Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Feb 1992

Vol. 131 No. 9

Ban on Termination of Young Girl's Pregnancy: Statements.

Mr. O'Donovan

At the outset, as Justice spokesman, I wish to put on record the sincere sympathy of this side of the House for the young girl and her family in the trauma and tragedy they have suffered. It is a regrettable occurrence and we feel very deeply about it.

Arising from the Taoiseach's statement in the Dáil yesterday, he has taken the initiative of requesting meetings with the leaders of the Opposition parties, the Fine Gael Party, Labour Party and The Workers' Party. A series of meetings have taken place with the leaders of these parties over the past 24 hours and they have been broadly satisfactory and helpful. We on this side of the House would like to place on record our congratulations to the other parties for taking a very sensitive and sensible approach to this ultra-sensitive matter.

The main aim of these meetings was to avoid any divisiveness on this issue. We are all aware of the trauma this girl and her family have suffered and it was the intention of the Taoiseach and the Government, in an effort to avoid further trauma, to avoid divisiveness, to avoid politicisation of this issue, to meet with the leaders of the other parties. I gather these meetings are ongoing.

Most of us will be acutely aware of the 1983 referendum which enabled this amendment to Article 40.3.3º to the Constitution to be made. The memories of this referendum are still fresh in people's minds. The main consideration of the Taoiseach and the Government is to avoid any further trauma or problems for the family and the girl in this tragic situation. It is the intention of the Government and the Taoiseach to have ongoing meetings with the leaders of the Opposition parties to explore various avenues and to exhaust all possibilities. They will cover the legislative position, and what role, if any, the Oireachtas can play. Secondly, they will explore the constitutional implications of the recent development and thirdly they will examine what, if any, the international commitments and the international position will be vis-a-vis the Maastricht Treaty and the implications on the ongoing situation.

I hold the view — and it may be a personal view — that it might be prudent to have this case tested in the Supreme Court so that this avenue can be fully exhausted and we can say that the highest court in this jurisdiction had an opportunity to examine the full legal aspects and implications of the court decision. Some commentators believe the Supreme Court must uphold the decision of the High Court. That is not so. I would like to see that aspect explored. Should the girl or her family decide to appeal to the Supreme Court, the Taoiseach and the Government have made it quite clear they will put no obstacles in the way of such a course of action. For example, it is quite clear that no costs will be levied on the girl or her family and that all available Government services will be put at her disposal to help in the matter. The Government are anxious that should this course of action be taken it would be expedited and no delays would occur. It has also been made clear by the Taoiseach and the Government that all possible services will be made available to the girl such as pre-natal and post-natal services and psychotherapy. The Government are fully committed to doing everything possible to help the girl and her family, including counselling.

To reiterate the point made by the Acting Leader on the Order of Business, it is important to note for the record of this House that the comments of President Robinson are not contrary and do not conflict with the views of the Taoiseach and the Government.

The Taoiseach and the Government and this side of the House are working around the clock, and have been since the matter arose, exploring all avenues to try to come to a satisfactory solution of this problem. I would like to congratulate the Opposition parties in this House for their sensitive approach yesterday and their agreement to discuss and explore all the avenues in respect of this very tragic case.

Mrs. Doyle

There must never be another case like this. Whatever we must do as legislators, it must now be done to ensure that no victim of rape or sexual abuse, or no victim's family, will in future be confronted by the trauma of the appalling court proceedings we have recently had to witness. My thoughts are with that tragic girl, and indeed with her family. We need broad political agreement on the steps necessary and if that involves a referendum — and, regrettably, I believe it will involve a referendum — that must be faced up to immediately.

I have never witnessed a case to convulse the nation, especially the women of the nation, as this one has done. There is palpable anger in all sectors of the community. We need light, not heat, to resolve this issue. But what business have we, as legislators, or indeed, through us, the Judiciary, interfering with the decision of the girl's parents, a decision they have come to taking everything into account and having got the best possible advice available to them? I put it to Senators that we have absolutely none and that is the only absolute in this issue. There are no legal absolutes and particularly no moral absolutes. How can it be moral to force a 14-year-old to carry the child of her rapist if physically and mentally it will impair her for the rest of her life? Every effort could be made to persuade this girl, and indeed similar victims of rape, to carry a child to full term. It is justifiable to make those efforts. All options must be discussed and considered in detail but in the end this child, and indeed any other woman or young girl who finds herself in a similar position, must be listened to and their families must be listened to, because it is their families who know best in their own case.

There are no moral absolutes. Where were the moral absolutes in the concentration camps in the Second World War when 2,000 women had the choice of facing an abortion or being shot if found pregnant? Being shot would have killed the mother and the foetus, the abortion just killed the foetus. Who is to condemn those women for the choice they made? Who is to say what they did was wrong? I am totally opposed to abortion on demand. I cannot speak for others but I do not think any of us here supports it. However, neither I nor any other legislator can dictate to an individual in a tragedy such as we are now witnessing.

There are no legal absolutes. The text of the Eight Amendment does not support absolutist interpretation. One has only to look at the expression "equal right to life of the mother", which is embodied in the amendment. Does the expression "right to life" only mean the right to be preserved from death? I contend that it does not. Does it allow for a reasonable level of physical and mental well being? In crunch cases rights are not equal. The amendment refers to: "due regard to the equal right to life of the mother" and the expression "as far as practicable" is used. Some abortions are lawful under the terms of the existing amendment. How can one have an absolutist view? It is not a question of all being right or all being wrong.

How can the court support the injunction given the very strong view that there is no legal absolute in this issue? I find it hard to accept the injunction handed down in this case, preventing the child from travelling abroad although I know I must accept it. It is for those who have a better interpretation of the law to comment on this. I do not criticise the Attorney General nor the Judiciary involved. Theirs is but an interpretation of the Constitution.

There is no clear reason why some of the provisions of the Constitution such as this one, are enforceable without legislation while others such as the equality guarantee and the prohibition of religious discrimination are not. Why the enthusiasm of the courts to restrain the actions of a private citizen under this particular provision in the absence of any legislation? This question is especially valid as the constitutional protection of the unborn only operates — and under article 40.3.3º —"as far as practicable". That expression does not equal "as far as possible". How could it be considered practicable to police a ban on women travelling abroad for an abortion?

