In about an hour's time the Taoiseach will frogmarch his backbenchers in here to vote down my Private Members' Bill, a Bill designed to support families who receive the devastating diagnosis that their pregnancy has a fatal abnormality incompatible with life. My Bill enables them, if they feel they cannot continue with that pregnancy, waiting for the baby to die, to terminate it here in Ireland surrounded by their families and friends. Instead, the Taoiseach proposes inaction, condemning those people to a lonely journey, most likely to Liverpool, surrounded by holidaymakers and businesspeople while the bottom falls out of their world, and then to come home and have the ashes sent in a jiffy bag in a DHL van.

It is cruel, inhumane, torture and a violation of human rights, and it is avoidable. Some 80% of the people have said they want the Government to do something about this. The three masters of the maternity hospitals, the United Nations Human Rights Commission and 43 legal experts have said it can do it. Not just that, 50 Deputies, including half of the Cabinet, have said something must be done. What is that something and who is going to do it? If not us, who? If not today, when?

People are sick of excuses and the only reason advanced to oppose this is the allegation that it is unconstitutional.

The Taoiseach knows that is rubbish because only the High Court and Supreme Court can adjudicate on whether something is constitutional and they have not done so in this instance. All the Government has is the opinion of the Attorney General. With the greatest respect to her, she is not infallible; she is a human being and, at least once, she has been proved wrong, specifically in the case of the children's referendum. These issues are too important to leave it at that. I want to see her opinion before this vote because so many people disagree with it.

Hear, hear.

Will the Taoiseach publish the Attorney General's decision so we can see it? Does he think it appropriate that highly paid parliamentarians are expected to come here to vote on such critical issues like nodding donkeys without full possession of the facts? At the very least, may we have the date of the opinion and confirmation that it relates to my Bill and not other generalities? Finally, will the Taoiseach justify why the constitutional amendment which he claims gives rise to the reason the Government cannot support my Bill was brought in here on a free vote, without a Whip, over 30 years ago, and in this era of democratic revolution, the Taoiseach cannot give his backbenchers a free vote on this? Would it not be better with regard to adhering to human rights if the President could be allowed refer this to the Supreme Court under Article 26 of the Constitution? In 60 days, we could have an end to the misery that families are going through today or could feel tomorrow. Does the Taoiseach think it is okay to have us violating international human rights?

The first comment I make to Deputy Daly is that the reason she can bring her Bill in here is that the Government reformed Dáil procedures to allow for backbench Deputies like herself-----

There has always been Private Members' business.

We thank the Taoiseach.

-----to be able to bring Bills before the House. It is right and proper, and it is the Deputy's right to bring a Bill before the House. This is a very sensitive matter and all these cases are quite tragic for the woman, in particular, who is involved, the mother of the unborn child. However, Deputy Daly does not own the Constitution and neither do I. She cannot change the Constitution and neither can I. It is the people's Constitution and it is only they who can change it.

There has been a long-standing position in this country where the advice given by the Attorney General of the day has never been published. Article 15.4 of the Constitution, of which the Deputy is well aware, states quite clearly that it is not lawful for legislators to vote for something which they know is "repugnant" to the Constitution. The Deputy wants to fly in the face of all that, pass a piece of legislation and then have it tested by the Supreme Court. I suggest to Deputy Daly that it is not the way to go. This is a far more serious matter than the sensitive case she mentions. When we speak about the eighth amendment, we are talking about a range of other complicated issues beyond this particular example. When the Deputy asks that something be done, it will not be done in respect of Article 15.4 and this particular issue.

The Deputy is quite entitled to bring forward her Bill under the reform process but she does not own the Constitution. It is the people's Constitution and they are the only party who can change this. The Deputy believes we can introduce legislation contrary to the Constitution and then send it to the Supreme Court but that is not the way to go about business.

What will be done?

The Taoiseach's retort, or lack thereof, is an absolute insult to the families enduring this issue. It is the people’s Constitution and laid down in law is the fact that only this House can bring in legislation and only the courts can interpret it. How dare the Taoiseach attempt to have the arrogance to interpret the Constitution when it is something that only our courts can do?

Is there a question, please?

That is a fact. We have had bodies that are hardly the most radical, such as the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, Amnesty International, the National Women’s Council, the Irish Family Planning Association, as well as multiple legal people, telling the Government that this can be done under the Constitution. The Attorney General is one person.

The Taoiseach is correct that Article 15 indicates we cannot introduce measures “repugnant” to the Constitution. “Repugnant” means something which is clearly and undeniably unconstitutional. This is clearly and undeniably not such a case. How do I know this? The previous Attorney General argued exactly as I am now arguing that this is entirely within the remit of the eighth amendment to be legislated for now.

What the Taoiseach has done is a cop-out. If he believes the Constitution is a problem and he wants to help the families, as some of his backbenchers and Ministers have said, what will he do about it? How does he justify the fact that before Christmas, when I tabled a precise Bill for constitutional amendment, the Government voted against it? Is the Taoiseach now telling us that in the spate of referenda planned for the spring, this will be included? If he is not saying this, he is letting down these families and, quite frankly, he is a hypocrite.

That is very unparliamentary language.

As I have said to Deputy Daly, the reason she has the right to bring a Private Members' Bill before the House is because the Government reformed the way we want to do business here.

It could have been done under Private Members' business anyway.

The Deputy chose to bring this Bill before the House, as is her right and entitlement.

Answer the question.

The eighth amendment to the Constitution is very clear and it refers specifically to where there is a threat to the life of the mother. I cannot change that and neither can the Deputy. It is a matter for the people to decide by a vote. The Deputy expects that the House will follow her advice and proposal and pass her legislation - clearly it is in conflict with the Constitution - and have it interpreted as such within 60 days. I do not propose to do that.

The Deputy knows as well as I do that when the conversation starts about fatal foetal abnormalities, complications, sensitivity and the tragedy involved, it would automatically go along the line with respect to when pregnancy occurs because of incest or rape.

Rightly so, too.

The discussion starts about the entire issue with respect to the eighth amendment. I do not propose to go there, arising from the Deputy's Bill. Clearly, on the advice of the Attorney General, the Bill is unconstitutional. It has been a long-standing tradition over very many years that the advice of the Attorney General is given as formal legal adviser to the Government.

Why not publish it so?

What about Barry Desmond in 1983?

We are over time.

Of course, the Deputy can have all the legal advisers she likes. I have one and it is the formal legal adviser to the Government, the Attorney General. On that basis, I do not propose to publish the advice given by the Attorney General.

Where are the Members from the Labour Party?

The Labour Party is hiding out again.