Ruth Coppinger
Question:1. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Taoiseach when the proposed citizens' assembly will report back to Dáil Éireann on the eighth amendment of the Constitution. [10147/16]
View answerWednesday, 1 June 2016
Questions (1, 2, 3)
Micheál Martin
Question:2. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach when he will establish the citizens' assembly; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12873/16]
View answer
Bríd Smith
Question:3. Deputy Bríd Smith asked the Taoiseach when the citizens' assembly will report to Dáil Éireann on the eighth amendment of the Constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13014/16]
View answerOral answers (122 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
In the programme for a partnership Government, the Government has committed to establishing a citizens' assembly within six months and without participation by politicians, with a mandate to look at a limited number of key issues over an extended period. These issues will not be limited to those directly pertaining to the Constitution and may include issues such as, for example, how we as a nation best respond to the challenges and opportunities of an ageing population.
The Government will ask the citizens' assembly to make recommendations to the Dáil on further constitutional changes, including on the eighth amendment, fixed-term Parliaments and the manner in which referenda are held, for example, whether super referendum days should be held, whereby a significant number referenda take place on the same day.
As regards the timeframe, the programme for a partnership Government states, as I have mentioned, that the assembly's mandate will be to look at a number of key issues over an extended period. This has not yet been defined, but clearly an issue such as the eighth amendment will take some time to consider fully.
I know the Taoiseach hates when this topic comes up in Parliament-----
I do not.
-----because it is a very messy subject as far as he is concerned but for thousands of women throughout the country it is a key issue. The Taoiseach just listed a host of issues the citizens' assembly will look into, including everything from fixed-term Parliaments to the ageing population but let us throw in the eighth amendment as well. The best that some of the Independent Deputies, who when on this side of the House last year voted to repeal the eighth amendment, could do is on page 158 of a 160 page document.
We know the Taoiseach will establish the citizens' assembly within six months but will he tell us when it will report? Will it do so in the lifetime of this Government or will he attempt to push this issue aside and kick the can down the road yet again?
I have an issue with the title of the assembly or committee. This issue does not just affect citizens. It affects non-citizens in quite an acute way because women who are pregnant in this country who do not have citizenship and who may have been working and living here for years do not have the same freedom of movement as other people and it is a very important issue for migrant women. The title should be changed. One in four of my constituents is from outside Ireland. Some of them are now citizens but others are not. It is quite a dangerous precedent.
How will the fine upstanding citizens to rule on these issues be chosen? How will the membership of the committee be chosen? Will it have a majority of women of childbearing age to deliberate on this topic? Will there be any bishops or religious representatives in the assembly? How exactly will the Taoiseach decide who is fit to decide women's personal decisions over their own bodies and futures?
Last year, when the referendum on marriage equality was taking place, many people really resented the fact a majority of people would make the decision over what would only affect a minority in society. I have a problem with this also. This should never have been put into our Constitution because these are personal matters. It does not matter to me if a majority agrees as it will only affect a particular cohort of people and it is their personal decision to make. The decision was taken 33 years ago at the behest mainly of a Catholic lobby as no other religious groups or people demanded it. I have studied this, as have many others. As that decision was taken, we are left with no option but to have a referendum.
I want to ask the Taoiseach about the democratic issue here. The only way a referendum can be triggered in this country is if a majority of Deputies in Dáil Éireann decide it can happen. This is not democratic either. In the context of the democratic revolution the Taoiseach planned in the last term, he might reconsider this. There should be some way the people of the country can petition for a plebiscite or referendum to be held because poll after poll has shown that anything from 78% to 80% of people believe there should be a referendum on this matter but the Taoiseach is preventing this from happening and he has now outsourced it to a committee.