With my very limited understanding of the law, and even less experience, I cannot see how it could be considered practicable to ban women travelling abroad for an abortion. Surely, in considering practicalities, what is at issue in the Eight Amendment could only concern the policing of a ban on abortion in this State. In 1983 a PLAC lawyer, Mr. O'Neill, in a question and answer booklet for canvassers, in relation to the amendment, stated that a court would never grant an injunction to stop an Irish woman going to England for an abortion because it would be totally impracticable. He used the very words that we were then envisaging incorporating in the amendment. From that side of the argument, they contended, in 1983, that a woman would never be stopped from travelling abroad for an abortion. I can assume that those who, perhaps, have a slightly different view, but who have the same goodwill as all of us to resolving this dilemma, are with us on this issue. The amendment as it was intended, never envisaged preventing women travelling abroad for abortion. It is totally impracticable. I agree with the PLAC lawyer. Let us all get back to where we thought we were going in 1983.

The Government added a special Protocol to the Maastricht Summit last December stating that nothing in the Treaty on the European Union or in the Treaties establishing the EC should affect the application in Ireland of Article 40.3.3º of the Constitution of Ireland. We must remind ourselves that this Protocol will only come into force if all member states ratify it. It will then form an integral part of the EC Treaty. The Court in Luxembourg will have the final say on its interpretation. The Court of Justice insists that exceptions to fundamental principles are very narrowly interpreted and, as such, the Protocol would never cover the situation when an injunction impedes free movement from one member state to another. An injunction preventing a woman from getting a lawful abortion in another member state goes beyond the domestic application of the Eighth Amendment by attempting to give it extra-territorial effect.

There is also the awful prospect of a referendum on the outcome of Maastricht, due shortly, being lost because of the confusion and concern being created by this particular issue. While that is for another day, I feel we must keep the Maastricht referendum quite separate from the resolution of this particular tragedy.

It must be obvious that the consequences of the High Court judgment were not the stated intention of most of those promoting the pro-life amendment in 1983. They said at the time that the amendment would not alter existing laws. The amendment has altered existing laws. I welcome the all-party approach to resolving the tragedy before us. I can only pray that God will grant the tragic 14 year old and her family the mental and physical strength to come through this relatively unscathed.

I welcome the announcement by the Government that all the services of the State are at the disposal of the family and that any financial cost that this family incurs in appealing to the Supreme Court, if they decide on that course of action, will be borne by the State. That suggestion was made yesterday by Deputy Bruton to the Taoiseach when the party leaders sat down together. I welcome the fact that the Taoiseach has taken Deputy Bruton's suggestion on board. Please God we will resolve this dilemma and never again have a case like it.

Miss Keogh

Over the past week we have seen the most extraordinary and disturbing events taking place in our country. They have cast a cloud over the whole country and undermined much of our faith in our ability to care for the people properly. These events must make us question our Constitution and the interpretation of that Constitution by the letter of the law. We have witnessed an appalling circumstance where a victim has become victimised further by the law enforcement service of this State. The effort of distraught parents to protect and cherish their child, who has been through unimaginable trauma, has been threatened by the interpretation of the 1983 pro-life amendment to our Constitution.

Every parent must be appalled at what has taken place and must ask what they would have done in the same circumstances. What are we doing? What message is this sending out to our children, our society and to the world at large? I am the mother of two young girls — the eldest is just in her teens — and this is why I feel so strongly about this issue.

I wish there was something I could say to this unfortunate family. Is there anything we can say to alleviate the suffering of the innocent in this case? Of what have they been guilty, for they have been punished? There is real fear now among women in our society that the self-appointed moral policemen of our State will now take a more pro-active role. We know that at least 5,000 women go to the UK for abortions every year. That has been true in recent years and by all accounts it is increasing not decreasing. They wonder what they will experience now.

There is no tradition in this country of seeking to impose our moral laws on those people leaving this State. Is it the case now that where women are leaving either the moral policemen or the principal law officer of the State will feel that they have the right to stop them? How far will this go? This is the type of action that has up to now been associated with the totalitarian states of Eastern Europe.

We need not wonder about the implications for rape victims. This most heinous of crimes will in many cases go unreported now, unless something is done and done quickly. All the good that has come about in relation to the reporting and prosecution of rape cases may be in jeopardy. The willingness of a victim to report had always been the major difficulty in combating this crime, not least because of what the victim has to endure in our courts. We have made a great deal of progress over recent years but, still, only 30 per cent of cases are reported. Will the crime of rape disappear as an unreported crime must surely be deemed not to exist in law.

I ask the Attorney General what way this type of interpretation of our laws will proceed. I say this in all humility. I am no lawyer; I am talking about fears that have been expressed to me and I wish to communicate those fears to him. You could ask, flippantly, if the Attorney General is made aware that someone is going to London to see a banned film, would he seek an injunction to stop them? Of course that is ludicrous.

What has caused so much pain, anguish, death and destruction in one part of this country has been the inflexible moral certitude of a minority of people who feel they are entitled even to murder for their cause. I know that the Attorney General and all right-thinking people in this country are against and abhor the violence and destruction taking place in Northern Ireland, but there is a certain irony in the preparedness to inflict a strict and unbending interpretation of the Constitution on a young girl and consequently on her parents. It is a tragedy that the person whose office should be that of guarantor of the citizen's freedom should have felt obliged to act in this way. Here, we have a responsibility. I know he has the best of motives but tragedy can be the result of even the best of motives.

This poor victim and her family now have two choices. They may appeal the case to the Supreme Court, although I suggest the horror of that might prevent them from doing so. I wish they would do so. They could, alternatively, take the law into their own hands and disregard the decision of the High Court. As a legislator I could not condone the breaking of law by any individual, but given the tragic circumstances in this case, is there anyone who could not understand if such a decision were taken by this family? Does this not demonstrate how wrong the legal situation is in this context.

Our responsibilities as legislators are very clear. We have to act urgently to ensure there is no repetition of this tragic case. It may yet prove that this can be ensured through legislation, but I doubt that. Unpalatable as it may seem, a new referendum to amend the Constitution may be necessary. Nobody will relish returning to the bitter and divisive campaign we saw in 1983 but it may be our responsibility to do so.

I welcome the Taoiseach's remarks. He has sought a consensus of approach on the matter. He is acting as best he can under appallingly difficult circumstances. I hope that the concern shown by all sides will result in agreement but are the real fears of women being alleviated? I hope we have learned the lessons of 1983 and that we will never again see our Constitution used as a battering ram against any traumatised child.

Mr. Norris

I would like to express my sympathy with the unfortunate family involved in this very tragic case. I welcome the initiative of the Taoiseach in making himself available for general consultation because there must be consensus on this occasion. I have no doubt that there must be an amendment to the Constitution now. That is quite clear. The leading article in the Irish Independent made the point that is often argued that hard cases make bad law but in fact it is clear from this case that bad laws make and invite hard cases. Here we are in the very hard case that many of us, on the anti-amendment side, predicted would inevitably come about. It behoves every political party and every individual to behave responsibly and to move towards consensus because politicians are morally responsible for this disastrous mess.

