deputies. It is the facility for them to seek such terminations in the UK which has enabled this House to fail to pass legislation of the type now before it in the past. Irish women will continue to effect terminations elsewhere and this is a point we should not ignore. Over 100,000 such terminations, involving women who identified themselves as having travelled to the UK from the Republic of Ireland, are known to have occurred since 1983. Who knows how many others did not give a Republic of Ireland address? What will continue and will remain is a British solution to what is an Irish problem.

As Minister for Justice and Equality I am personally deeply troubled by the fact that where there is a real and substantial risk to the health of a man, there is no barrier to needed intervention but where there is a real and substantial risk to the health of a pregnant woman, posed by a pregnancy, there is a barrier to needed intervention until the risk escalates to being a risk to life. I recognise there is nothing this Parliament or nothing the Government can do today to address this within the current architecture of our Constitution. The Bill does not and cannot touch this area and there is no Government intention to do so, but we must not ever fail to recognise the difficulty and the complexity.

I also recognise the profound value of protecting the life of the unborn. Like all Members of the House, I am pro-life but that should not obscure the reality or the complexity in addressing this issue nor should we assume identifying when a risk to health graduates to being a risk to life is always easy. This is a burden that falls on the shoulders of the medical profession. That is why they are entitled to a legal architecture or structure that facilitates their addressing such issues.

The tragic consequence of a wrong medical judgment are all too clear, recent and raw in the death of Savita Halappanavar. It is important when addressing this issue that everything is not seen in shades of black and white. Life is much more complex than that. When it comes to protecting the life of pregnant women and protecting the life of the unborn, sadly life is very complex and on occasions there are shades of grey and decisions have to be made to protect individuals' lives.

I have heard the suggestion that there should be some form of legal protection for the foetus. In the context of sections 6 and 7, it has been acknowledged that all that is required is a medical decision as to whether there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother and an appropriate architecture is prescribed in the legislation for that purpose. Apparently it has been suggested that the issue of legal representation arises because of provisions in section 9 which deal with the issue of the risk to life arising from suicide.

Psychiatrists are the individuals provided for in the legislation. A minimum of two must agree together with an obstetrician and it is their decision as to whether in such circumstances a termination is required. Presumably part of the discussion would be the extent to which it is practical to manage and support a pregnant woman who appears suicidal to facilitate in so far as possible the delivery of her unborn baby. We trust psychiatrists to make decisions across a broad range of psychiatric issues - they are dealing on a daily basis with individuals who may claim to be suicidal or they may believe, from their engagement with them, to be suicidal. Why should it be said they cannot be trusted in this area? Are we to have solicitors and barristers as part of the consultative process? Are solicitors and barristers to be a permanent part of our hospital procedures? I do not believe that is either right or appropriate. This is a medical or psychiatric issue, not a legal assessment. It has been part of our law, since the X case 21 years ago, that intervention can occur in these circumstances. The Bill does not extend the existing law. It merely provides a better protection to ensure the issue of suicide if anyone was to try to use it dishonestly cannot be so used.

Those opposed to addressing this issue have missed one vital point. It is worth recording that the X case involved a 14 year old raped young girl who was suicidal. The assessment in that case that she was suicidal was based upon the considered judgment of one single psychologist. Nobody has suggested that psychologist in that case gave false evidence. It remains our law should the Bill not be enacted that an assessment by a single psychologist or a single psychiatrist could facilitate a termination taking place. When the Bill is enacted one will require the united opinion of two psychiatrists and an obstetrician.

Some have said and have used the phraseology that "abortion is not a treatment for suicidal ideation or intent". Of course it is not a treatment for suicidal ideation but if a woman or a teenage girl truly has a suicidal intent and there is a real and substantial risk to her life, which is clearly identified by two psychiatrists, if a pregnancy is not terminated, how can anyone argue we should take a chance on whether she ends her life or not? Is it appropriate to make that a gamble? Who in this House would wish that for his or her own daughter or niece or grand-niece or grand-daughter? Situations in which this can arise are not difficult to imagine.

A young teenage girl in the X case was the victim of rape. There are other young teenage girls who are victims of rape or incest and young girls pregnant with babies with a fatal foetal abnormality. That is an issue we cannot address of itself. However, if she was suicidal who would take the chance with their daughter? We take the threat of suicide with great seriousness and too many of our young people have ended their lives in this way. We have a responsibility as a Government and a Legislature to address this issue in the Bill and the Supreme Court judgment in the X case requires that we do so. If we fail to do so, this Bill would be unconstitutional and it would not meet our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

There are, of course, many people outside the House who believe that legislation in this area should go further. Legislation in this area cannot go further under the current constitutional parameters. There are many who believe that a woman who is a victim of rape and becomes pregnant, whether suicidal or not, should be entitled to terminate a pregnancy. There are many who believe that if a woman is pregnant and there is a fatal foetal abnormality which results in there being no realistic prospect of the child surviving outside the womb, the woman should not be compelled to maintain that pregnancy. There are many who believe that to so compel her is an appalling cruelty. These are not issues that can be addressed within the legislation nor does the Government have any intention to address those issues by way of the holding of a further referendum. On a personal level, I believe it is a terrible cruelty to require a woman to carry a child who has a fatal foetal abnormality to full term. We will continue to have women in this country who address that difficulty by taking the trip to the United Kingdom. As a State we are abandoning them in their hour of need and leaving it to others to address that issue.

I wish to refer to another issue that has been raised. There are posters in this city and I presume elsewhere about full-term abortions. Does anyone actually know what they are talking about? Is anyone suggesting that if a woman is eight or nine months pregnant that there will be an abortion that terminates the life of the unborn? I reiterate, it has been our law, certainly since the X case for 21 years and going back 30 years to the constitutional amendment, that if there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother that a pregnancy can be terminated. However, if there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother when a pregnancy is substantially advanced, it is not a termination that the medical profession engages in, it is a delivery. Babies are delivered early throughout this country where medical difficulties arise.

Everything possible is done by the medical profession to protect the lives of those babies.

A very close friend of mine had a baby delivered at 30 weeks when she suffered a major health difficulty that put her life at risk. Late-term abortions and posters depicting them have no truth or reality and they are merely designed to scare and create problems for people who may not fully understand the manner in which the medical profession operates. It is a form of absolutism that gave us the 1983 amendment in the first place.

I understand that individual Deputies have genuine and conflicting views, and I also understand that some of my good friends and colleagues have genuine and conflicting views. In so far as it is believed that this Bill is changing the law, those people are incorrect. In the context of those who consider the provisions relating to suicide as open to abuse, the reality is that the absence of any legislation - such as the Bill currently before the House - gives rise to greater risk of abuse than its enactment, which provides a very careful and simple architecture designed to ensure that no abuse occurs. The suggestion that numbers of Irish women will pretend to be suicidal in order to terminate pregnancy is a slur on the women of Ireland. Irish women who become pregnant are concerned for the health and well-being of their baby and themselves, and none who I know would pretend to be suicidal in order to effect a termination. I know some people believe this is a possibility but what is being missed by some expressing concern about this Bill is that it will put in place protection that does not currently exist within the law as delineated and detailed by the Supreme Court.

I am conscious that this issue always seems to be divisive. We have had a very careful, considered debate in this House, with people expressing genuine views and concerns. I appreciate that outside the House there is very substantial support for the legislation before the House. The overwhelming majority of Irish people are way ahead of us as politicians, and the overwhelming majority of Irish people believe it time for us to deal maturely with the issue and live up to our legislative responsibilities by enacting the type of legislation that is the Bill we are discussing today.