I have an issue with this outsourcing. The Taoiseach is outsourcing water and housing and now he is outsourcing this issue. Why are politicians to be excluded from it? Is it because it is awkward for the Taoiseach because he bowed down to the so-called pro-life lobby a few years back and he does not want to make a decision on this? We are elected by people to make decisions, including difficult ones. Why should it be unelected people who decide how this issue proceeds? It should be a majority of people who were recently elected, who stood before the public on this issue. Many of us stood on a fully pro-choice platform and it did not inhibit us in any way from getting elected.
I do not think the Taoiseach recognises there has been a sea change in attitudes on this issue but I can tell him that there has because I have been on the streets at a number of stalls with ROSA and other groups. It is clear people have shifted and they recognise we cannot export women from this country any longer or deny the reality that every day in bedrooms throughout the country women take abortion pills which they ordered online because they cannot afford or are not in a position to leave the country for a very expensive operation.
Why did the Taoiseach choose to do this? Why are Independent Deputies Katherine Zappone, Finian McGrath and John Halligan, who stated they were pro-choice, willing to accept such a meagre recognition of this issue in terms of the citizens' assembly?
Deputy Coppinger is incorrect when she states we do not like to see this matter raised. It has been raised on many occasions. We have set out a clear process in the programme for Government committing that a citizens' assembly should examine the question of the eighth amendment and other issues. Following the citizens' convention, which brought forward the proposition that there should be a referendum on dealing with the question of marriage equality, the process by which it came about was very clear and strategic and it brought about its own results.
It is not true to say that it is only, unfortunately, women who have to contend with crisis pregnancies who have an interest in this.
This is about the people of the country having an interest in matters of life and death, and the Deputy is well aware that the Constitution belongs to the people, is created by the people, voted on or amended by the people and changed by the people. Nor is it true for her to say that politicians here do not have a say on this. When the citizens' assembly makes its recommendations and when they go through the Oireachtas committee and the expert group, it is the politicians here who will have to make a decision as to whether we proceed to have a referendum and what the nature of that referendum might be. I have already said from our perspective that if and when that arises, it will be the opportunity for Members to vote according to their conscience and vote freely in whatever way they wish to vote on the question to be put before them. It is therefore not true for the Deputy to say that the elected representatives of all parties and none here do not have a say on this because it cannot be put before the people, if a referendum is to be held, without a Bill to hold a referendum, and people here must vote on that.
The Deputy is well aware that in 1983, the eighth amendment introduced the section in article 40.3 dealing with the question of "the unborn". There were a number of court cases concerning the interpretation of that amendment and of the provision of information and referral to abortion services. We had several referenda but the people decided what to put in the Constitution. With the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill a number of years ago, the Government gave legislative effect to what the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution to mean, and that was not without its inherent difficulties either. It is too facile to say we must have a referendum because one cannot change and amend the Constitution without the approval of the people, and one therefore must know what it is that one wants to do. Yes, the question of fatal foetal abnormalities has arisen, and yes, the question of incest and rape has arisen, and these are very traumatic, sensitive, personalised cases for people. The Constitution is what it is, and that is the reason why a citizens' assembly should reflect on the eighth amendment.
The method of adoption of a citizens' assembly will have to take into account gender, location, age, geography and so on and would need to be chaired by a very competent person. All of that can be arranged and made available through the commissioning of a polling company, as happened in the previous citizens' assembly, which was fair, regionalised, gender-balanced and age-balanced in the way it went about its business. That will all be put in place within six months, as committed to in the programme for Government, but it is not as simple as calling for a referendum to be held. It is much more profound than that.
Really?
It is much more profound than that-----
Very profound indeed.
-----and has the interest of the vast majority of people in the country. Unfortunately, when the very traumatic cases of fatal foetal abnormalities or other cases are brought to public attention, they are very traumatic, very sensitive and very heartfelt. The Constitution, however, is the people's Constitution and cannot be changed without the people's consent. That is why the people in the citizens' assembly should be able to give their reflection both on the eighth amendment and on a number of other issues which should not be sidelined either.