The predictions of people who were also caring and compassionate have been fulfilled. The virtues of caring and compassion do not solely reside with those who have appropriated for themselves titles such as "Family Solidarity" and so on. Our reservations were made clear and were ignored. It is important to note that the Church of Ireland, the principal Protestant church in this country, made it clear that where pregnancy resulted from rape, abortion, however regrettable, was morally defensible. What we have in Article 40.3.3º of the Constitution is nothing other than blatantly sectarian law. I say that as one of three Members of the Oireachtas who are members of the Anglican Church. However, it would be wrong and unfair to characterise the people who took the opposite position with regard to the amendment and who are still firmly against abortion as being uncaring or inhuman. Because of the very bad international publicity that has emerged, I wish to state my continuing conviction that the vast majority of the Irish people, regardless of what newspaper headlines in other countries may say, are caring, compassionate and tolerant people.

The Government have behaved unwisely on a number of occasions. It is extraordinary that there should be this obsession with the private lives of individuals. I understand Deputy Collins scuttled off to Maastricht to secure a derogation from the Maastricht Treaty in regard to abortion. I wonder why he did that? He did not seek a derogation with regard to Articles 2 and 3 which are clearly violated by the Treaty of Rome and the Maastricht Treaty. No such derogation was attempted. It casts a very curious light upon the Government's priorities in this matter.

Article 41.1 of the Constitution states that:

The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

In the light of that Article of the Constitution I cannot understand how the Attorney General can presume so grossly to violate the family unit and interfere with the decision that was so carefully and so painfully taken by this tragic family.

With regard to injunctions, it is now, possibly, open to any informant or busybody to injuct any citizen of this State leaving for a purpose that is deemed to be criminal. A number of Members of both Houses have travelled abroad to seek divorce. Legally and technically they stand in danger of injunction by a busybody. There is no question that the Attorney General in that instance would have no capacity for manoeuvre at all. This is a very regrettable state for us to have allowed ourselves to get into.

I am very glad Senator O'Donovan referred to the sensitive, caring and dignified statement of President Robinson last night. I believe most people in this country no matter what position they take on abortion, are grateful that we have somebody in the highest office of the land who can express the pain and confusion of the Irish people at this time.

I believe an amendment to the Constitution is necessary. I take this very seriously and, with the assistance of some legal friends, I have drafted a Bill which would have the effect of amending the Constitution. There should be no delay. However, I have looked into the Constitution and it appears that a Bill to amend the Constitution cannot be introduced in the Seanad; this must be done in Dáil Éireann. I would therefore like to make available to the Acting Leader of the House a copy of the Bill I have had prepared so that he may add this into the discussion for consideration. I hope he will consider this a positive gesture.

One must listen to the voice of women. I am very glad that two of the previous speakers spoke very feelingly from the special position of women. The special position of women is recognised in the Constitution and I read with great interest the story in the Irish Press this morning of a woman who was raped. At the moment this young child is only the victim of an alleged rape. The woman referred to in the article was raped and we must listen to what she has to say. She disagrees that an abortion after being impregnated by a rapist is another act of violence.

I disagree with that. I think to force someone to bring a baby to full term which has been conceived during rape is an act of violence. I think a lot of people forget that the young girl, as I was, is at school and that she has to carry a baby like that full term, for nine months. I think that is a miscarriage of justice. It is so unfair... I was only a child, I had no idea what to do. I was making myself sick worrying about it. I had to tell someone, there was nothing I could do. To be honest I think this country has placed far too much emphasis on the right of the unborn foetus to life. There is also the right of the quality of life of the mother. A foetus at eight weeks is the size of a 10p piece. Some people consider it to be alive. You can abort without even knowing you have aborted at eight weeks pregnant, a lot of women do and it is just like a heavy period.

This is the voice of a person who has been through this trauma.

With regard to the equal right of life of the foetus, that is the most astonishing insult to have in the Constitution. It must be removed. Do none of the people here in this House or who proposes this kind of amendment feel for their wives? I have to thank God that I am not a woman, I am not heterosexual and I am not married to somebody who, after 25 years of marriage, would value me equally with a fertilised ovum, a microscopic form of potential life, whose potentiality for life I respect. Can any person tell me that he values somebody he loves, with whom he has shared his life, equally with something that has the beauty and potential for life, but is only potential? To me that is a blasphemy against life.

It seems to me that, in this judgment, the State is giving the right to a man to force a woman to have his child. Her liberty will be restrained and anybody who tries to prevent such enforced motherhood will be imprisoned. The female's right to choose who shall be the father of the child, the essence of natural selection, is denied by the Constitution. If there should be a crazed man who kidnaps a girl and artificially inseminates her, she is now condemned to carry that child. If this is copperfastened, any woman who goes for a pregnancy test could be reported to the Attorney General. Is it true that the Attorney General has instructed the Garda to report cases where anybody proposes to leave the country with the intention of having a termination?

Another important point is the question of identification of the father by genetic fingerprinting. I understand that DNA from an aborted foetus would not be allowed as evidence. This has the effect of preventing women from taking the necessary step.

If, for example, medical treatment of a kind other than abortion became necessary, in Belfast for example, would this girl be allowed to travel? Can she do so without seeking the permission of the Attorney General? It is astonishing to me that, in the light of the evidence that this girl's psychological health was devastated, she is still to be forced to continue this pregnancy to its conclusion. Think of the effect this will have on victims of rape. Can they have the confidence now to go to a clinic, to ask for advice, to report the rape, without the suspicion that they too may be injuncted? This is a most pitiful thing and all our hearts go out to those involved in this tragic case.

Mrs. Honan

I join with my colleagues in sending my deepest, sincere, sympathy to this girl, her baby and her family. It is not a morning for raising voices. This is a very serious subject. I am delighted the Taoiseach and the party leaders behaved so well yesterday. This is not the time to play party politics.

Every Senator deeply regrets what happened. I understand the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, is meeting representatives of the Council for the Status of Women and also talking to the Women's Rights' Committee this morning. It is only by keeping cool heads that we may in some way help. I understand that only the family of this girl have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court. I noted with interest that my colleague, Senator O'Donovan, a distinguished lawyer, stated that he would like to see the family take this appeal to the Supreme Court. The Taoiseach made it clear that if there is an appeal to the Supreme Court the family will not have to bear the cost. The Government and all political parties will give the support that is needed to have the case heard as soon as possible.