I regret that a small number of people outside the House are campaigning in a manner that is thoughtless, insensitive and despicable. I recall that on two occasions I had individuals - some young people of whom I would expect more - outside my house, carrying a major poster depicting a very bloodied foetus. One of these demonstrations occurred at 8 a.m., when young children were going to school and young mothers were taking them. That was an appalling way for those people to conduct themselves.

I agree with the Minister.

Young children should not be confronted by that and young mothers, who may have suffered a miscarriage and had to come to terms with that trauma, should not be confronted by that type of depiction early on a school morning.

At the outset I indicate to the House that I will vote against this piece of legislation, and I will outline in my contribution the reasons for doing so. The position afforded to me by my party is that I can vote in line with my own views, which is a mature approach that sets a precedent for this House and the way politics in Ireland can operate. I know many in other parties would also like to have seen such an approach but it is welcome that my party has taken this path after consideration. It behoves me to outline my personal reasons for taking this approach to the Bill and opposing its introduction.

My approach to life is that we should try to afford as much personal responsibility and rich individual freedoms to the individual in society, in so far as those freedoms do not infringe on other people's ability to conduct their lives or affect wider society in any negative way. In dealing with the issues of pregnancy and abortion, our approach is informed by the fact that there are two lives involved: the life of the mother and the life of a potential child and future citizen in our country. That is recognised in our own Constitution. The principle of state protection and recognition of the fact that there are two lives involved is well established across the world and in many countries. Even in countries with liberal abortion regimes, there are in most cases rules regarding when an abortion can be provided, as well as term limits.

In several instances, the law of a country imposes restrictions through the state but in practice the application is very different. That is the case in our neighbouring country and it is the case in many others as well. However, the principle of the state offering protection to the child as well as the mother is well established across the world in the laws of various countries. In our nation, that is enshrined in Article 40.3.3o of the Constitution.

The parallel requirement of any state is to ensure, in so far as is possible, the health, welfare and life of the mother. I agree with the provisions of the Bill in that regard, with several welcome parts offering clarity for the medical profession. They are an improvement and addition to where we were before. I have particular difficulties with section 9, which deals with treatment of suicide, and that is the basis on which I will vote against the Bill. We cannot ignore the fact that in the evidence presented to us in great detail through committee meetings over some days, it was indicated that abortion is not seen as a treatment or an appropriate way to deal with suicide ideation. The opposite view has been offered over and over again, and it was argued that such an approach could often lead to presentation later in a woman's life and leave an effect on the person's mental health.

Under the Bill, medical professionals are asked to make a decision on a request when a person presents with suicide ideation but there is no clarity in this respect with regard to available protection for those professionals if they refuse the request. Professionals will say that such a decision is difficult and it is possible that a professional could refuse a request for a termination of pregnancy for a woman who could later lose her life.

It puts those medical professionals in a very unenviable position.

The other issue that presents as a result of the Bill is the fact there are no clear term limits. A scenario could occur where a child on the cusp of viability might have to be induced and health complications could accompany that, including long-term, life-affecting illness. Another thing absent from the Bill is any legal protection for the unborn child. Under the Constitution, the child and the mother are afforded an equal right to life yet this legislation makes no provision for the child's rights to be vindicated nor for their situation to be represented.

Overall, it is fair to say that in trying to address suicide in wider society and the epidemic we have at the moment, our approach is to say that suicide is not an option for someone who is feeling suicidal and that other options are available. Likewise, I do not think offering an abortion is an option either. The evidence presented to us backs up the fact that it is not an appropriate way to deal with somebody presenting with suicidal ideation. That outlines my concerns about the Bill and why I will be voting against it. I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on it.

The next listed speaker is An Taoiseach but we will move on to Deputy Buttimer.

I propose that we suspend the sitting until the Taoiseach is here.

I am willing to accept that proposal. Is that agreed?

I think the Taoiseach thought he was not due to speak until 3.30 p.m. If Members do not mind, we could suspend the sitting.

I have looked at the list of speakers and Deputy Buttimer was next so I am in a quandary. I am in a vacuum.

Actually, I am not next.

It relates to those present so I am in a dilemma, unfortunately.

I propose that we suspend the sitting until 3.30 p.m., which is only six minutes away.

Sitting suspended at 3.24 p.m. and resumed at 3.30 p.m.

I acknowledge the sensitivity of the issue we are debating and thank colleagues for the generally respectful tone of the debate to date. The purpose of the Bill before the House is the protection and preservation of life - the lives of women and the lives of their unborn children - and the provision of certainty to medical personnel. This legislation is important but it is not radical. It will regulate existing constitutional rights but will not create any new rights. It will not lead to the introduction of abortion on demand in Ireland but it will clarify the very rare circumstances in which doctors can intervene where there is a real risk of a woman losing her life during her pregnancy.

As Members will recall, in late 2010 the European Court of Human Rights in its judgment in A, B and C v. Ireland required this country to provide legal clarity to women on the circumstances in which they are entitled to a medical termination of pregnancy where there is a real and substantial risk to her life which can only be averted by termination of pregnancy. This entitlement was determined by the Supreme Court in 1992 in its judgment in the X case. It is a constitutional right, but one which has existed since then in a completely unregulated way.

As stated in the programme for Government, an expert group was established to examine the judgment and set out the options for addressing it. The group undertook very detailed work and presented its report to the Government in November last year. It is crystal clear from the report the only realistic way of achieving the necessary legal clarity is through primary legislation backed up by regulations, and the Government decided last December to implement this option. Given the sensitivity and complexity of the issues raised by this decision, the expert group report and the draft heads of the Bill were referred to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children for oral hearings involving medical and legal experts and advocacy groups. I thank the Chairman of the committee, Deputy Buttimer, and the committee members for the manner in which they carried out this very important work which has greatly contributed to the preparation of the legislation being debated in the House.

The Bill is underpinned by a number of important principles which I will outline. It provides legal clarity by way of legislation and regulation on the circumstances where a medical termination is permissible where there is a real and substantial risk to the life as opposed to the health of a woman. The legislation is strictly within the parameters of the Constitution and the Supreme Court judgment in the X case. It will cover existing constitutional rights only and will not create any new rights. The equal right to life of the unborn will be upheld and the obligation on the medical profession to save both lives where possible will be confirmed. Medical termination of pregnancy can only be legally permitted in situations where all doctors involved in the assessment process have jointly and unanimously certified it is the only treatment which will save the woman's life by averting the real and substantial risk to it. The subjective nature of the assessment of suicide risk means the legislation provides for a demonstrably more rigorous process of assessment in such cases. The Bill before the House is consistent with these principles.

The general prohibition on abortion in Ireland is restated and severe penalties will apply to any person or body responsible for the unlawful termination of unborn life. Processes are set out to establish the circumstances in which there is a real and substantial risk to the life as distinct from the health of a woman and where the only treatment which will avert this risk is the termination of her pregnancy. In the case of a medical emergency where the risk to the woman's life is immediate, one doctor may make the decision. In such emergencies the doctor involved will be required to certify the reasons for his or her actions within 72 hours. In the case of a real and substantial risk to the woman's life arising from a physical health condition, the assessment process will require the obstetrician and gynaecologist and a second relevant specialist to jointly agree and certify that the termination of pregnancy is the only treatment which will save the mother's life. Where feasible, the woman's general practitioner will be consulted.

In the case of real and substantial risk to a woman's life arising from self-destruction, additional safeguards will be put in place. The assessment process will involve three specialists, one obstetrician and gynaecologist and two psychiatrists, who must jointly and unanimously agree and certify that the termination of pregnancy is the only treatment which will save the mother's life. In such cases also, the woman's general practitioner will be consulted. A new requirement has been included that at least one of the psychiatrists involved must have direct experience of providing mental health services to women with regard to pregnancy, childbirth or post partum care.

