I will wait for the Minister to attend the House this evening and perhaps he will give us the answers I asked the Tánaiste for last week.

Last week in his closing statement, the Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children explicitly stated the protection of life during pregnancy Bill as it stands-----

Deputy Mattie McGrath must not have much confidence in his allegations.

If Deputy Rabbitte wishes me to change I will.

Please proceed and do not mind the interruptions. Deputy Mattie McGrath has a two minute slot.

Does Deputy Mattie McGrath have any confidence in the allegation he made?

I am tempted to come back. I have plenty of confidence.

Deputy Mattie McGrath is being interrupted.

I know. I am telling him to keep going.

He is entitled to speak without being interrupted.

Put out the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte.

I will look after this, do not worry.

I beg the Ceann Comhairle's indulgence. I do not think any cow would pass a crossroads that would not be milked by the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte.

This is a serious issue and if the Ceann Comhairle does not mind I will start again.

Yes please.

Last week in his closing statement, the Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children explicitly stated the protection of life during pregnancy Bill as it stands only provides a framework but not the detail. He stated it is not the final Bill, it is not the new law and is a preliminary document. The next morning, less than 12 hours later, during an interview on national radio the Chairman explicitly stated provision will be made in the Bill for a woman to obtain an abortion on the grounds of risk of suicide during pregnancy. This is a deeply conflicting state of affairs and shows the Chairman had already decided to ignore the testimony of those psychiatrists and legal experts who have demonstrated such a provision is contrary to the best medical and legal practice. Such comments confirm to those of us who oppose the main thrust of the Bill that this process of so-called investigation had been marked by political expediency from the outset and was never serious in its intention to objectively examine the heads of the Bill.

Given that the Chairman of the Oireachtas committee acknowledged the purpose of the hearings was as a pre-legislative consultative process to facilitate further consideration when drafting the Bill, will the Taoiseach agree it is very worrying that the Chairman could, less than 24 hours later, undermine this very statement by laying out in the national media very specific elements which he states will be in the Bill regardless? Will the Taoiseach also agree that despite the impressive quality of the contributions from those on all sides of the debate who came before the committee, and those women hurt by abortion who unfortunately were not allowed come before us, it was wasted breath since the outcome was already determined?

The Government was very conscious of the fact that it would put in place a process that would not divide the country. In my view, the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Health and Children, Deputy Jerry Buttimer, did a first-class job in chairing that committee's hearings.

You might get the job yet, Jerry.

As he requested, the hearings were temperate, considered and well-meaning from different perspectives. As the Deputy is aware, the Chairman of the committee does not prepare the Bill. The purpose of the hearings was to have reflection, analysis, views and a consideration of the heads of the Bill that were approved by Government. The heads of the Bill were based on a number of important principles, first, to provide legal clarity on the circumstances where a medical termination is possible where there is a real and substantial risk to the life as opposed to the health of the mother. That is required by the European Court of Human Rights' judgment in the A, B and C case. Second, the legislation, which is currently being prepared, will remain strictly within the parameters of the Constitution and the Supreme Court judgment in the X case. It will cover existing constitutional rights only, as I have said on many occasions, and it will not create any new rights. The third principle is that the equal right to life of the unborn will be upheld. The obligation on the medical profession to save both lives, where that is possible, is quite clear and will be confirmed. The medical termination of a pregnancy can only be permitted in situations where the doctors involved in the assessment process have unanimously certified that it is the only treatment that will save a woman's life by averting a real and substantial threat to her life. The fourth principle was that because of the subjective nature of the assessment of suicide risk, the legislation will provide for a demonstrably more rigorous process of assessment in such cases.

The Bill is now being worked upon and when it is prepared, the Minister for Health will bring it before the Government. Assuming the Government accepts it or changes it, it will then be sent off in the normal way to the committee for Committee Stage, which will be followed by Report and Final Stages. It will, therefore, stay within those parameters and principles only.

I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. Deputy Buttimer might well get the nod for the Minister of State post, by all accounts. It is looking good.

I acknowledge that we will have to have further time to debate this issue when the Bill comes before both Houses. Whether those debates will be equally ignored remains to be seen.

Even Fianna Fáil would not have you.

I want to ask the Taoiseach about his insistence that we must legislate on foot of the Supreme Court judgment in the X case. The X case itself cannot lend to this proposed legislation a justification that makes head 4 legally justifiable, not to mention legally compelling. While head 4 is faithful to the details of the test laid down in the X case, it is not faithful to the later developments of that test in the Cosma case, for instance. On the Cosma case reading of the X case test, head 4 would fail to meet the necessary standards because it does not require evidence of a treatment plan or consideration of other means of avoiding the risk to life and because it does not take into account, as the Minister insisted we should, the public policy arguments that are relevant in addressing claims of suicidality.

Will the Taoiseach undertake to review the myth that we are legally compelled to legislate on foot of the X case? Will he acknowledge that legal precedents overtook the judgment in the X case many years ago? If not, will he admit that the Bill is being pushed through to satisfy a political requirement and not a constitutional one?

No. The position is that we are required to clarify the circumstances under which a medical intervention is possible where the life of a mother is threatened. We are required to provide legal certainty in respect of the X case. The general prohibition on abortion in Ireland is restated in the heads of the Bill. This Bill is about saving lives, not ending them. It does, and will, provide legal certainty and clarity in all of these sensitive cases. Obviously, there will be ample opportunity for Members of the House to have further discussions and views on the Bill when it is prepared, presented to Cabinet and comes back to the Dáil and the committee for further detailed scrutiny and analysis. As I said, however, it will comply strictly with the requirement for clarification under the A, B and C case and in respect of the constitutional parameters set out in the X case. No new rights are being created here. It is about saving lives, not ending them.

That completes Leaders' Questions for today.

I was wondering why you backed away from it, Finian.