I heard somebody saying last night that we were again faced with another referendum, and that we were "on a war footing". Such talk sends shivers through all of us. I would worry about another referendum, about the split and the divisions it would create. Senator Doyle stated that, if we were to have this referendum it could be confused with the referendum on Maastricht. As a former colleague of our distinguished President, I am glad that her stand and that of the Taoiseach are at one on this matter.

As a mother and a grandmother, I find it difficult to express my thoughts to this family on this very sad occasion. I hope the political parties will keep their heads and behave responsibly in order to solve this problem.

When we were taking a major Criminal Bill here I had strong views on capital punishment in certain cases. I wonder, a Chathaoirligh, is capital punishment adequate to deal with anyone who would create the problem that family are facing today? Is capital punishment appropriate for the crime that has been committed?

Dr. Upton

I would like to share my time with Senator Costello. The appalling human tragedy which has been visited on this 14-year old girl and her family clearly illustrates the stark implications of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. The Irish public are now gripped in what the Europeans call "a confrontation with reality", the full logical consequences of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.

The decision of the High Court has illustrated frightening implications of the Eighth Amendment. It can restrict freedom to travel in a new unprecedented manner. It raises questions about the reporting of rape lest such reporting restrict the liberty of the rape victim.

The public outcry in this case goes a lot further than Dublin 4 liberals and vocal women's groups. The most relevant question raised is, whether the outcry is large enough to provoke a referendum which will, of necessity, allow a change from the implications of the 1983 constitutional amendment. This is one case where an Irish solution to an Irish problem will not work.

The Government alone are powerless to take effective and immediate action to resolve the crisis. It now seems as if the best legal opinion holds the view that a further amendment to the Constitution will be needed to resolve the situation. Nobody involved in the 1983 campaign would relish a replay of the bitter debates and rancorous attitudes adopted by some of the protagonists in that debate. In 1983 the Labour Party warned against an eventuality such as the present one. I do not wish to adopt the attitude of "We told you so". I am anxious that a solution be found to this terrible dilemma and in that regard I welcome the efforts by the Taoiseach to seek out a consensus so that all-party agreement can be obtained in pursuit of such a solution.

If the legal opinion stating that a new referendum is required to solve the present dilemma is correct, it is imperative that such a referendum should proceed with the support of all parties in the Dáil. In the event of a referendum the Irish people will have to face up to exceptionally difficult questions that run right to the core of morality, liberty and justice, the way in which these interact with one another and which of them takes precedence over another in varying circumstances. The option of fudging the matter or of walking away from it is no longer available.

I express great concern about the possibility of a referendum being held in the absence of a widespread consensus across the political spectrum. There are many elements in Irish society who have been conspicuous by their silence so far in this debate. Some of these elements have already shown themselves to be exceptionally powerful and remarkably resourceful in achieving a vote which will sustain and enshrine their views of morality. Nobody who watched their performances in the 1983 and 1986 referenda should have any doubts about their capacities to flex their political muscle.

There is little value either in protagonists on the other side of the case flying off the handle. Anger and shrill statements will do little to reach a solution when the solution will involve a change of decision reached nationally less than a decade ago. Demands from various protagonists that politicians act decisively should not be made without realising that in this case the politicians' hands are tied; they are copper-fastened by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution and this amendment was passed by two-thirds of the Irish people who voted. Some politicians who opposed its wording paid a high political price for the position they adopted at that time. At the following election some of those who took difficult and dangerous positions were quietly deserted by many of the people who encouraged them vigorously to take those positions at referendum time.

The Government should set out whatever options are available in this matter. It is important that meetings between the Taoiseach and Opposition leaders should continue and meetings arranged between Deputy Kitt, the Minister with responsibility for Women's Affairs, and women's groups and other interested parties are welcome. It seems to me that the only route out of this impasse will be by consensus. If a confrontation arises I feel certain that stalemate will result.

Mr. Costello

I welcome the consensus approach of the Taoiseach in approaching all party leaders to try to resolve this terrible tragedy. I also welcome the dignified statement made by the President last night in relation to the matter.

This is a terrible situation for anybody to be in. The most intimate details of the problems and sufferings of the pregnant girl and her family have been splashed across the media here and abroad. When we speak we should bear in mind the degree of suffering involved for the girl and her family at present.

I have always considered the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution was an Irish solution to an Irish problem, an attempt to resolve a problem in a limited way to our satisfaction. By erecting a wall around the country we would not allow any form of abortion to take place here but we would turn a blind eye to what might be happening elsewhere. We have always adopted that approach but it is not feasible now. We may be an island but we cannot insulate ourselves against this situation. The same situation arose in relation to the Maastricht Protocol where we sought to ensure that Community legislation would not interfere with cosy arrangements here in Ireland. That approach is less than adult and it is inevitable that we would discover problems arising from possible implications of this ill-thought out constitutional amendment.

We have before us a classical dilemma where the crime of rape appears to have been committed although it has not yet been proved. That is now to be compounded on the one hand by the possibility of an abortion and on the other hand by the possibility of the forced bringing to term of its unwanted result. No matter which way we look at it, we are faced with a dilemma which draws out the deepest of emotions and feelings. We have two sets of evil, the crime of rape and its possible consequences. There is no easy solution. Eventually we will have to make a choice as to where we stand in relation to the mother and in relation to the foetus.

The Attorney General has not taken full account of the constitutional provisions in relation to the mother and the family. Neither has he exploited his full discretion in relation to the amendment because there are considerations regarding the right to life and health of the mother included in the amendment. In Article 41 of the Constitution the special position of the family is asserted and in Article 42 the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child are asserted. Do not forget that we are talking about a 14 year old girl who is legally a child.

The High Court has created an appalling vista arising from the decision of the Attorney General where this young child is compelled to stay in this country for a period of nine months. Her right to liberty, to freedom and her right to travel have been curtailed. We face the possibility of a moral police force being established to stop people boarding boats or planes on the information of a citizen. The fact that this is a matter of civil rather than criminal law does not resolve it. I suggest that the Supreme Court be appealed to which could be done within a short space of time by representatives of the young girl.

It would be difficult to regulate by law where the law would be subject to appeal to the courts; we must look at this matter in the context of the Constitution, and adopt an amendment to the Constitution or initiate a review of the Constitution itself.

Mr. Lydon

I extend my sincere sympathies to this family in their terrible time of trauma. I do not wish to go into a long and sterile debate. At issue is whether this young 14 year old girl should be allowed to leave Ireland in order to have her foetus aborted in England. Enshrined in our Constitution the foetus has a right to life and the Attorney General had no option but to protect that right. Had the young girl and her parents said they were going abroad for a holiday, this matter would not have arisen but they did not, it has, and we have to do something.