In all cases, other than emergencies, medical termination of pregnancy, where legally permitted, can only be carried out in public hospitals with obstetric units and mental health services. Only doctors registered on the specialist division of the register of medical practitioners of the Medical Council can be part of these processes. As a person's GP often has the best knowledge of medical history, he or she will be consulted during the process wherever possible. In cases where the assessing doctors jointly and unanimously certify a termination of pregnancy is permissible, it will be a decision of the woman concerned whether such a termination should proceed. In cases where any of the assessing doctors decide not to certify that a medical termination is permissible, the woman will be entitled to a review of the decision and the composition of the review panel will mirror that of the original assessment. The decision of the review panel must be unanimous before an intervention is permissible.

Reporting and monitoring requirements will be put in place to ensure the availability of full and transparent information about the number and nature of medical terminations. All procedures must be notified to the Minister within 28 days. An annual report will be published which will detail the number, nature and location of any terminations which have been certified. The Minister for Health will also be given powers to suspend a service in any hospital if he or she believes the provisions of the Bill are not properly adhered to. This is an important safeguard which has been added to the Bill since the committee hearings.

I will refer to a number of matters raised in respect of the Bill. Some have argued the Government is not obliged to legislate within the parameters of Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the X case. Let us be very clear on this point. As Head of the Government and one who is privileged to be Taoiseach, I am bound to comply with the Constitution of the country. I do not have the luxury of being able to pick and choose which constitutional rights I will comply with. It has also been claimed the Bill will open the floodgates to abortion on demand. I utterly refute this assertion. What is being provided for in the Bill is a very restrictive process which can only be applied to very rare life-threatening situations. This country, as people are well aware, is one of the safest countries in the world for childbirth and will continue to be so.

In recent years, considerable resources have been devoted to supporting women who find themselves in crisis pregnancy situations. This has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of Irish women opting to travel to Britain for abortions, and it is imperative we continue to support women in these very difficult situations. I support this work very strongly. Others have suggested the provisions of the Bill which deal with the risk to a woman's life from suicidal intent should be deleted. This is not possible and would, in my view, be counter-productive. Regardless of whether people agree with it, the constitutional rights on these grounds already exist. The Constitution confers on the women of this country the right to a termination in very specific and particular circumstances. It is not open to me to deny this right exists. I cannot unpick the decisions of the Supreme Court. It is a matter on which the people have adjudicated twice.

If this Bill were to ignore that reality, if one was to say that that right did not exist, it would still exist within the meaning of the phrase "substantial risk to the life of the mother" in a completely unregulated fashion. Therefore, legislation that would attempt to deny that would in itself be unconstitutional, as determined by what the Constitution actually means.

What we are creating in the Bill is a rigorous process around the issue of suicidal intent that will ensure that a termination of pregnancy on these grounds can only happen in the very rare case where two psychiatrists and an obstetrician have jointly agreed that it is the only intervention that will save the woman's life. In practice, this will mean that the certifying specialists will have to satisfy themselves that all alternative treatments have been either attempted or ruled out.

In including this provision, the Government is not in any way validating or endorsing abortion as a treatment for suicide. We are simply recognising the reality that this right already exists and putting in place a process to prevent this right being abused. This process and these safeguards are far preferable, I believe, to leaving a totally unregulated right in existence that might be open to abuse.

Some people have claimed that the Bill will facilitate late-term abortions and asked for a limit to be applied to when a medical termination of a pregnancy can be allowed in order to save the life of a woman. This is not correct. This Bill will clarify the circumstances in which a woman may have the right to have her pregnancy terminated where that is the only intervention that will save her life. However, it will not confer on a woman any right to insist that the life of her unborn child be deliberately ended. On the contrary, the constitutional obligation on doctors, which is reiterated clearly in the Bill, to save both lives where possible will mean that, in practice, the ending of a pregnancy where the foetus is viable will actually be the birth of a child. The doctor has two patients in these cases, the mother and the unborn child. This obligation will also mean that doctors who are assessing a patient where the foetus is close to the point of viability will have to be mindful of their responsibility to both patients, to mother and child.

May I also address the accusation that, as the leader of the Fine Gael Party, I am breaking a pre-election promise in bringing forward this Bill? I reject this allegation. Before the last general election, the Fine Gael Party made three essential points. Firstly, we said that Fine Gael would not legalise abortion in Ireland, and we are not and will not. Secondly, we acknowledged that the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the A, B and C case would have to be examined and addressed. Thirdly, we promised that women in pregnancy would receive whatever medical treatments were necessary and the duty of care to preserve the life of the unborn would be upheld. This is precisely what this Bill aims to achieve.

I have had quite a deal of contact from different groups about various elements of what is not included in this Bill. While I have understanding, empathy and sympathy for many of these situations, this Bill deals strictly with what is in our Constitution and what our requirement to provide legal clarity entails.

I am asking the House to support the Bill. I remind Members again that this Bill is not about creating new laws or new rights. It is about clarifying and regulating existing rights. To those who put forward the proposition that this is the first step towards a liberal abortion regime in Ireland, I say clearly that this extremely restrictive Bill is the only proposal that will be brought forward by this Government on this issue. I sincerely believe that it is the right thing to do, that it will save the lives of women and the unborn. As somebody who has been through this situation on a number of occasions, dealing with legislation of one sort or another related to this, if I had thought for one moment that this Bill would lead to the creation of a liberal abortion regime in this country, I would not ask the House to endorse it. I believe, as one who is privileged to hold this office, that we have a duty to uphold what this book means. What this book, which is our Constitution, our Bunreacht, confers on the women of our country is a constitutional right to have a termination of a pregnancy in certain very specific, very specialised circumstances. We have a duty to see that that right is vindicated and that the constitutional responsibility to uphold the right to life of the mother and the unborn is actually implemented in practice.

Therefore, having considered all of these issues, I am happy that this is the right thing to do and I ask that the Members of the House support the Bill through all its Stages.

I am glad and honoured to speak as a Sinn Féin representative in support of this Bill. I support X case legislation because I trust women. I support it because I feel uncomfortable that I, as a man, can sit in judgment on the rights or lack thereof of a woman who is pregnant. I trust women and their doctors to make the best choice for them. I do not fear this.

The Bill is by no means perfect. In reality, it is a tiny step for the rights of women, yet it is a crucial one and should never have been in question in the first place. It was necessitated by tragedy and won by a hard, dignified and inspiring struggle by rights campaigners and those directly affected.

During Sinn Féin's Private Members' business on the X case last year, I paid tribute to those who had brought us to this stage. I recognise and respect that a Government is finally doing something about this situation. If we are truthful, though, it required nudging from higher powers to put this issue on the priority list. That nudging would never have happened without the long campaigning of a small dedicated few who faced down threats, abuse and vilification to win this day 21 years after the ruling on the X case and 30 years on from the so-called pro-life amendment. These people ploughed lonely furrows and received little thanks. Through their work, they have forced the State to move into the modern era, to begin to respect women and their rights and to protect them as equal citizens deserving of protection. In most cases, they were not simply campaigners for X, but for women's rights generally - divorce, contraception, equal pay, child care, marriage equality, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, LGBT, rights and a better, more equal and just society. The people of Ireland owe these campaigners a debt and it will be them and those inspired by their legacy who will move Ireland forward in the coming years. I was proud and glad to stand with them on marches and at meetings and demonstrations. I stand with them today.