The Deputy asks me when the citizens' assembly will report. I cannot answer that for her until such time as the assembly is put together and begins its work. The programme for Government is set out over the period of the lifetime of this Government, which is intended to be five years. The Deputy asks me will the assembly report before the end of the period of Government. It is provided for in the programme, so the answer to that question is that I expect that it should, but let us get it set up, with all the criteria that apply to it, let it begin its deliberations and let us see what the citizens say. We will then bring those deliberations back to the Oireachtas, where Members will engage with experts on the views of the citizens and see what is possible and what is not.
As I have said, it is not as simple or as facile as saying we should hold a referendum on the eighth amendment. We need to know what it is that we want to do. We need to know what it is that we can do or might do and we must have the support of the people. I have no great regard or appreciation for polls that I see about these matters. It is when they are being discussed in some depth that people begin to say just how profound the decision is.
My question relates to the establishment of the citizens' assembly. I make the general point that I remain to be convinced of the model. The Constitutional Convention was an interesting process, people involved liked it and there was a nice, touchy-feely sense about it. In reality, however, a lot of what came out of it overall was left to one side. Some ridiculous issues were put before it, such as whether to extend the right to vote to those under 17 or 16 years of age or whatever, which was hardly the burning constitutional issue of the day. There are issues regarding the model as well. My general point is that this House is the people's assembly. The referendum on marriage equality is often referred to, but that was not actually an outcome of the Constitutional Convention. All political leaders, bar the Taoiseach at the time, were in favour of a marriage equality referendum well in advance of the Constitutional Convention. In fact, it took the Taoiseach-----
I did not hear Deputy Martin shouting about it.
Fianna Fáil was a bit confused about it, in fairness.
The Taoiseach heard me at my very first Ard-Fheis, in 2011, on national radio. I was the only party leader who went on national television to debate the issue, with Vincent Browne, during the referendum. No other leader-----
The Deputy's party was not campaigning too hard on it.
I ask Deputy Coveney not to get involved.
No other leader was taken on. RTE would not allow me to go on air except for one interview on "Morning Ireland", and I protested against RTE-----
Fianna Fáil was invisible during that referendum.
-----and it would not facilitate me. That is a fact. There is no point in Deputy Coveney interrupting me-----
The Deputy's party was invisible during that campaign.
It was completely invisible.
People in different parties have different views, but we took a position at an Ard-Fheis to go forward on the issue after 2011. The Labour Party was clearly in favour of it-----
The Deputy's party was silent.
Sinn Féin was in favour of it. I do not want to remind the Taoiseach of the flowerpot incident, when he ran away from journalists before he answered the question-----
The Deputy's party was afraid.
The famous incident when the Taoiseach fell over a flowerpot-----
(Interruptions).
I do not want the interruptions-----
The Deputy's party was afraid.
The Taoiseach was wrong in what he said. I was very much to the forefront of the campaign. What he has said is wrong and inaccurate and he should withdraw it. I was the only party leader-----
The Deputy's party was afraid.
-----who debated it on national television-----
Big deal.
-----courtesy of "Tonight with Vincent Browne", a journalist, of course, whom the Taoiseach has never facilitated with a debate-----
The Deputy lost party members because he did not campaign on it as a party-----
I ask the Government Deputies not to get involved, please.
Deputy Coveney is wrong. I am the only party leader-----
Why did Averil Power leave Fianna Fáil?
-----that went on national television. The Taoiseach did not debate anything to do with it on national television-----
Deputy Martin is trying to rewrite history, as usual.
I am not. Does Deputy Coveney accept that as a fact?
What about former Senator Power?
This is embarrassing.
The point I want to make about the citizens' assembly is that I do not pretend that it was the Constitutional Convention that led to the referendum.
Fianna Fáil is now the liberal party.