We must act with compassion; I am sure we are all agreed on that. I am particularly pleased to hear the Taoiseach make clear that in the event of the appeal to the Supreme Court no cost will be borne by the family, the Government will give their full support to the family and will ensure that such an appeal be expedited. They will also pay for any specialist counselling necessary. That is compassion in action and we must be compassionate.

There are those who would have us believe that acting with compassion would mean helping the young girl to have an abortion. I cannot understand how helping a young girl to destroy the life in her womb could be seen as a compassionate gesture. A terrible wrong has been done to this young girl, a terrible hurt has been visited on her, but surely the destruction of part of herself can only add to this hurt. Life is the first step towards a greater similarity to God and whenever we destroy life we directly attack Almighty God.

The President has spoken and called on us to have the courage we have not always had to acknowledge that this is a problem we must resolve. The Irish people have always had courage and displayed it when they overwhelmingly voted to amend our Constitution in order to protect the life of the unborn. They continue to display courage in standing up and defending the right to life of the unborn and do so in the face of the combined pro-abortionist forces. Soon we will be entering into European Union where abortion, the wilful destruction of human life, is defined as a service. Even here courage will not be found wanting.

The task that lies ahead of us is to continue to protect the life of the unborn without making prisoners of women. As a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Women's Rights I am aware of the traumas and discrimination faced by women in all aspects of their lives. I echo the feelings and thoughts expressed by Senator Keogh; there should be no ban on the right to travel.

I also believe, although many may not agree with me, that there should be no ban on the right to information. It is a farcical type of law: one can find a number in a phone book which one is not allowed to obtain in another book. Once we get into that type of dealing we are going down the wrong road.

There must be a solution to these problems and I hope that we can have all-party agreement on whatever measures need to be taken. I do not look forward to the prospect of another referendum, yet that may be the only way. Any attempt to remove from the Constitution the right to life of the unborn will be resisted by the people of Ireland with considerable vigour, but we must find some way forward and the only way forward is by consensus.

There are too young lives at risk here: one is 14 years of age and the other is approximately 11 weeks. Surely we can get together as legislators and find some way out of the impasse which will allow both to develop and live happily in their own country.

Mr. Manning

The only way this problem can be resolved is through a referendum. It is not just the most straightforward or the cleanest way, it is the only way out of our present crisis.

This is a problem that we cannot tinker around with, we have to face it square on. A nightmare situation that many people in 1983 warned would happen has now happened. Unlike Senator Lydon, I would like to see this Article removed completely from the Constitution. I said in 1983 and I still believe that this particular amendment was unnecessary; it has created a myriad of problems and solved none. Senator Lydon referred to some of the problems which have arisen from it — the ban on information and the apparent ban now on travel are problems which were foreseen and could have been avoided.

The greatest safeguard of any country against the legislation of abortion is the strong, unshakable moral conviction of the vast majority of its people that it should not be legalised. That is the conviction, I believe, of the overwhelming majority of our people and is a far greater safeguard than any constitutional provision will ever be. For that reason this problem is best tackled by the straightforward deletion of this amendment which has given little support or protection to the unborn and which has caused the problems we now face.

Nobody wants to go back to the nightmare of 1983 when madness gripped the country and when fanatics on both sides held us all in fear so that normal debate became virtually impossible. The wells of discourse were poisoned during that debate. Nobody would want a re-run of that situation. We have learned lessons from 1983 and the debate need not follow the same poisonous channels again.

A great deal of talk has come with sincerity from all sides about the need for a consensus approach which I support. I have to say, however, with a certain degree of bitterness, that when Deputy Garret FitzGerald asked for consensus in 1983 he did not get it; when he pointed out that the present wording could lead to this situation the Fianna Fáil spokesperson, Deputy Woods, accused him of being devious. There was little generosity from the Opposition in 1983. I say that not for vindictiveness but as a fact that must be remembered. The Government today will receive generosity from the Opposition parties; we will attempt to approach this in a sane, balanced, reasoned and humane way. Let us learn from 1983 the consequences of not having a consenus approach and the Opposition will not be found wanting in generosity on this occasion.

Let us also look back at some of the promises made in 1983. During that debate there were promises that if this referendum were passed there would be no shortage of back-up services and those who had to face the choice of an abortion would find advice, help, counselling and support at home. We have seen little extension of existing services over the past number of years. We behaved as we often do, not with courage or humanity but passed a law, put it on the Statute Book and then hoped the problem would go away. If this present crisis forces us to look back at the promises made in 1983 some good will have come out of it.

One other lesson remains to be learned from 1983 which is, if we are to move we should move quickly. The last thing the country needs is a long festering debate laced with bitterness, reopening the wounds and bringing back the poison of eight or nine years ago. If it is to be done let it be done quickly. I believe that the simple straightforward honest way to proceed now is to remove this amendment completely from our Constitution. We are told this can be done without opening any floodgates and without making the legislation of abortion any more likely in this country.

The greatest barrier to the legislation of abortion in this country is the strong unshakable moral conviction of the vast majority of people of all parties that it should not be legislated. That is our greatest safeguard and if we have courage and belief in ourselves then the dangers people talk about will not be realised. On that note, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, I ask for a reasoned debate, a quick and straightforward decision in the matter and that the debate be kept at a level of civility and reason which all in this House have shown this morning. We must accept the enormous responsibility placed upon us.

Mr. Dardis

I am sure an Leas-Chathaoirleach will agree that it is most unfortunate and disturbing that we should have to discuss such a profoundly unhappy situation. I am sure it is the fervent desire of all Senators that a solution be found which will make it unnecessary for us ever to have a debate of this nature again. Those of us fortunate enough to occupy a seat in this House have imposed upon us very serious obligations and responsibilities. It is very rarely that we are so starkly confronted with the extent of those obligations and responsibilities.

I find the responsibility of having to arbitrate on the merit of differing and conflicting human rights to be a very difficult and distressing responsibility. The distress which I and other Members of the House feel is infinitesimal and extremely minor compared to the trauma and the heartbreak of the 14 year old rape victim and of her family. They are paying a high price for having such regard for the laws of the country. It is a supreme irony that had they disregarded the law this debate would not be taking place at all, although I suspect that sooner or later the matter would have surfaced. The family have done the State, to coin the phrase, some service.