I was moved, angered and shocked by the plight of Ms X. That this young girl who had suffered so much could be treated so poorly and criminalised by her State and a section of society disturbed me greatly. I have never been naive about the way the State treats marginalised, vulnerable people. I have dedicated my life's work to changing this situation. Still, I found myself stirred.

Ms X was 13 years old when she became pregnant by her abuser. Her family in this very tragic situation decided to bring her to Britain to terminate the pregnancy. No one can truly understand what this must have been like for Ms X or her family. It is one of the most horrible circumstances that I can imagine. I hope that it happens incredibly rarely, but this hope is worthless in a society where one in four women will experience a sexual assault in her lifetime. There is little doubt that similar cases to that of Ms X have happened before and since and will unfortunately happen again.

What made Ms X unique was that, following a report to the DPP, the Attorney General callously pursued Ms X and issued an order banning her from travelling for nine months. In Ireland, it seems to this day that women's basic rights are conditional. Every year approximately 5,000 women travel to Britain to have an abortion. I recently read a heart-breaking article detailing all the things that might go through the mind of a woman who makes that decision. It is dizzying to read the difficult circumstances a woman in this situation already finds herself in. The big issues are actually a plethora of tiny issues which today especially starts with the question of affordability. This decision could easily cost €1,000 which is a great ask regardless of the motivation to seek an abortion. It is particularly monstrous to consider this being a concern for someone who has recently been raped or who has discovered the baby they hoped to bring into the world will never survive and will die in agony.

Ireland, and by this I mean we who are gathered here, because the Irish people are way ahead of us, must get serious about our responsibilities to women, all those women who have suffered this fate and those who every day are in danger of it because of the country in which they live.

I want to highlight my disgust at recent comments by Deputy Micheál Martin in an interview in The Journal in which he suggested women who were raped and became pregnant should take the morning-after pill. His Government only saw fit to make the morning-after pill available by prescription in 2003 but, more to the point, Deputy Martin needs to wise up and learn to have a little compassion. The idea that a victim of the most heinous of crimes should, hours later, just buck up and get down to Boots, undergo a little questioning and pay - if she has the money - for the morning-after pill, is one lacking the most basic decency. I expect little from Fianna Fáil but I was disturbed and enraged by that statement. I am disappointed by that party's lack of leadership in response to this Bill.

Sinn Féin does not have a pro-choice position. By European standards we have a conservative stance on abortion. We do not dig our heads in the sand, however, and we recognise that things must change. Our position as a party is, I believe, roughly where the Irish people are. We have held this position for many years and recent polls clearly show that the majority of the Irish people agree.

Women must have access to termination if their lives are under threat, including by suicide, if they are victims of rape or if a substantial risk to health is apparent. This is the meaning of pro-life, a term that has been done a great disservice by those who send threats to Deputies and campaigners, picket family planning centres or poster the Rape Crisis Centre.

This Bill is obviously not enough. There will of course be proposed amendments and I look forward to seeing it improved, but I must highlight my concerns at this opportunity. The X ruling clearly states that the threat of suicide is a criterion under which a woman has the right to access termination of a pregnancy. This is a right utterly denied for two decades and attacked by Fianna Fáil when in government. That attack was rightly rejected by the people. The Government must trust women and doctors, and treat them with respect rather than with suspicion. It must provide for access to termination in the case of suicidality with the greatest level of understanding and humanity for the woman who is suffering. It must also recognise the reality of the Irish health system and the fact that hurdles, as included in this Bill, could easily result in this right being inaccessible in nearly all cases. That is against the spirit of the ruling and even the intention of this Government.

A lot has been said about abortion not being a treatment for suicidality, but this is a very thin argument. No one claims it is a treatment for enduring mental illness or suicidality and to argue that is preposterous. In these cases, where a woman wants to kill herself directly as a result of a pregnancy, rare or common, then doctors must act to save that woman in the same way they should act to save a woman experiencing life-threatening physical complications. To restrain a woman who is suicidal as a result of the despair brought on by an unwanted pregnancy and force her to carry that pregnancy to term is barbaric and unacceptable to any decent person.

The possibility of criminalisation of women who procure an abortion outside the law is also unacceptable. The fact that men are getting suspended sentences for brutal rapes while the Government is proposing a potential 14-year sentence for a woman procuring an abortion is shocking. This is a grave mistake by the Government and I strongly believe that it will see this in the coming stages. This section should be replaced.

We should not criminalise women. We must continue to push forward to a situation where women can be open about their experiences and know that they will not face persecution. That kind of situation can only be beneficial to our society, as well as how we treat women and how we view their rights.

The Government must end the injustice of forcing women, who have been told their child has a fatal abnormality and will not survive, to travel to England, have the remains shipped home or smuggled on the ferry. This should not even be a matter for debate. Groups like TFMR have made their case clearly and completely. Members of this House have directly experienced this tragedy. I hope this can be done now as part of the Bill.

Abortion is divisive in Ireland and many will say this in their comments, but the X case is not divisive. The people are behind us, they want a fair and humane approach to a woman's right to termination in these cases. The tiny minority opposed to this may be loud and many may be genuine in their concerns, but they should not be allowed to browbeat or scare us, or write the narrative that we must fear to do what is right. I will not be browbeaten and I will stand with anyone in this House who is targeted in this way. I wish to express my solidarity with Members who have been abused in this way. They have experienced only a small portion of the bile levelled at campaigners on this issue. It is unacceptable in a democratic society and cannot be allowed to influence the passage of just legislation which provides for the rights of women and for them to feel safe and to be protected.

Deputy Michael Conaghan, who is not here, is supposed to be sharing time with Deputy John Paul Phelan. Perhaps the latter Deputy would like to use his ten minutes now.

I might use the full 20 minutes if Deputy Conaghan is not here.

If the other Deputy is not here, I will provide Deputy Phelan with that time.

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this legislation. It is fair to say that the whole area of abortion, and all topics concerning it, has been the most controversial issue in Irish politics for the duration of my lifetime. In the 14 years since I have been an elected representative, there has been a huge volume of correspondence - either electronic, written or by telephone - on this issue. I am sure that all other Deputies have had the same experience.

In recent months this topic has come up for discussion among individuals, families and communities. In the course of that time I have had the opportunity to speak to a number of women who have expressed differing views on the subject. I have spoken to those who are strongly opposed to abortion as well as women who have travelled to the United Kingdom for abortions. I have also spoken to women who have had terminations in this country to save their lives, which is already provided for under the existing guidelines. I have even found stories from my own extended family of women who have been affected by this issue. There is scarcely a family in the country that has not been affected.

I must confess that I am not a particularly religious person and I approach this matter as somebody who believes in a republic of rights. I addressed this matter in my previous contribution a number of months ago when we had an opportunity for statements in the House. I believe fundamentally that the right to life is the right from which all others that we possess flow. It is the duty of the Government to vindicate that right. I hold that position very sincerely.

I am conscious of the fact that the Government is caught in a triangle of different legal judgments, including Article 40.3.3o of the Constitution, the X case judgment and the A, B and C v. Ireland judgment from the European Court of Human Rights. It is in that context that this legislation is being framed.

I had the opportunity to attend all six days of the Oireachtas committee hearings that took place in January and May. It would be fair to say that from the evidence provided, medical and legal, opinion at those hearings was divided. Noteworthy at the hearings in May was the contradiction between the opinions expressed by the two masters of maternity hospitals in Dublin in regard to section 9 of the Bill which deals with the issue of suicidal intent. I will return to that issue later.