It was not. It was a party political decision, and it took the Taoiseach longer than most to go with it. He was the last party leader, two years on, to eventually agree with it. Fine, he did, and I am happy that it worked. I do not want any divisive comment about it. It was a great day, and many people voted for it. Some had their views about it, to which they are entitled. People in my party, just as those in the Taoiseach's, were entitled to be reticent. That is fine.
Deputy Martin's party disappeared.
Regarding the eighth amendment, let me again state that the idea of a citizens' assembly is very curious. It should not be left to a citizens' assembly at all. It will take six months to establish. That is my point. Given the complexity of the issue, I believe that it is not clear at all how a citizens' assembly could work on an issue so dramatically more complex than anything examined by the Constitutional Convention. A simple repeal is not an answer, in my view, because we still face the core issue of what the law will be. Any proposition to the people has to be legislative. This means in the first instance that if one wants to delete it, one must bring something before this House, and the House must put it before the people. We have freedom of conscience in our party and each individual member will make up his or her mind on the issue-----
Only on women's bodies?
I did not interrupt Deputy Coppinger and I would appreciate if she would respect my democratic right to make my points.
Freedom of conscience will apply, and the Oireachtas has dealt with this before through Green Papers that considered all the scenarios and options. I believe a judge-led commission initiative would feed into an all-party Oireachtas committee and would be the best route to deal with this. Irrespective of one's views on this, an Oireachtas committee has the capacity, with legal backup, to go through all the scenarios.
There are legal, social, moral and ethical issues. It is not a simple straightforward issue, as some would portray it to be, and people have different views. Even the most liberal agree that there is a point at which a termination should be illegal. Maybe others do not accept that point but even the most liberal accept that it should be illegal at some point. There is no country without laws, be they constitutional or legislative, governing and concerning abortion.
The bottom line, as far as I am concerned, is that the Oireachtas should be centre stage in relation to it. I really would like an explanation from the Taoiseach as to how that core issue of what would replace the current law is to be addressed because, ultimately, whatever the citizens' assembly decides, it has to come back in here. I do not know whether the citizens' assembly will be decided by pollsters with some sort of polling company again being recruited to conduct an assessment of what it thinks reflects a sample. Polling companies and their samples have got it hopelessly wrong in the United States and hopelessly wrong in the United Kingdom. They got our election hopelessly wrong as well. I told everybody that for six months in advance and no commentator would listen but that is another day's work. There are significant issues with polling companies around sampling techniques, etc., and that is something that should be factored in here in terms of how the citizens' assembly will be established.
In terms of the eighth amendment issue, there is a legitimate question also of how the process can be run in such a way as to ensure that it is not just the loudest voices that get a hearing. I attended a hearing of the Constitutional Convention and I am not so sure what transpired on the day I was there reflected where the vast majority of the Irish people were in terms of those who were to advocate, make submissions, etc. A citizens' assembly is a wrong term. There is only one citizens' assembly, that is, the one elected by democratic franchise - direct election by the people. What tends to happen when such structures are established is that those who are selected - they are well meaning and I have no difficulty with that - very often become subject to the loudest lobby group or advocacy group of the day but the vast majority of people living in the country are going about their daily lives and are largely removed from its deliberations. That can happen all democratic institutions or public fora where matters are discussed but there was a sense of that in the Constitutional Convention and there is an issue as to how one can ensure that it is not just the loudest voices that get a hearing, particularly on an issue as sensitive as this one will be. If it is ultimately dealt with through a proper process in the Oireachtas, at least everybody in here is answerable to the people. The people can judge their elected representatives on how they speak, advocate and vote on an issue in this House. On balance, I would be of a view that a complex issue such as this, an issue that is central to how our democratic system works, should be determined by the Oireachtas, and I would put that to the Taoiseach.
I take it the Taoiseach is saying it will be six months before it is established.
I said that within six months was what I committed to.
I am taking that to mean it will be six months.
Yes.
When does the Taoiseach expect its first report?
