Vol. 418 No. 8
5 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will outline the Government's view of the statement on abortion issued on 14 April by the Conference of Bishops regarding abortion policy; if he has made any contact since the statement with the Conference or individual members to convey the Government's or his views; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The Government were very surprised at the reference in the Conference statement that:
The meeting today noted with alarm that the right to life of the unborn does not appear to be on the Government's agenda at the present time.
As was indicated by a Government spokesman on 14 April, commenting on the statement, the right to life of the unborn has always been on this Government's agenda. The Government are continuing their search for the correct solution to the very complex problem posed by the Supreme Court decisions. We hope to address fully the objective that was in view when Article 40.3.3º was enacted, which I interpret, essentially, as being to uphold the right to life of the unborn with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother.
I take it that most reasonable people will agree that experience would indicate that there is every reason to take time to consider carefully all the implications arising from the judgements in this sensitive and emotive area.
The Government's consideration is being advanced as rapidly as the nature of the issues permit. In the meantime, it is necessary to press forward with ratification of the Maastricht Treaty.
The statement of the Conference of Bishops also referred to their apprehension that:
There is a grave danger that we may find ourselves in a situation in which we would lose the capacity to provide effectively in our Constitution and legislation for the protection of the right to life of the unborn child.
If this apprehension relates to the Maastricht Treaty, I have to say that it is based on a misunderstanding. The European Community has no intention or wish to get involved in abortion in Ireland.
The Maastricht Treaty, of which Protocol 17 is a part, confirms that position. It would be a complete misreading of the Protocol to believe that it in any way "freezes" current Irish constitutional and legislative provisions, as interpreted by the courts. Ratification of the Maastricht Treaty, together with Protocol 17, would in no way prevent us from further amending our constitutional provisions in this area, if we so wish. Any amendment would, having regard to the content of the Protocol and the Solemn Declaration, have to respect rights to travel and information under European law.
What is true is that any amendment of Article 40.3.3º, from its terms on 7 February when the Treaty was signed, would not enjoy the protection of Protocol 17, unless that was amended. This is so, whether or not such an amendment of Article 40.3.3º was made before or after the referendum on the Maastricht Treaty. Thus, as explained in my reply to yesterday's Questions, there would be no benefit, from the standpoint of the right to life of the unborn, in holding a referendum on the abortion issues before that on the Maastricht Treaty. Those who suggest that we do so have failed to offer any logical reason for doing so.
Our Community partners have made it clear that they are unable to agree to convene an Inter-Governmental Conference to make any change in the Treaty or Protocols until after the Treaty has entered into force, which will be on or after 1 January 1993. But in the Solemn Declaration secured by the Government, all twelve member states have declared that they will be favourably disposed, following the entry into force of the Treaty, to extend the protection afforded by the Protocol to any future amendments of the Constitution, so long as such amendments respect freedom to travel and to provide and obtain certain information.
Thus, far from the Treaty or Protocol causing a loss of capacity for Ireland to provide effective protection in its Constitution and laws for the right to life of the unborn, the Government have ensured, through the Protocol and the Solemn Declaration, that whatever constitutional position we have on abortion in Ireland, will — so long as it respects rights to travel and information under the Community Treaties — be protected from any law of the Treaties that might interfere with it, however remote such a possibility may be.
From the standpoint of the right to life of the unborn, rejection of the Maastricht Treaty would be utterly counterproductive.
The Taoiseach has delivered a very interesting reply. Can I take it from the reply that the Taoiseach is now telling the House that the referendum in the autumn will not only deal with the question of travel and information but will also deal with the question of the availability of abortion in Ireland? If that is correct can the Taoiseach give a guarantee to the House that under no circumstances will a superior right to life of the foetus be given over and above that of the mother?
The Deputy must be very forgetful if he cannot remember what I said consistently on this issue. The complexities of the issues arising out of the interpretation of Article 40.3.3º are such that the Government have decided to deal with all of them together. The Government subcommittee are deliberating on them. As soon as their deliberations are complete the Government will make their decision and the public will be informed. I will not anticipate at this stage what the Government will decide in such a complex area which involves the right to travel, the right to information and the substantive issue of the right to life of the unborn and the right to life of the mother. Those are the complexities. I will not anticipate what the Government will decide in due course when they have all the options in front of them.