The view expressed by one of the medical experts at the hearings in May that if all other medical treatments are refused she would have no option under the terms of this legislation but to sign off on a termination sent a shiver down my spine. That is the fear of many people in terms of what is being proposed. I hope the Minister will be able to address it in his comments later. I am not one who holds to the view that this legislation will open up the floodgates. However, I do believe it potentially poses a significant change in attitude in Ireland to the issue of protection of the life of unborn children. I hope the Minister can allay some of my fears in his contribution.

I have been struck by the number of speakers, in particular from the Government side, who have continually stated that the Government is bound to legislate on this matter. The Government is not legally bound to legislate on this matter. There is a legal requirement under the A, B and C judgment for clarity in the law. That clarity can be brought about through legislation or regulation. I wish Government speakers would not continually state that there is a legally binding requirement on the Government to legislate. That is not true. We should have a truthful discussion. In fairness, most of what I have heard in this House thus far has been truthful.

I have a question for the Minister in relation to the "X" judgment in particular. The suicide ground in the "X" judgment was conceded by the Attorney General and was not contested in the case. Therefore, psychiatric evidence was not heard. This means this particular aspect of the judgment is binding merely on its own facts and is not a binding precedent. That is the legal reality. I have not heard anybody address this issue. Perhaps if the opportunity arises the Minister will address it.

In terms of my primary concerns, I expressed support from an early stage for the opinion voiced by Deputy Creed that a sunset clause or similar mechanism be included in the legislation. I note that the Minister has provided for a review mechanism in section 15. I believe that mechanism should be strengthened and that Deputy Creed's suggestion of a sunset clause, whereby the legislation would be revisited, is not unreasonable and should be considered by the Minister.

Section 9 deals with the risk of loss of life from suicide. There is no doubt but that suicide is a real issue. No more than other people in this Chamber, I have been affected by it. We all know something about it. However, the concern of many people that the provisions in this regard as set down in section 9 are not robust enough have not yet been adequately addressed. Given the evidence presented at the hearings in January and May was that the best clinical practice did not indicate that termination was the best option for a woman expressing suicidal thoughts, this needs to be reflected in the legislation. I do not see that reflected in the wording of section 9 as currently drafted.

I am also concerned about the failure of the Bill to provide a mechanism for vindication of the legal rights of the unborn, as mentioned earlier by a number of contributors, including the Minister of State, Deputy Creighton. Although it may be a somewhat abstract legal argument, under Article 40.3.3o legal protection is afforded to the life of the unborn yet this legislation does not provide a mechanism for vindication of that protection. I believe it should. I hope the Minister will be in a position to address this on Committee or Report Stage.

I am also concerned about the issue of "term limits". I want to put on record that I fully support sections 7 and 8 which deal with medical emergencies. Where a procedure has to be carried out to save a woman's life, it must be carried out. I fully support the provision in legislation of freedom for doctors to do what they have to do. That is right and proper. Effectively, the legislation without spelling out "term limits" implies them. I understand that the Minister might not be in a position to specify a particular number of weeks in the legislation. However, it should be more prescriptive than currently drafted because it, on a de facto basis, outlines-----

Deputy Michael Conaghan has relinquished his time so Deputy Phelan may take an additional two and a half minutes and the remaining two and a half minutes will be taken by Deputy Nash.

Thank you.

I also wish to raise the issue of Article 27, on which legal opinion is divided because it has to be interpreted in relation to Article 23 of the Constitution, which speaks of decisions made in the other House. Article 27 provides a mechanism which provides that a Bill can be referred to the people. This provision has never been used. As I said in previous contributions a number of months ago, any substantive change proposed by this legislation should be put to the people. Many people will say we have had previous referenda on this issue, which is true. However, a person under the age of 30 years has not voted on this issue. The reality is that people under the age of 30 years, more than any other group, will be affected by what is proposed in this Bill. It is reasonable that they and others would have an opportunity by way of referendum to express their views on this subject.

While the debate in this House has been measured, I am always struck by the level of anger and vitriol that exists on both sides of this argument. When it was reported in a particular newspaper that I had a view as to the usage of Article 27, I was subjected to some of that anger and vitriol, which was indicative of what many Deputies are experiencing. When asked by an anonymous person on Twitter at what point in pregnancy I was okay with a woman dying, I replied "Never". I am never okay with a woman dying during pregnancy but I am okay with the people deciding the shape of the law in this area. Article 27 deals specifically with matters of national significance. There has been no other issue during my lifetime on which opinion has been so divided. If Article 27 is apply to any issue, it should apply to this one.

A member of the Cabinet recently expressed to me the concern that I had the temerity to sign my name to a motion requesting that Members of the Oireachtas be given a free vote.

I firmly believe Members should have a free vote on this issue and the Whip should not apply when making decisions on matters of this nature. It is a little ironic and contradictory, to say the least, that on an issue on which some people profess to believe in the right to choose, this right does not extend to Members when they vote on the issue. The opinions of individual Members should be respected and they should be allowed to make up their minds on this issue. From time to time, Members hide behind the party Whip and, on occasion, the Whip system is used to bully them. From my experience in 11 years as a Member of the Oireachtas, I do not believe the party Whip, as currently constituted, is the best way to have the views of members of the public reflected in the Chamber when votes are taken on various issues.

I do not envy the Minister the task of striking a balance in the drafting of the Bill. I hope he will be able to address some of the concerns I have raised on Committee and Report Stages because they are shared by many others. I have been struck by the large number of people who contacted me in recent weeks asking that I support the legislation before stating in the next breath that they are concerned about the provisions on suicide and in section 9. I hope changes will be made to improve the Bill.

As a 16 year old boy, I was infuriated and maddened at the way in which the State treated a then 14 year old girl who had been raped by a neighbour in a case that has become known to all of us as the X case. It has been 21 years since the Supreme Court clarified the constitutional position on this most serious matter related to the health and lives of pregnant women. I did not envisage that it would take 21 years to take the small but significant step of legislating for the judgment in the X case, nor did I envisage at that stage that, more than two decades later, I would be one of those who would be charged with legislating to give effect to that decision.

For 20 years, the Labour Party has been a strong, consistent and frequently lone voice on the need to act on the judgment in the X case. I have never been silent on this matter, even when it would have been more politically expedient to be silent. I assure the House that I and my party colleagues bear the scars of this debate on our backs. Six previous Governments have shamefully neglected the Supreme Court judgment of 1992 by failing to act on it. As the Minister has stated repeatedly, however, this Government will not be the seventh to do so.

It saddens me that issues such as rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormalities have not been and cannot be addressed in the Bill on the basis that to do so would place the legislation outside the parameters of the current constitutional position. A terrible pain and heartache is involved in the decision to terminate a pregnancy where the foetus has no prospect of surviving outside the womb. It disgusts me that we do not permit terminations for women who have been raped and those who have been violated and abused through incest. The pain such women endure is compounded by the fact that services cannot currently be provided legally in circumstances where a difficult decision has been made to seek a termination under what are the saddest and most horrific circumstances. This House and the citizens of this Republic must ask whether it is compassionate and humane to force grown, mature adults to travel to access an intervention under such circumstances, many miles from the embrace of a loving and caring family. My answer is a firm "No"; it is far from humane and compassionate.

As I have stated previously, if it is the case that Deputies are not prepared to uphold and legislate for judgments of the Supreme Court and if representatives of the Irish people choose to dispense with this necessity, this House must take a long and hard look at itself. We cannot choose to ignore or cherry-pick parts of our solemn Constitution that are not to the liking of Members as to do so would be an abomination and would bring this House and democracy in this Republic into disrepute.