I share the bewilderment, unhappiness and the sense of shame and frustration which I am sure is widespread within our society and which was so eloquently expressed yesterday by our President. As legislators we have a responsibility to do everything in our power to find an answer to some very difficult and delicate questions. Now is a time for courage and for leadership. Every effort must be made to achieve all-party agreement on the way forward to remove this matter from the party political arena. It has been suggested, here and elsewhere, that the only way forward is by referendum. Unfortunately that would not solve the present problem of the girl and family in question. While we may or may not need a referendum, every option must be carefully examined in the search for a consensus which embodies compassion, respect and charity and which will demonstrate the ability of this Oireachtas to act responsibly.

I want to make it clear to this House that in common with the vast majority of the citizens of this country I am opposed to abortion on demand. However, as someone who was not in public life in 1983, I deeply resent the representation that one is in favour of abortion if one was opposed to the original wording of the 1983 amendment. I know of one particular case where somebody stood for election subsequent to that referendum and had their character assassinated because they opposed the wording of the amendment without ever being in favour of abortion.

Language can be very deficient on occasions like this and it is probably fair to say that deficiencies in language have brought us to this impasse. I would say to those who represent themselves as the self-appointed custodians of the conscience of the State or as protectors of what they perceive to be their religion's teachings that they need to reflect carefully on the dominant values of the gospels which should characterise a Christian society. Those values are love, forgiveness, compassion and charity. I would say to any Senator in this House who would demand tolerance that he should demonstrate it in return. I hope we can be guided by those values in finding an equitable solution to this highly unsatisfactory and sad situation. My final words would be, "Judge not lest ye be judged".

Mr. B. Ryan

I said yesterday morning, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, that I was not glad we were having this debate. Glad would be an entirely inappropriate word to use — I am not reproaching anybody else for that fact. Under the most unpleasant circumstances imaginable we are compelled to reopen an issue that was closed but not finished with, manifestly, ten years ago.

I was here in the Seanad during the debate; I was in the middle of a Seanad election at the time. I got a phone call from a person whose identity I believe I know but will keep to myself. She said to me "Many of us are concerned that you are not too precise on this amendment". I said, "How many of you?". She would not say. I said I was against it. She said she was sorry, astonished and shocked that somebody with my record in the Simon Community would be anti-life.

I do not want those allegations to surface again but I do not want us to go on winking somehow at the easy solution to our moral dilemma represented by the boat and the plane to Britain. What I have had to confront in the last week and what every thoughtful compassionate Irish person has to confront is the fundamental question — we should not interfere with someone travelling 50 miles of water to take a course of action they believe necessary or justified by their own circumstances — on what do we form the moral basis for our prohibition on their taking the same course of action here? That is a profound and difficult moral dilemma and our President articulated it succinctly yesterday.

My ideal solution to this present controversy would be a simple explicit unambiguous repeal of that amendment to the Constitution, to recognise that, to be most charitable about it, it will never do what it was supposed to do, namely to reduce the incidence of termination of pregnancy by Irish women. The truth is that our rate of abortion per capita is not very different from most other European countries. We might fool ourselves in a clould of confusion that because it is done elsewhere we are somehow different. I am not sure the sense of moral superiority we claim because it does not happen here makes us morally superior to countries who tolerate legal abortion. In the other House, Deputy McGahon represented the view of all of us who have young daughters when he said we could not be prepared to stand with our hands on our hearts and say that if it happened to our children we would take a clear moral position on the absolute right to life. I cannot say I would be prepared to insist upon it for my own family, nor do I have a right to pretend that there is some safe, moral and absolute distinction which I can impose on other people's families.

The other aspect of the present controversy is the spectacle of a child being confronted with the power of the State. I am not convinced that the Attorney General had no choice. I am not convinced that this is a principle successive Attorney General have applied universally where similar breaches of the Constitution were envisaged.

As a father of two daughters my heart goes out to the family. Difficult and hard though it may be, the only option is to delete the section of the Constitution which is causing this problem.

Mr. Ross

Like other Senators, I feel a deep sense of sympathy and shame at what had happened in this case, shame because I am part of that process — although I opposed it — which passed the 1983 amendment to the Constitution. What is happening here is that the chickens are coming home to roost. The hypocrisy of those who supported the referendum in 1983 is being exposed in these tragic, ironic circumstances. A blind dog could have told us at the time of that referendum that a situation like this was possible; it is extraordinary that it has not happened before now. We were happy as a nation, and many of us as politicians, to rush through an amendment like this to satisfy an extreme group who represented the forces of darkness and hypocrisy. The result is what is happening here today, which is a personal tragedy for the family concerned.

The Irish Constitution, the Irish people and the Irish way of life are being mocked throughout the world. I say that in measured tones because the coverage this case got on world television has been dramatic, degrading and has portrayed this country as primitive and barbaric with many of its laws dictated to it by forces outside the Legislature. Unfortunately, that is the truth; that is the raw truth which we must accept today. We are confronting a situation in which the Legislature allowed others dictate the terms of our own Constitution. We must look again, not just as this clause in the Constitution but at the nature of the Constitution. If the nature of this clause and others is denominational, we cannot pay lip-service to liberalism and pluralism while we remain primitive.

While there is hypocrisy on this issue, there is also hypocrisy on other issues. There is hypocrisy in relation to divorce, which is also a denominational clause in our Constitution. The Unionists must be laughing at us and saying I told you so. I have not read the Northern press reports on this issue but I have no doubt that it is being used to paint us as being hierarchy-ruled and that our Constitution represents a single denomination. I say without any equivocation or hesitation that those who point the finger at us on this issue are correct and we are faced with it in all its reality here today.

We have a similar problem in relation to divorce where the State nods and winks, and allows people to get divorced and remarried outside the State when it is against our Constitution. That is State hypocrisy. On this issue, the State made an anti-abortion amendment to the Constitution knowing well that thousands of Irish girls would go overseas to have abortions. Yet the State allowed that to happen. That is total hypocrisy and is an issue we must confront.

We must also ask ourselves a particularly hard question, and it is not one which I have heard answered with great frankness. Do we believe that that girl should have been allowed to go abroad and have an abortion? As Senator Brendan Ryan so eloquently said, I do not believe that in our hearts we can say that if it was our own child or a child of any Member of this House we would have stopped her. If that is out attitude to our own children, we cannot in all conscience — and that is not a word I use lightly in this House — allow the State to behave differently towards its other children.

I do not believe that a referendum would be the end of this matter. A referendum would be a start to reverse the wrongs of 1983 but we need to change the denominational clauses in the Constitution so that nothing like this is repeated.