I accept that Deputy Martin made his comments at his party's Ard-Fheis, and say, "Well done". However, the vast majority of his party went to ground-----
The vast majority of Deputy Martin's party went to ground during that referendum campaign, which was an expression of great joy, exuberance and enthusiasm by thousands of people. I think Deputy Martin misjudged the mood a little but I admit that the Deputy said his piece at his party's Ard-Fheis.
There should be no reason we should not consult with a representative group of people. The company involved in selecting citizens for the Constitutional Convention was not setting out polls on this. It was the method by which one would contact ordinary people from all over the country based on geography, age, gender, etc. The Constitutional Convention had the participation of politicians and citizens and there were claims the politicians would outtalk others and tend to dominate. This assembly will be citizens' only. Of course, they will be free to make whatever conclusion or recommendation they wish but it is in here that the eventual decision will have to be made, namely, if a referendum is to be held, in what form and asking what question. From that point of view, the commitment in the programme for Government is to set up the citizens' assembly within six months. It will be overseen by the Department of the Taoiseach and I will see that happens.
I cannot answer Deputy Martin's question on when the first report will come back because the citizens' assembly has not yet even been set up. However, when its conclusions on this matter come back to the Oireachtas committee, which will engage with experts and whoever, it is its conclusions that will come back in here to a plenary session.
Whose conclusions?
The Oireachtas committee's conclusions. It will consider the citizens' assembly recommendations or proposals and it will bring them back into this forum.
It will not be under any obligation to take anything from the citizens' assembly.
Correct. The point is that one engages with ordinary people around the country about an issue that is quite profound and it is in this assembly that Members will have to make their decision. The Members will have, as Deputy Martin states, the freedom of choice to vote in whatever way they wish, depending on the question that is to be put.
It is interesting to listen to this discussion because it is being dominated by two men who are leading the two largest conservative parties in the country, and both of them avoiding what is really the key issue. The key issue is a woman's right to control her own body and the men do not want to face up to that.
I have been fascinated listening to this discussion. We hear that the Constitution belongs to the people and it is up to the people to decide what goes into and comes out of that Constitution. Does it every cross their minds that our bodies belong to us, as women, and that it is up to us to decide what we do with our bodies? Does that cause some kind of a conflict for them?
It is interesting that the women on this side of the House, who are pro-choice and who have the most to lose if a referendum on repealing the eighth amendment falls, are the ones who are advocating it the most. The reason we are advocating it the most is because we have lived most of our adult lives without the right to control our own bodies. We have lived with sisters, daughters, cousins, friends and all women across society who have been denied that right and very many of whom - in fact, 12 a day - have been forced to leave the State to procure abortions elsewhere.
People now face the possibility of 14 years in prison for attempting to procure an abortion. That is what the law passed in this House last year states. It is draconian and the only way to end it is to move to a situation where the people to whom the Taoiseach refers and to whom the Constitution belongs make the decision. If the Constitution belongs to the people, then let them decide and give them a choice to have a referendum calling for repeal of the eighth amendment.
For 33 years of my adult life, I have lived with this amendment to the Constitution, as have other women and, indeed, lots of men in this country who are very dissatisfied with it. Is it not time, given all the statistics and all the polling, that the Taoiseach just holds the referendum? The Taoiseach does not have to decide what question is asked other than do people want to repeal the eighth amendment of the Constitution. That is a simple question. If the people say "No", then we are stuck with that decision. If the people say "Yes", then there are consequences and we will deal with them.
I want to put a case to the Taoiseach because he states there are a number of court cases that have looked at this issue and that have come up with various ways of looking at it and nuances to it. All of those court cases emanated from crises for women - the X case, the Y case and other cases. All of them emanated from serious crises in women's lives. If there are to be more crises in women's lives - there will be because of this amendment of the Constitution - how does one deal with, for example, emergency situations?