I am the first to recognise that Deputies on all sides hold sincere views on this complex issue. A large and strongly engaged centre ground has emerged in this debate in recent years, notably in recent months. The majority of Irish people are sufficiently well informed to decide for themselves what constitutes right and wrong by any ethical measurement. They are no longer prepared to be dictated to by an authoritarian monolith which contributed to many ethical, moral and social failings in this State. They will not be dictated to by an institution or cadre which, by its actions, has lost the authority it claims to tell people how to run their lives or how society should operate and be organised.

I welcome this long overdue legislation. It is only a matter of time before events dictate that we, the elected representatives of the Irish people, will be required to return to the parameters of abortion legislation. Such a debate is necessary and I expect it to take place. I am also prepared to ask the people of Ireland to take this decision.

The issues before us in this legislation are complex and sensitive. For more than 30 years there has been much debate on all aspects of these issues. Unfortunately, at times, a small number of those on both sides the argument have engaged in a debate that was neither rational nor fair. What I have heard of the debate on this legislation thus far has been, as is appropriate, respectful and considerate of divergent views. A small element on both sides of the debate outside the Oireachtas has not been constructive. The means of advocacy chosen by this group does not promote its cause. Some actions and behaviour are deplorable.

Some weeks ago I stated on radio that it was the content of an e-mail, letter or telephone call that would influence me, rather than the volume of e-mails or letters or tone of such correspondence or telephone calls. It is the content and argument that matters. Promoting one's views in a fair and rational way is an important and necessary part of our democratic process that enables all of us to be better informed through dialogue with relevant representative and advocacy groups. Such groups play an important role in the public realm.

The Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party had detailed discussions when the heads of the Bill were published and following the publication of the legislation. Following our deliberations, it was decided to have a free vote for Deputies and Senators to allow each of the party's Oireachtas Members to vote in accordance with his or her conscience. This was the correct decision and one which I fully supported. This approach also enjoys considerable support in all parties and groups in the Oireachtas. The debates in my party were respectful of divergent views. In this day and age, it is wrong that members of a parliamentary party should lose the Whip for voting in line with their conscience on a fundamental issue of life.

I do not envisage that any other issue will come before the Oireachtas that is of such importance to individual Members of the Dáil and Seanad in terms of their conscience and personal beliefs.

Abortion, as we know, is literally about life and death. Surely the parliamentarians in this House and in the Upper House tasked with dealing with this legislation should not be straitjacketed by a party Whip system. There are plenty of examples of parliaments throughout the world allowing free votes on matters of conscience. Free votes are allowed in the neighbouring jurisdiction in Britain on fairly routine and normal political matters. I recall a free vote relatively recently on a motion about a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union. I do not believe any of us in this House would regard that as a matter of conscience - it would be a matter of ongoing political policy for parties or for Government.

In a parliamentary democracy, party discipline is needed and there are major advantages and a need for the benefits and practical workings on a daily basis that accrue from the Whip system. However, this is not normal political business where a Member of Parliament or indeed a member of the public fully understands the reasons for the application of a Whip and the imposition of party discipline. When the party is dealing with normal routine political business, it is fully understandable why the party Whip system has to be invoked.

Section 17(1) states that "nothing in this Act shall be construed as obliging any medical practitioner, nurse or midwife to carry out, or to assist in carrying out, any medical procedure referred to in section 7(1) or 9(1) to which he or she has a conscientious objection". It is ironic that the people tasked with putting this legislation through the Oireachtas are not being allowed the same consideration.

There has been some commentary - fuelled by some Members of this House - that this issue had been ignored for more than 20 years. Such commentary is very wide of the mark. As we know there was a referendum in 1983 which resulted in the insertion of Article 40.3.3° in to Bunreacht na hÉireann, which states: "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right."

In the referendum on the issue of abortion held in 1992, three issues were put before the electorate. The first proposed amendment sought to remove the risk of suicide as grounds for a termination. The second proposed amendment sought to establish the right to travel abroad, including travel for the purpose of procuring an abortion. The third sought to establish the right to disseminate and obtain information within Ireland on procuring an abortion abroad. As we know the first proposed amendment was rejected and the second and third were passed resulting in the 13th and 14th amendments to Bunreacht na hÉireann.

A further referendum was held in 2002 and the Referendum Commission stated at that time stated:

The intention of the referendum is to;

- remove the threat of suicide as a ground for a legal termination of pregnancy

- provide for a law on abortion that can only be changed by another referendum

- give constitutional and legal safeguards to existing medical practices where interventions are made to protect the life of the mother

My recollection is that particular proposal and draft legislation which was published before the holding of the referendum followed extensive public consultation, hearings and an all-party committee report. Much preparatory work was done at that time.

Many years ago the establishment of the Crisis Pregnancy Agency was a very important development in regard to providing support to women with unwanted pregnancies. Relatively recently I received an e-mail from a consultant psychiatrist and one of the suggestions in that correspondence stated: "[P]lease consider diverting energy and resources to supporting people with unwanted pregnancies, not pushing them down a path that may be detrimental to their mental health later when it is too late." Such support must be forthcoming and available at all times in all parts of the country where women have unwanted pregnancies and are facing a crisis in their lives. The Crisis Pregnancy Agency was established in 2001 and its functions were transferred to the HSE in 2010. Its overall mandate is very important and must be adequately supported. I believe its work through all aspects of its remit is critical to many women.

I mentioned earlier the work done in dealing with the abortion issue over the years. The Constitution review group, which was established in 1995, dealt with the abortion issue. A Green Paper on this issue was referred to the all-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution in September 1999. A huge amount of work was carried out by that committee and its fifth progress report in 2000 outlined its deliberations on this difficult issue. The members of that committee, some of whom are no longer Members of the Oireachtas, did outstanding work, covering many areas in addition to abortion.

All of us welcome sections 7 and 8 which help to bring legal clarity to the treatment of a pregnant woman whose life may be at risk arising from a physical illness. My recollection of the committee hearings was that there was no disagreement on such provisions, and indeed we must ensure in every possible way the protection of the life of the pregnant mother and the unborn baby. Where a threat is posed to the life of the mother, all the clinicians must be enabled to do what is necessary to save her life.

Section 9 is the part of this legislation that causes difficulties for so many people, including for me. Apart from the correspondence we received from different groups, for and against the legislation, and from many individuals I deliberately sought out views and advice from medical practitioners, particularly GPs and psychiatrists. I will quote two paragraphs from correspondence signed by a number of GPs and consultants in different medical disciplines. I am sure this correspondence went to all Members of the Oireachtas. It stated:

As practising doctors, we know that there is no evidence to support abortion as a solution for this or any other psychological symptom. Psychiatrists are virtually unanimous on this point, and Obstetricians agree that this lack of evidence presents a dilemma for their members.

Any changes to medical practice should be based on good scientific and clinical evidence. Ireland, with one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world, is among the safest countries in the world for maternal care.

Earlier the Taoiseach referred to the good maternal care that is thankfully available here. That was also the clear message from the Oireachtas committee hearings to which I had the opportunity to listen some weeks ago.

On receipt of other correspondence I spoke to the psychiatrist who had written the letter. There were clear messages in that correspondence which need very serious consideration. The correspondence may have been widely distributed, but some of the contents are worth putting on the record of the House, as follows:

Suicidality is not an easy 'diagnosis' to make. It is dynamic, not static, with the matters contributing to the suicidal state constantly changing. There is absolutely no test one can make to predict whether someone will die by suicide.

Finding out one is pregnant for all the wrong reasons is a devastating life altering thing, but as human beings we try to help people adjust and make decisions in a clear frame of mind. Abortion has never been a treatment for suicidal ideation and a completed abortion may end up being one of those dynamic factors that pushes someone to contemplate suicide. There is nothing so devastating as guilt to the depressed mind. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

The author of the correspondence pleaded for more resources on an ongoing basis to support people who have unwanted pregnancies.