I am not asking the Taoiseach to explain or go into any detail in relation to the complex wording that may be required and, indeed, I can foresee how complex it might be. I am asking the Taoiseach to make a statement of policy in the House with regard to the issues that now face us. Will he indicate to the House that not only does he intend to have a referendum on travel and information in the autumn but also a referendum relating specifically to the issue of whether abortion will be available in Ireland? If such wording becomes available, complex or otherwise, can he give a guarantee that it is the policy of the Government to give at least equal right to life and health of the mother and that there will be no superior right to life for the foetus?
We are having quite an amount of repetition, Deputy.
It is because the Taoiseach has repeated——
It is a luxury we cannot afford here.
I am simply asking for a straightforward answer. Is it the policy of the Government to have a referendum relating to abortion as well as travel and information, and will he guarantee to the House that he will not give or does not propose to give a superior right to life of the foetus over that of the mother? It is a simple straightforward matter.
I have time and again made it abundantely clear that the Government's approach to this issue——
The Taoiseach is dodging the issue.
If you have heard this before, do not bother repeating the question so often. We will have a referendum or legislation or both, whatever we decide we require at the end of the day in relation to it.
What is your policy?
The Deputy must forget that Article 40.3.3º of the Constitution enshrines the equal right to life of the mother and the unborn. That is the present constitutional position.
Is the Taoiseach aware that because of the evasive nature of his responses to question of this kind there is a very real concern that the right to life of the mother as protected in the current Article may be diminished or undermined?
Cerebration.
Will the Taoiseach give the House an assurance that the right to life of the mother will not be undermined? Would the Taoiseach agree that everyone in this House is pro-life and being pro-life does not simply mean favouring the right to life of the unborn child but also seeking to protect the right to life of the mother?
Deputies are continuing to press for an anticipatory decision on Government policy while the deliberations are taking place. I will not anticipate what the Government will decide until we have all the preparatory work done and in front of us for decision. That is the position, and demands from Deputy Shatter or anybody else will not get me to anticipate Government decisions in relation to this.
Put that on record. It will be a best seller.
Let us sweep away the complexity and ask the Taoiseach a simple, straightforward question. Article 40.3.3º of the Constitution acknowledges the equal right to life of the mother. Does the Taoiseach intend to maintain that equal right to life of the mother in the Irish Constitution?
It is part of the examination that is taking place by the Cabinet sub-committee in relation to that issue and all the other issues that flow from the interpretation of Article 40.3.3º that came out of the Supreme Court decision which is a matter of serious concern to many in this country. If one has the luxury of being in Opposition one can be very simplistic but when one has to solve the problem it is a different story and we will not be stampeded into any decision just to satisfy the Deputies opposite.
Are you going to maintain the equal right to life of the mother? We can only assume you are not. It is the only conclusion we can draw.
Deputies who ask questions ought to be good enough to listen to replies.
Arising out of the Taoiseach's original reply to this question when he expressed his surprise at the statement issued by the Roman Catholic bishops, has the Taoiseach communicated with the Conference of Bishops to express that surprise to them or does he intend to communicate with them on the matter?
The answer to that question is no. I have not been in communication with the Conference.
Not on this issue.
Arising from the Taoiseach's original reply, would he not agree, first that the difficulty that has arisen from Article 40.3.3º of the Constitution comes from the principle of absolute equality that it seeks to enshrine and that the court has found that in a difficult case, at the margin, there can be no absolute equality? Would the Taoiseach not further agree that a formula which systematically preferred in our Constitution the right to life of the unborn child to that of the mother would stand current medical practice on its head, would not be accepted by those who agree with the Roman Catholic hierarcy and possibly by the vast majority of people in this country, and that the only other potential formula which would systematically prefer the right to life of the mother over that of the unborn child would be equally unacceptable to the vast majority of the people? Would he therefore not share with me the conclusion that what was sought to be done in Article 40.3.3º of the Constitution is not something that can be given practical effect in the Constitution as has been found in the United States and would he not agree, therefore, that the blindingly clear conclusion of everything we have been through in the past nine years is that this cannot be done constitutionally but must be done by legislation?
The Deputy has answered the question for me. What I have said is that there will be a referendum or legislation or both. It is as clear cut as that.
That is not what I asked.
You do not want to hear.
If the Deputy does not want to hear, I cannot help him.
If you had listened a bit more in 1983 we would not have this problem.
You were the Government then.
You were the Opposition.
You abused the opportunity.
You did not stand up to your responsibility as elected representatives.
It is as if you were locked in an 1983 time warp and you are afraid to step out of it.
They are like scalded cats running around the place.