Professor Murphy

I had not intended to make any personal statement, but this seems to be a time for identifying the positions we would take in this terrible situation. I have no hesitation in saying that if my daughters had been in that position at that age I would have supported the decision that family made. I would not have been as honest and upright as that family were in making contact with the Garda authorities. I suspect that the attitude Senator Ryan, Senator Ross and I represent is that attitude of a majority of the people of Ireland at this moment.

In the spirit that has prevailed up to now of a non-partisan constructive approach to this problem, I want to say there is no point indulging in futile recriminations about what happened in 1983. As a Party politician reminded me last night, it is very easy for an Independent to pontificate on these matters. It is difficult for an Independent to put himself in the position of a Head of Government or a head of a large Opposition party subjected to the kind of pressures they were subjected to in 1983. However, they have learned their lesson now; this misfortunate case will surely have taught them a lesson. Therefore, I am not going to make any recrimination like that.

When I reproached Senator Norris yesterday for taking what I described as a sexist line, what I had in mind was that, at the fringe of this controversy, there is an unfortunate lurid tendency on the part of some rabid feminists to start a sex war on this issue. That is totally uncalled for and unhelpful. I was extremely moved this morning by the contributions of the women Senators. Indeed, the President's remarks yesterday would not have been half as telling if she was not a woman. As a woman she brought solace to the people with one single statement. The vista raised by this issue is truly appalling.

The Maastricht Protocol, which represents another caving-in to pressure from fringe groups, will raise another horrendous spectre in the months leading up to the referendum. In effect, we are reaping the grim harvest of all those decades when the State acted at the behest of clerics and clericalists. We are now reaping the fruit of the identification of Church and State, of the immaturity of churchmen and politicians who would not trust people to behave and who foisted on them this kind of paternalism which has taken on such a monstrous manifestation. I do not believe there is any solution but to remove the clause in the Constitution. There is no possibility of replacing it with some other clause or amending the existing clause.

Dr. Margaret Fine-Davis, an expert on women's studies, who reported to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on this matter, indicated in The Irish Times today that when people are asked detailed questions about abortion in many cases their answers are very different from the blanket “no” or “yes” you get in a constitutional amendment. In other words, a constitutional clause is much too crude an instrument to reflect the whole range of nuances that are involved in this question. The only answer is to remove this clause but the problem will not stop there. This morning on “Morning Ireland” a Family Solidarity spokesperson expressed general and I would say, smug satisfaction at the way the amendment has been working up to now because anybody wishing to have an abortion conveniently went to England. This hiccup apart, he hopes that will continue to be the case. Consider the hypocrisy of that.

We are opening up another implication here. If the Church of Ireland, for example, believes abortion is permissible in certain circumstances and is moral in certain circumstances, why do people have to go to England to have an abortion? Not alone must we remove that clause from the Constitution but we must examine the further degree of infringement of personal freedom involved by the present abortion laws. That is something we were not thinking of last week.

Out of this appalling situation I can only hope that good will come. I welcome that all party approach to this matter and hope it will be observed on a whole range of issues.

Mr. McMahon

I accept it will not be of any great comfort to this family that each of us offers our sympathy, concern and prayers for the tragic circumstances in which they find themselves. However, I want to add my voice to those sentiments. I welcome the Taoiseach's acceptance of Deputy Bruton's suggestion that the Government should assist this family in whatever way possible. I urge the Government to offer assistance to anybody who has been raped. It is an appalling situation for any girl to find herself in and it is compounded if the result of that rape is a pregnancy. It is a nightmare most of us cannot imagine and we cannot comprehend how these people are suffering.

At the time of the 1983 referendum, solemn assurances were given that back-up services for the family would be extended and counselling and advice services would be provided for rape victims. I have seen little evidence of that over the years. The Government should assist the voluntary bodies who help these people. They should ensure that adequate services and an education programme are available to any girl who is raped.

I am the father of two daughters and if either were raped and a pregnancy resulted, I would be extremely disappointed if they suggested having an abortion. I want to put it on the record that I would do everything in my power to prevent them having an abortion. I am here because my mother chose not to have an abortion. I hope the Government and the Opposition parties work together on this issue and not to assist anyone to have an abortion or to do away with life, either born or unborn.

We have many fundamental rights; we have a fundamental right once we are conceived. We do not have power over a foetus but there is a Power above who knows, and that fact should not be overlooked. I am proud of the fact that abortion is illegal here and I sincerely hope that all the legal, medical and political minds will come together and resolve this problem without legalising abortion here.

Mrs. Hederman

Like other speakers, I want to express my sympathy for this tragic family and young girl who have been brutalised by these circumstances. Whether this child has or has not an abortion, she will never get over the effects of the rape she has gone through. One of the most horrendous things about this case is the fact that other women who are subjected to rape are now going to be extremely apprehensive about reporting it to the Garda who are supposed to be the protectors of the rights of the people of this country. Women will not want it to come to the notice of the Garda lest they have the attention of the Attorney General, the full force of the courts and the law turned on them as they were turned on this girl.

We must bear this in mind because it is a cause of great distress to women, not only to women who have been raped but women who go to England because they decide to have an abortion. A number of associations and societies here, while not favouring abortion or encouraging women to go to England to have an abortion, nevertheless counsel them if they suffer trauma afterwards. Presumably, that counselling will be discontinued because no woman will want it to be known she had an abortion.

I am certain that the 67 per cent of people who voted for the referendum in 1983 did not envisage a situation where the State would be legally active against women seeking abortions outside this country, and particularly the tragic circumstances of this young 14 year old rape victim. This is a very complex and legal situation. I do not have legal training; I wish I did. There are many grey areas and the one which perplexes me most is the freedom of movement and the right of people to go abroad. What power does the Attorney General have to take it upon himself to take action against somebody going to another country to have an operation that is legal in that country?

Senator Keogh referred to the case of an Irish person going to England to see a film which is banned here. For instance, gambling in a casino is banned here. What action will the Attorney General take against somebody who goes abroad for that purpose? The amendment to the Constitution states that the State guarantees in its laws to respect, and as far as practicable, by its laws to defend the right to life of the unborn. Does anyone here believe it is practicable that the Garda will monitor the airports and seaports to see if pregnant women are going abroad and question them as to why they are going? The same applies with regard to freedom of information. This cannot be construed as being practicable. It is ludicrous to think we can take injunctions against women going abroad. It is one thing to have laws banning abortion in this country but to invade the privacy of a family who decide to take their child abroad to have an abortion is different. To imprison women here for nine months and to have them in contempt of court if they go abroad cannot be condoned.

I hope there will be an appeal to the Supreme Court and that this matter will be settled beyond doubt. The Supreme Court should be forced to give a judgment with the same urgency as they did in the case of the beef tribunal where they were able to give a decision within one or two days. Surely this case is far more urgent and must be resolved immediately.