In the course of the debate, many of my colleagues in the Fianna Fáil Party have referred to many issues. Reference was made by several contributors to the contribution at the hearings of Dr. Maria Cahill from the school of law in University College Cork. She made a compelling case with regard to the particular issues before the House and advocated reasons there was no need for this legislation to be proceeded with. Another issue raised by colleagues relates to the difficulty of no term limits on abortion in the Bill. That is another serious issue for many people. It is clear from all the correspondence we have received and from the public utterances of people in psychiatry that abortion is not a treatment for suicidal ideation.

Another issue raised by colleagues on all sides of the House, in particular some of my colleagues on this side, relates to the need to ensure there is robust monitoring and that if the legislation is passed and enacted, there is an absolute need for robust monitoring. Other Members have spoken of the need to provide adequate support for people who present with suicidal intent and that adequate support should be in place immediately to support such people through that difficult period in their lives. We should give due cognisance to the comments of Mr. Barnes, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, who outlined the need to ensure there was an advocate for the unborn. These are among some of the critical issues.

I sought out and spoke to a psychiatrist who made the point to me forcefully in correspondence that suicidality is less of a problem in the population of pregnant women than in a similar population who are not pregnant. In the case of most people who are unhappy with the proposed legislation, it boils down to section 9. There is overwhelming evidence to show that the inclusion of suicidal ideation is wrong. I heard my colleague, Deputy Seamus Kirk, refer to Lord Steel, who introduced the first legislation in Britain and whose comments were to the effect that Ireland would making a mistake to introduce such legislation. Unfortunately, the figures for abortion numbers in Britain have risen dramatically over the years.

I wish to highlight in particular my concerns and total opposition to section 9. I welcome the fact that there has been clarification and that there will be no impediment to clinicians doing their work to protect the life of the mother where difficulties arise. All Members on every side support that absolutely. I trust women to do the right thing and I strongly advocate that the work of the Crisis Pregnancy Agency, established in 2001, should be in place to help women through crisis pregnancies. Whatever additional resources the agency needs to ensure there is a good spread of the work throughout the country should be provided. Resources should not be found wanting at any stage to support women who face these particular difficulties. However, I will be voting "No" to this legislation. Like many colleagues on all sides of the House, section 9 dealing with suicidal ideation has determined my decision.

I call Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick, who is sharing time with Deputies Anthony Lawlor and Charles Flanagan.

I have never in my life had so much mental anguish and torment over a decision. The past six months, especially the past three months, have been particularly difficult while I have debated the decision I must make. I have taken the view that before making a decision, it is incumbent upon me to educate myself as best I can about all sides and opinions. I firmly believe that the more information one has on any topic, the greater the chances of making a correct decision. I have sat on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children and listened intently to the numerous, sometimes brilliant, contributions. Only when I exhausted every avenue open to me and discussed the issue with all stakeholders in an open manner could I begin to formulate my decision. I am satisfied that I have left no stone unturned in my quest for knowledge. I am satisfied that I have exhausted every avenue open to me and more besides. I am now satisfied that I am in a position to make a decision.

I have tremendous respect for my Dáil colleagues and the decision they must make individually. A great deal of soul searching must be done on all sides of the House. Whatever decision my fellow Deputies make, I will respect it. Within my party there has been much debate and I respect each of my party colleagues. This decision is singularly difficult because it toys with the conscience and moral fabric of each individual. I salute each of my colleagues.

I am not in favour of abortion. I recognise the need to protect the lives of women during pregnancy, but I am keen that this must not lead to abortion on demand. The inclusion of suicide as a ground for abortion concerns me because of fears that it could lead to abortion on demand and abortion up to nine months.

I met the Minister for Health, Deputy James Reilly, to discuss these matters and the discussion eased some of my concerns. I am satisfied that the Bill will not lead to late-term abortion. The Bill recognises the equal right to life of the mother and the unborn child. If the unborn child is capable of surviving outside the womb, medical practitioners are obliged to do everything possible to save both lives, that is to say, the life of the mother and the life of the unborn baby. The Bill does not give the right to demand a termination if the unborn child is capable of surviving outside of the womb.

I am satisfied that the Bill will not lead to abortion on demand. In fact, it will give greater transparency on the number of terminations taking place. We do not know how many terminations have been carried out in Ireland since the X case judgment. We do not know the number of terminations that were performed in Ireland last year. We do not know whether one hospital is responsible for the majority of terminations or whether a small number of doctors carry out the majority of these procedures. We do not know whether the uncertainty over our termination laws is being abused. The Bill corrects this issue. There will be legal clarity such that terminations can only be carried out where the risk to the woman's life has been fully assessed and clarified by specialists. Medical professionals will be provided with clear guidelines detailing where and when a termination can take place to save a woman. For the first time, information on these rare terminations will become publicly available. It will become obvious to all of us if certain hospitals or certain medical professionals are responsible for a given number of terminations. If this Bill is abused, the Minister for Health will have the power to suspend abortion services and he has assured me that he will not be reluctant to use that power.

The Bill is not about introducing abortion on demand or liberalising abortion. The Supreme Court legalised the termination of pregnancy in cases where the mother's life is at risk some 21 years ago. Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution, inserted by the eighth constitutional amendment in 1983 states: "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right."

The Supreme Court decided in 1992 in Attorney General v. X that the Constitution permitted the termination of a pregnancy where there was a real and substantial risk to the life of a woman which could only be removed by terminating the pregnancy. In the X case, the Supreme Court set out the correct interpretation of the law as it has stood since the eighth amendment.

The difficulty is that no statutory framework has ever been established to vindicate the equal right to life of the mother and her unborn. Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, which in various ways provide for a broad offence of doing acts with the intention of procuring the miscarriage of a woman, whether the act be committed by the woman or not, is qualified by the X case. There is no legislative or regulatory framework which currently exists to determine whether a woman is entitled to a termination of pregnancy according to the X case test. This situation is dangerous for women, who may be denied treatment to which they are entitled when a real and substantial risk to their life exists, and dangerous for the unborn, as there is no procedure whereby unscrupulous operators who wish to abuse the X case test can be checked.

As a result of this uncertainty, the European Court of Human Rights in A, B and C v. Ireland found that:

The [Irish] authorities failed to comply with their positive obligation to secure to the third applicant effective respect for her private life by reason of the absence of any implementing legislative or regulatory regime providing an accessible and effective procedure by which C could have established whether she qualified for a lawful abortion in Ireland in accordance with Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution.

At no stage did the European Court of Human Rights require that the law should be altered or amended. The decision simply called for a legislative or regulatory regime to be established to allow a woman to ascertain whether she qualified under the X case test, and to provide for a review mechanism where a woman is refused treatment. The Government decided that the most appropriate way to provide clarity was by legislation with regulations, strictly within the parameters of Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

The main purpose of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013 is to restate the general prohibition on abortion in Ireland. It does not confer any new substantive rights to a termination of pregnancy. While many of my concerns have been addressed, I remain concerned about some technical aspects of the Bill. We are all fully aware of the sensitive and complex nature of the matter with which we are about to deal. We are fully cognisant of the wide range of views that exist within this House and throughout the country. The Minister has assured us of transparency and that is very welcome. However, I strongly believe there should be an obligation to lay a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas annually. This extra safeguard would help ease concerns. It would provide an obligation on all future Ministers for Health to inform the House of the statistics relating to abortion.

