Yesterday, the Taoiseach told us, when Deputy Halligan correctly registered the importance of marking May Day, that we have moved on since the days of "Big Jim". The Taoiseach was obviously not aware of the massive unemployment, the forced emigration, the return of soup kitchens and evictions and children going to school hungry. It demonstrates how out of touch the Government is with the majority of citizens in this State. This was displayed graphically by the Government's handling of the long overdue X case legislation, which was necessary because of the 1983 referendum which fudged the issue and equated the right to life of the unborn with that of the woman. Rather than addressing that fudge, the Government has chosen to reinforce it by even changing the title of the Bill to one of protecting life during pregnancy when we all know the legislation is necessary to protect women's lives.

For the past two weeks, we have been introduced to a new specimen, the Fine Gael backbencher, an entity that nobody knew existed. Suddenly, it has found a voice and a conscience.

Where was that voice and conscience when the rights of born children were being decimated by the cuts in child benefit, by the cuts in social welfare payments to youngsters with a disability and the cuts in education? It was nowhere to be heard.

Their obstructing of this legislation is being presented as a battle to protect the unborn, a battle to stop Irish abortion. The reality is that Irish abortion is pretty much the same as every other country's abortion. It is merely that it is exported out of here. Of course, this Bill will not change that, and never was to. What it should have done was to ensure that a woman who needed an abortion to save her life, not her health or well-being, could get access to that abortion here at home. It should have met the wishes of the majority of Irish people who voted in two referenda that this right should include where that risk came from suicide. Instead, despite the Taoiseach's denials last week that distraught suicidal women would not be dragged before tribunals, there is the spectre of a woman having to present her case to three doctors-----

Disgraceful.

-----and getting unanimity among them and if she does not get it, going to another three. The last occasion I checked, three plus three was six.

I am glad this legislation is before us, but let us be clear. What the Government has presented is the absolute minimum. The clear intention is to make it so restrictive that most women who will be affected will not even bother and, instead, they will continue to make the journey to Britain so that the Government can continue to pretend that there is no Irish abortion.

My questions to the Taoiseach are as follows. How did he get his Labour Party colleagues to settle for this when SIPTU, ICTU, USI, Unite, the National Women's Council and every other organisation has stated the opinion of two medical practitioners was enough? Why did the Government bother to convene an expert group and hold hearings into its report, and then patently ignore its finding which stated that it was generally considered that two doctors of relevant experience and training were enough to make a clinical decision on the physical or mental health conditions of a woman? Would the Taoiseach agree that the only reason there have not been more maternal deaths because of the lack of abortion in Ireland is precisely because of our proximity to Britain?

I am not sure what Deputy Clare Daly's question is arising out of all of that. I can certainly testify that the Fine Gael backbenchers are interested in all legislation that comes before the House and they are focused, along with the other members of the Government, in getting the country back to work and sorting out the financial difficulties.

They were not focused on the respite care grant.

The protection of life during pregnancy Bill is about saving women's lives. As I stated, the law on abortion is not being changed but in very specific circumstances, where there is a real and substantial threat to the life of the mother, a termination is permissible under the law. Each of those terminations that has happened here has been as a consequence of a real and substantial risk to a woman's life where a medical intervention was necessary to save her life. As I pointed out in the earlier reply to Deputy Adams, there is a requirement here to uphold to right to life of the unborn and, in so far as it is possible, to save the life of the unborn where these situations arise.

These proposals are very much in line with what the expert review group proposed. As Deputy Clare Daly will be aware, the group also made the point, as was recognised in A, B and C v. Ireland, that the issue of suicide and suicidal intent is far more subjective than in the case of a physical risk where a emergency arises from a medical point of view. That is why a multidisciplinary team will be involved here and that is why in those cases, rare though they might be, there is an obstetrician-gynaecologist on that team who must speak, make a judgment and make a call for the protection of the life of the unborn.

It is very necessary in those cases, which are subjective, that there be qualified, experienced, multidisciplinary personnel-----

It has to be six out of six.

-----in order to deal with the-----

One doctor out of six can veto it.

-----parameters of the law here.

The Deputies opposite should read it.

Obviously any legislation put forward on any issue has to be within the confines of the Constitution. Clearly many of the arguments being put forward in that regard are red herrings. Abortion, where a woman's life is in danger, has been the lawful situation in Ireland for decades, but it simply has not been legislated for. The issue is whether the Government's legislation provides that clarity. I am not sure why the Taoiseach did not understand the question because it was pretty obvious from what I could see.

The Government, at the behest of the European Court of Human Rights, decided to go down the path of establishing an expert group. The report of that expert group stated - perhaps the Taoiseach is not very familiar with it - "it was generally considered that two doctors with the relevant training and expertise appropriate to the case would be sufficient for making a clinical decision as to the risk to the life of the woman", which is pretty clear-cut. It is an outcome and conclusion the Government has chosen to ignore.

The Deputy is being selective in her quotes.

Why did the Government also ignore the group's request to remove the chilling effect of the-----

The Deputy should read the rest of it.

I ask Deputies to settle down and let the Deputy make her point. The Taoiseach will reply.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle.

The Deputy is quoting selectively.

Why did the Government choose to ignore the call to remove the chilling effect of the 1861 Act? While penal servitude will come off the Statute Book, it is being replaced by 14 years in jail. Are women who go for abortions in Britain or who order abortifacients over the Internet now to be branded as criminals and subject to this law? The Taoiseach has made it clear that the Bill gives no new rights to women. The Tánaiste has tried to claim it vindicates women's rights. It is clear that it does not do that. It falls short of the clarity that is needed. It is a very regrettable step. While the legislation is welcome, the Government has not gone far enough, and I think it will be subject to massive change in the weeks ahead.

I do not agree that it falls short. It deals specifically with the case where a woman's life is in danger. It clarifies what the law is. The Deputy is selective in her comments because the expert group discussed the value of having an obstetrician involved as a member of the multidisciplinary team, which is crucial where there is the case of an unborn child to be heard.

As she is aware, in the case of a real and substantial risk to a women's life arising from self-destruction, additional safeguards are put in place. Three specialists - one obstetrician-gynaecologist and two psychiatrists - must unanimously agree and certify that the termination of pregnancy is the only treatment that will save the mother's life. In such cases, where it is feasible of course, a general practitioner, who would know the woman involved probably better than anybody else, will also be consulted. It is about saving lives and providing clarity and certainty for women in respect of access to procedures if there is a substantial risk to a woman's life, as distinct from her health.

In regard to the Deputy's comment about penalties, these are consistent with the law as it stands. As I said, the law on abortion is not being changed. No new rights are being conferred here. It is a case of legal clarity and certainty for women when the occasion arises when they need that.