The following is not a facile question, and lots of words have been bandied about here about whether it is facile, traumatic or sensitive. The Olympic Games will take place in South America this year and the World Health Organization has just ruled that it will not postpone them because of the Zika virus.
The Brazilian Government is advising the female population of Brazil not to get pregnant. What does the Taoiseach say to Irish sportswomen, participants and tourists who want to go to Brazil for the Olympic Games? Do the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Charles Flanagan, advise them not to get pregnant? If they get pregnant while in Brazil and are at risk of a deformed foetal abnormality, will they return to Ireland to be told they cannot have medical treatment here? What advice will the Taoiseach give female participants and spectators in the Olympic Games? It is very important. While that amendment remains enshrined in our Constitution, such situations will be repeated and will be continually faced by women in this country, whether they are Irish citizens or not.
The citizens' assembly of which the Taoiseach spoke sounds very nice, and he said the people chosen would be gender-balanced and age-balanced. Who will pick them? Will it be the Taoiseach, Fine Gael, the Independent Deputies who support the Government and who are against women having the right to choose? Who will choose the citizens who will make the decision and return to the House with a recommendation? A real decision can be made only by giving people a vote and putting the referendum to the people. What is the Taoiseach afraid of? What are the people who are against the referendum afraid of? Are they afraid the people might decide, after 33 years, that the amendment is problematic, discriminatory and denies women their basic rights?
Will the Taoiseach please answer my specific question on how he will advise our citizens who may attend the Olympic Games in the autumn?
It is not for me to dispense advice as to whether or not people should go to Brazil. The Zika virus exists whether or not the Olympic Games takes place. People may wish to go on business or on holidays to a country in South America where the Zika virus exists. It is a choice they must make themselves.
What happens if they return with a crisis pregnancy?
Is the Deputy asking me what happens if they go to Brazil and become pregnant in Brazil?
Yes, if they have a crisis pregnancy as a result of contracting the Zika virus, whether they were on holidays or at the Olympic Games.
The Deputy asked about the Olympic Games and what advice I would give them. The Zika virus has existed there for a long time-----
I gave the Olympic Games as an example.
I think, maybe, we might stick to the question.
The Zika virus was there long before the Olympic Games and will be there long after the Olympic Games, whether people travel to Brazil or not. I am not qualified medically to give people advice on the extent of the Zika virus. While the Deputy makes a very strong case, in 1983 the eighth amendment was introduced into the Constitution by the Irish people and it was a guarantee of the right to life of the unborn. There were three referenda after it and, in each of those referenda, the people, not any party, decided to keep the eighth amendment in the Constitution.
Sorry, they did not. The people did not vote on the eighth amendment subsequently. They voted on side issues including information.
The insertion of the eighth amendment guaranteeing the right to life of the unborn was endorsed by the people, interpreted by the Supreme Court and we legislated for it in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act during the previous Dáil. It is not just a case of taking it out and repealing it.
Let the people decide.
As the Deputy is aware, in order to change the Constitution, one must have the approval of the people. What question does she want to ask them? They have been asked the question before in respect of suicide as a basis on which to narrow the eighth amendment and they rejected it. There have been other referenda on abortion. It is perfectly in order to consult with a broad range of people who will not be selected by any party in here or by a polling company, which might say the percentage in the polls is up or down. They will be selected on the basis of objectively picking men and women in areas around the country on a very professional basis, putting together a citizens' assembly to reflect on this question and all the matters that arise from it.
This assembly, to which the people have elected party representatives and representatives who do not represent any party, will deal with the question. We do not have to accept the recommendation of the citizens' assembly, however if we want an analysis of what we might be able to do in respect of the eighth amendment, it must be decided here. We will have to vote on whether we bring forward a Bill for a referendum. The people elected must make the decision on a Bill to hold a referendum to ask the people the question or not. It is not as simple as repealing the eighth amendment of the Constitution, as the Deputy said. We speak as party leaders, and men, no more than women have an interest in the Constitution. The Deputy rightly pointed out that in the case of fatal foetal abnormalities, it is women who have to put up with the consequences of it.