It is reassuring to know that the medical practitioner that performs a termination will be recorded. This is an important safeguard that will help prevent this Bill from being abused. However, I would like this safeguard to go further. I strongly believe that the medical practitioner who certifies that a termination is necessary should also be recorded. In spite of my reservations, I compliment the Minister for Health on drafting a Bill on such a sensitive and delicate topic that manages to strike the right balance between protecting the lives of pregnant women and preventing late terminations and abortion on demand. I look forward to the Bill progressing to Committee Stage where I hope some of the outstanding concerns can be resolved.

I outlined my position previously in the Dáil following publication of the expert group report last December and there is no point in my reiterating the points I made on that occasion. I support the Bill, which is restrictive and will ensure that terminations do not become much more common than they are at the moment. Many of the e-mails I received referred to Lord David Steel's legislation in the UK. I have spoken to many people about it. That legislation allowed for terminations based on mental health issues, which broadened the basis for abortion to include socio-economic reasons and people’s economic circumstances. The Bill before us is much more radical. It is totally different from the UK legislation to which I referred.

It has been suggested that women will dupe psychiatrists, which is an insult to women. It is also an insult to the psychiatric profession. We must have much more faith in women and also in the mental health service. Much of the debate on this aspect of the issue has been about what has been termed "suicidal ideation". However, section 9 refers to "suicidal intent", "where there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life by way of suicide", which is more to do with suicidal intent than suicidal ideation. I spoke to a number of people about how one would differentiate between the two. It was explained as like being in a room on a fifth floor. Someone could walk into the room and say he or she is suicidal but if he or she walked to the window and stood on the window ledge and was about to jump then that is suicidal intent rather than suicidal ideation.

In section 9 we deal with what is freely available in this country currently, due to the judgment in the C case. In that case there was one psychiatric report and the High Court found that C was entitled to a lawful abortion on the grounds that her life was at risk because she was suicidal and that the risk would increase as her pregnancy advanced. Section 9 specifies that at least three medical professionals are required to unanimously decide that there is a real and substantive risk of the loss of the woman’s life by way of suicide.

Unfortunately, from my perspective, the Bill does not address some issues. I understand the reasons, given the limitations set by the Constitution and the X case ruling. Women should not have to travel to the UK if they choose to have a termination in cases where the baby they carry is not compatible with life. I dread to think the horror such parents go through, having to leave their country when faced with such a difficult time in their lives.

I have spoken to women who have had terminations and who have regretted it, but I have also spoken to women who could not have a termination in this country and had to travel overseas. That should not have been necessary. I accept we cannot deal with the situation under this legislation but perhaps we could deal with it in future. Similarly, in cases of rape one must ask whether the horror of victims should be compounded by forcing them to travel if they believe they cannot continue with the pregnancy. The Bill does not provide for such cases but I bring my views to the attention of the Minister so that we might be in a position to alter the legislation in the future. A referendum could be put to the people to make a decision in that regard.

I have always had a problem with the language used to describe people, such as pro-choice and pro-life. I am very much pro-life but I am also of the belief that people should have a right to choose. It is a very personal decision for women and families. Consequently, I will support the Bill. In some circumstances it does not go far enough but we are restricted by the Constitution. I hope that some day a proposed amendment could be put to the people for their decision.

This is a most sensitive issue upon which public opinion is divided not only in this country, but around the world. The polarised nature of the debate is regrettable, much of which has been misleading and false. Public commentary and campaigners should stick to fact over fiction, accuracy over hype, what is in the Bill and no more. Last December, I referred to my duty as a legislator to help provide clarity on issues where no criteria or procedures have been laid down in law and to seek certainty where none exists.

No other Bill in the history of our parliamentary democracy has been debated in such detail. We have had an expert committee, an expert report, hearings on the expert report, heads of the Bill, hearings on the heads of the Bill and then the Bill itself. We understand that more than 50 drafts were circulated within Government and now we have reached the Second Stage debate where each and every Member of the House can contribute and have his or her say.

I compliment the Minister, Deputy Reilly, in this regard.

As the X case is law, what Members are being asked to do is to frame in statute what is currently accepted medical practice. Opponents of this Bill speak of the judgment being flawed. Members do not have the luxury of picking and choosing aspects of the Supreme Court's decisions. They are legally bound by the Supreme Court and by the Constitution. Once enacted, this Bill will ensure that medical professionals may no longer feel the level of care they administer to pregnant women is in some way compromised due to uncertainty or fear or both. One is told Ireland is one of the safest places in the world to have a baby and this can be further bolstered only by the passage of this Bill.

Section 9 is the most contentious part of the Bill and that is the reason there are strict safeguards. These safeguards are in addition to those that exist where the threat to the life of the woman is from a physical health condition. The Supreme Court specifically recognised a life-threatening risk arising from suicidal intent as a legitimate basis for a termination, but only where the risk of suicide could be averted only by means of a termination. Safeguards are in the form of not one, not two but three doctors jointly certifying having formed a clear opinion that a termination may take place where it has been deemed necessary to save a woman's life. Psychiatrists and the profession of psychiatry have been trusted over the years and such trust and confidence must continue.

There has been criticism that the Bill is silent on time limits. In accordance with the constitutional position, a human right cannot be subject to a time limit. I noted carefully in this regard the points made by Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness in her submission to the health committee. I believe she was clear and direct in her submission and the Attorney General takes a similar view. As Members all are aware, the threat of suicide must be always taken seriously. Were suicide to be excluded from the Bill and were section 9 removed, as the Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, and some of her colleagues argue, a constitutional right would still exist and would not have been extinguished by this or any other Act of Parliament. Without reference to suicide, the Bill clearly would be unconstitutional. It is difficult to discern how there could be a legal justification for excluding suicidal women from this legislation. It is equally difficult to discern how there could be a medical justification for excluding threat to life by self-destruction. Abortion may never be a treatment for suicidal intent during a pregnancy but the overriding point must be not whether termination is a treatment for suicide but the existence of clear criteria and the steps that can and will be taken to save the life of the mother and whether those steps include a termination of a pregnancy. This is where the strict safeguards in this Bill can be counted and come in.

I attended some of the hearings, which constituted a new departure in the way Members do their business. I was greatly struck by the submission of Dr. Rhona Mahony, Master of Holles Street. If her comments have not been put on the record, if I have the time, I would be pleased to stich them into the record of this House. She stated:

As suicide entails death by self destruction, a woman who wishes to commit suicide is at risk of dying. Therefore she requires access to expert psychiatric care. It should be pointed out the vast majority of women who are suicidal want treatment for their distress of suicidal feelings and do not want termination of pregnancy... In very rare cases, women and teenage girls will be suicidal as a consequence of the pregnancy and will not wish to continue with their pregnancy. These women and teenage girls should be listened to, believed and supported. In the same way that any woman who is at risk of dying while pregnant, these women should equally have access to a process which enables them to determine whether or not termination of pregnancy is part of a treatment process indicated to save the life... It is reasonable that two psychiatrists must come to an agreed decision regarding the need for termination of pregnancy on the ground of suicide risk. I also agree [she states] that an obstetrician should be involved in this process. While an obstetrician cannot assess suicide intent, obstetric considerations apply and should be addressed by an obstetrician.

I very much reject the notion of abortion as a lifestyle choice or for some so-called socio-economic reasons. Nowhere in this Bill is this suggested or possible. I acknowledge the strict and undeniable medical necessity where women's lives are threatened and make this point as a father of two fabulous girls, as well as a public representative.

In conclusion, the medical profession requires and deserves protection and certainty. Moreover, the women of Ireland need protection and certainty and without a shadow of a doubt, this must be provided by Members in the national Assembly. It is my duty as a legislator to help provide legal clarity, subject only to the Constitution of this Republic.

Debate adjourned.

Top
Share