Prior to having another referendum we should go through all the processes, to the Supreme Court and, if necessary, to the European Court, to have the situation resolved. If we must have another referendum, so be it. I welcome the consensus, all-party approach, the non-confrontational, non-political party attitude on this issue. The country has shown that, to an extent, it has grown up and I hope that the restraint which has been shown on all sides will continue.

Mrs. Bennett

This unfortunate scenario of the 14 year old girl who was prevented from having an abortion which resulted from the most heinous crime of rape is nothing less than tragic. The true tragedy of this is that all of us in our own way are contributing to the immense anguish by playing out this drama in the public forum. As a mother I sympathise with the parents of the young girl who must be devastated by the nightmare they and their daughter are facing. I do not wish to intrude on their privacy any further. I am sure the parents in taking the difficult decision they had to take felt they were acting in the best interests of their child at the time. As a woman I feel that a quick and decisive solution must be found, whether legislatively or otherwise, to ensure that this debacle never happens again. The Taoiseach with other party leaders must explore every avenue to find a way to help this unfortunate girl without allowing either side of the abortion debate to exploit the situation to their own advantage at the expense of this girl.

As legislators the solution may lie in a consensus approach while, at the same time, being sympathetic towards women and girls who are faced with the problem of an unwanted pregnancy. Nothing is purely black and white but the onus is on the politicians to legislate for all in a just and humane manner. There are no easy solutions but we hope that in this case the girl and her family will be given every support, be it legal, financial, or medical. This awful trauma must be resolved soon and we as legislators must do our utmost to ensure that this situation never happens again.

Mrs. Jackman

A cloud of depression and shame has descended over this country and everybody has felt it over the past few days since this appallingly sad story broke. Public opinion and support are behind this young girl and her family. President Robinson's call for courage to face up to the problem and resolve it sums up the overwhelming similar feelings of all people in this country. She used words like hurt, bewilderment, anxiety, frustration and helplessness of women. She spoke of the need for a more compassionate society and this is not the first time we have sought compassion especially when we delve into moral issues. The President said we must all work together and make progress in this difficult area and nobody could have said it more eloquently. Surely her call is one that nobody can ignore.

If we could imagine the most horrific circumstances a girl or woman could find herself in, then this must be the definitive situation. It is painful even to comtemplate the plight of the girl and her family, a girl who has suffered sexual abuse and rape, who has been traumatised by pregnancy at a time when young girls of her age are going through what are considered normal and natural changs of puberty but which all mothers know can be a most difficult and bewilering time. As one who campaigned in 1983 and did not wish to have the amendment inserted in the Constitution, I still reel from the venom, hurt and divisiveness we were confronted with during that time. Many eminent lawyers spoke out at that time about what might happen in the future and I am surprised it has taken this number of years for such a case to come before us.

The implications for women are enormous. Where is the concern for the quality of life for women? Where is the concern for the mental, emotional and psychological needs of women? Are they being recognised? Where is the protection for the family unit that we speak so strongly about in this country? Where really is the concern for the rights of the child?

The pressure, fear and guilt that women will experience from feeling they may be informed on and be prevented by injunction from travelling may have effects which will totally undermine the original purpose of the Constitutional provision. It will inhibit and stifle discussion. Women will not seek help or talk with their best friends. They will not look for guidance at a time when sympathy and caring will be most necessary. It will lead to an unwillingness on the part of women or girls to report rape, incest or sexual abuse.

Every one of us here today has welcomed the consensus approach of all parties,. There is need for urgency and for immediate action. The case, as Senator Doyle said, has legal, constitutional and international implications. Three options have been mentioned taking legal advice on the possibility of introducing legislation to balance the effect of the constitutional amendment as interpreted; the question of a Maastricht Protocol which might limit the application of the amendment banning abortion to within the jurisdiction of the State; the possibility of holding a referendum amending the Constitution, which possibly may be the only option before us.

I hope the family have the strength to go forward and appeal the case to the Supreme Court so that every avenue is explored. I pose the question: can we really legislate for the morals of people and should we be looking now at a total overhaul of the Constitution, line by line, Article by Article? For the last number of years we have been looking at the Constitution and at the legal implications of some decisions.

Mr. O'Reilly

I join in the expression of heartfelt sympathy for the family and the victim in this case. The first thing that must be clear in the debate is that the original amendment to the Constitution was a bizarre mistake and clearly an error of judgment. While there were some sincere players on the pitch that time, there were some people who, with the benefit of hindsight, must be seen to have played a particularly cynical role. However, that is history and we are now faced with the reality of this tragedy.

What is clear is that we will ultimately have no choice but to remove the amendment. This case has implications for freedom of movement. We cannot allow a policing network to be set up that would literally police women leaving this country. That would not be acceptable in any society. It would have shocking implications for rape victims and could prevent them reporting rape.

All rapists are perverted and sinister but a really bizarre case would be if someone took out an injunction against the victim of a rape preventing that person from leaving the country or if they reported that person to the law officers and thus prevented them leaving the country. People who are the victims of rape pose a particular problem in relation to abortion and the same ground rules cannot apply to such victims. In any humanitarian, caring society that would seem to be the case. It would also seem to me — this point was given some attention in the constitutional amendment the last time — that the life of the mother in all cases must take precedence. These two situations do not lend themselves to black and white solutions.

Many people might be tempted, through the kind of national hypocrisy for which we are famous, to feel that the matter would be resolved if we deleted the amendment and still allowed boatloads of women to go to England for abortions. We have no option but to rectify the existing situation in favour of this girl and in favour of similar cases in the future. We cannot turn a blind eye to the number of people who leave this country annually for an abortion. I do not believe in an imposed morality. Morality should come from within the individual, the family unit and society. Let us be clear. This is the time to employ pro-life strategies and introduce proper support systems for the victims of rape and those who have unwanted pregancies.

We know that every day since the passage of the amendment large numbers of women have left this country on a very lonely journey. It is time to deal with the matter in hand; there is no getting away from it. When we clear that up, we must look at our thinking, first, in the case of rape victims in general, secondly, in cases where the life of the mother is threatened and, thirdly, in relation to women leaving this country for abortions.

This debate will have to go on for some time. I am fully in favour of a consensus attitude but we cannot flinch from the range of issues we could easily discard once we get over this little problem.

Professor Conroy

This is a tragic and serious situation. We would all agree that this has been the most constructive and worthwhile debate we have had in this House. I assure all the speakers that the views which have been expressed will be conveyed to the Government.

Sitting suspended at 12.40 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.