In every case, women put up with the consequences.
Obviously, their partners or husbands have an interest and have expressed it.
The attitude of the House is disgraceful. I am sick of it.
We can change the Constitution, add to it or amend it, only with the consent of the people.
There is a need for comprehensive constitutional reform, as we all know. The Constitutional Convention worked. I attended many of its meetings and my only criticism is of the Government's refusal to implement the recommendations the Constitutional Convention made on many issues. I also do not understand why the Taoiseach has changed the format and decided to exclude politicians from participation. It was a useful experience and the proceedings were not dominated by any politician. The people who attended were delighted to be asked to go. They briefed themselves and were well informed on the issues they were dealing with. I do not understand why the Taoiseach would change something which worked. He should spend his time implementing the recommendations of the Constitutional Convention rather than experimenting with some other version of this.
Sinn Féin is very clear that the eighth amendment must go. Sin é. It is up to the people to decide. They must be the arbitrators on the issue and that requires a referendum. We will all be bound by the outcome of the referendum. Perhaps our position will not be supported by the majority of citizens. The only question is when the Taoiseach will have the referendum and give the people their say.
I am glad the Taoiseach is going to consider gender as an issue. It is very generous of him. The last time I looked, only one gender on the planet could become pregnant, namely, women. There seems to be a gulf. The Taoiseach has been here 40 years and was in the Dáil when the eighth amendment was foisted on us. It should not have been put into the Constitution. There are issues that should not be in a Constitution. This is health issue that affects women. Many other issues are not in the Constitution. The Taoiseach does not seem to understand that women must make this decision. Nobody else can do it, given that nobody else will carry the pregnancy to full term, bring up a child, or whatever the circumstances are, whether the woman is too young, too old, does not have enough money or has health reasons. Nobody else can make the decision but women. All the Taoiseach is doing with this ban is forcing women to leave the country. Whether or not abortion is legal makes no difference to the abortion rate.
I thought I was listening to another party when I heard Deputy Micheál Martin talking earlier about how he led the movement for gay rights. There is a strange phenomenon whereby people are boasting about how they championed marriage equality and yet they do not seem to see a contradiction when they suppress women's rights.
Has the Deputy a question?
Does the Taoiseach find it weird that a number of gay politicians do not seem to extend the same civil rights to women when it comes to deciding over our bodies? I find that really weird. This is very simple. The Taoiseach can complicate it all he likes but we need to repeal the eight amendment of the Constitution. As Deputy Bríd Smith and I have said, what we want is a referendum to remove what should never have been put into the Constitution in the first place and which is now way behind where people are in this regard. This Dáil would then legislate for the conditions in which abortion would be allowed.
I would just make the point that I was not saying anything about championing anything. I was making the point that the Constitutional Convention was not responsible for the marriage equality referendum. Many political parties here were in favour of marriage equality long before the Constitutional Convention had anything to say about it. The Labour Party was very clear about it. I was clear about it in 2011 at our Ard-Fheis, and I said that. That is all I said. I am entitled to-----
The rest of the Deputy's-----
Other people have different views and I acknowledge that. I would equally say to Deputies Coppinger and Bríd Smith that many women do not agree with the positions that they adopt.
Yes. They do not have to have an abortion.
We live in a democracy and we should acknowledge that. There has been an attempt this morning to say that because I happen to be a male, I have no right to adopt any position on this. I live in a democracy. I am elected by the people and I am as entitled as the Deputy to have a position on this. I am not going to take the type of attitude from the Deputy to the effect that everybody else should please shut up because she is the only person who can have a position on this. Everybody can have a position on this. By the way, my position is that I am pro-life by instinct.
We know.
That is a legitimate position to have.
I am pro-life as well.
We are all pro-life.
Can I have a supplementary question from Deputy Martin?
I equally accept the perspectives of other people. I accept the complexities and difficulties of the issues. We have all been through life experiences and no one has a monopoly on or uniformity of views on this.
So let the woman decide.
The more I hear about the citizens' assembly, the more I do not get the point of it because the Taoiseach has confirmed that, ultimately, everything has to be dealt with in here and that there is no obligation on the Members of the House to accept whatever emanates from a citizens' assembly. I put it to the Taoiseach that surely it would make far greater sense to establish a cross-party Oireachtas committee to deal with the issue because, ultimately, as I said earlier, regardless of whatever one's view is or whatever emanates from this, a proposition will have put to the people if that is what people want to do.
We will not get a response to this unless I bring this to an end.
No one is suggesting, and I have not heard anyone say, that it be simply repealed and that there will be no law to replace it.
Exactly.
If there is to be something to replace it, then the law has to be determined by the Members of the Oireachtas.
Of course.
It seems very straightforward. We would lose two years or whatever with a citizens' assembly doing whatever it would do. We would then set up the whole operation of an all-party Oireachtas committee. Is that not what is likely to happen? Once the citizens' assembly reports, the Government would propose the establishment of an Oireachtas committee to deal with this and with the process of getting a law through?
Thank you, Deputy. I call Deputy Bríd Smith but if we are to get a response from the Taoiseach, she will have to be brief.
To respond first to Deputy Martin, I am not arguing-----
The Deputy is not required to respond to Deputy Martin. We are dealing with questions to the Taoiseach.
All right, then the Ceann Comhairle should have said to Deputy Martin that he was not required to respond to me because he accused me of not allowing men a right to have a say on this.
The time is running away and if the Deputy wants an answer on this issue-----
Time is running away. I again ask the Taoiseach the following question. How long will he leave women, who want to be able to control their own bodies and have full bodily autonomy over their lives, waiting in this country? What will be the consequences for them travelling, perhaps, to the Olympics Games or on holidays to areas where they might contract a virus, which would be unusual but which could lead to foetal abnormalities and crisis pregnancies? What is his message to citizens who are women and who want to travel and who may end up with crisis pregnancies as a result of that? Is he going to say to them to travel again to another country to have a termination because we do not recognise their rights here in this country?
Thank you, Deputy. The Taoiseach to respond.
In respect of the last question Deputy Bríd Smith raised, before any person travels to any other country, they are normally advised to take medical advice with respect to the area to which they plan to travel. The Zika virus is not the only mosquito virus that can cause difficulties. There are other viruses, as the Deputy is well aware. People travelling to tropical countries are well advised to take medical advice before they travel, whether it be for business, sport or whatever purpose.
There will be an Oireachtas committee but it is important that a broad range of people, taking account of a gender, regional and age balance and all of that, would reflect on this.
An Oireachtas committee could do that.
In response to Deputy Coppinger's comment that this should never have been put into the Constitution-----
The Taoiseach's party should not have allowed it.
-----this was put into the Constitution in 1983 because a commitment was given by two party leaders, no longer with us, that there would be a referendum in respect of the pro-life campaign and that was inserted into the Constitution guaranteeing the right to life of the unborn. This party and the Labour Party in government was the only Government in 30 years to have the courage to legislate for it. The Supreme Court interpreted what the people put into the Constitution and we gave effect to that in legislation with the protection of life legislation.
The courage to give women a 14-year sentence-----
Whether Deputy Bríd Smith likes it or not-----
That was very brave.
-----it is the people who put in the right to life of the unborn.
They did not put in the 14-year sentence.
The Deputy seems to assume-----
The time for Taoiseach's questions has elapsed.
-----that a question can be put and we can get rid of the eighth amendment but that might not happen if such a question is put. Legal structures would be required-----
Indeed, they would.
-----after that were that to happen and the Deputy has not said anything about that.
We have to move on to the Order of Business.