In recent weeks, the world-class reputation of the Irish medical and maternal health care system has been subjected to a national campaign of dangerous and reckless misinformation. The situation has got so bad that no fewer than four former heads of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the current chair of the joint HSE working group on maternal mortality, Dr. Michael O'Hare, have called on two of the "Yes" campaign's leading medical spokespersons to withdraw statements they have made about how the eighth amendment impacts on medical care. Just last night, 15 members of the consultant body of the maternity directorate of the South/South West hospital group, which covers my area, called on Dr. Peter Boylan to step aside from his role.

Has the Minister for Health, Deputy Harris, supported these calls for balanced and accurate information? Of course he has not. In order to get this referendum over the line, the Government has essentially given free rein to anyone who wants to paint the worst possible picture of the Irish maternity system and services. As if that was not a bad enough judgment of the kind of campaign that the Government is supporting, there was a statement last week from almost 200 judges, solicitors and barristers, including a former judge of the European Court of Justice and the High Court, Mr. Justice Aindrias Ó Caoimh, and a former judge of the High Court and chairman of a referendum commission, Mr. Justice Iarfhlaith O'Neill. Mr. Justice O'Neill and his colleagues have described the Taoiseach's view and that of the Minister for Health that abortion up to six months will not become freely available as having "no rational basis". Today, a former Taoiseach and leader of the Fine Gael Party, Mr. John Bruton, wrote to the current Taoiseach again about how the Government's proposal to remove every last shred of constitutional protection for the unborn child was a human rights travesty. Those are the former Deputy's words.

Whenever others or I have raised these matters with the Taoiseach, he has trotted out the grossly offensive and deeply personalised remarks that those who oppose the repeal of the eighth amendment are turning a cold shoulder to the victims of sexual violence. That is unfair. Is Mr. Justice O'Neill turning a cold shoulder? Is the former leader of the Taoiseach's party, Mr. Bruton, turning a cold shoulder? Of course they are not.

Will the Taoiseach join me in defending the world-class nature - those are the World Health Organization's words, not mine - of our maternal health system? Will he call on those who are recklessly damaging our international reputation and creating unnecessary fear to refrain from making such remarks? Will he finally accept that the law the Government is proposing will allow for the majority of abortions to be carried out on the perfectly healthy unborn children of healthy mothers? As we know, these constitute 97% of the abortions that take place in the UK.

Before I call on the Taoiseach to respond, it is a long-standing precedent of the House not to mention people outside it by name or in such a way as to make them identifiable.

When this referendum campaign started, or certainly the day that the Government confirmed that we would hold a referendum, I said that I hoped that the campaign would always be respectful and never become personalised. I think that, by and large, that has been the case. We are only a week and a half away from polling day and, by and large, this has been a much more respectful campaign than people perhaps anticipated and, by and large, has not been personalised.

That is why I deeply regret that some people have now chosen to try to personalise the campaign in regard to Dr. Peter Boylan. Dr. Boylan has the right to his view, just as doctors or former judges on the "No" side have the right to their view. Nobody should be individually targeted because they hold a particular opinion on this issue and I regret that in the final days of this campaign people have started going for the man or woman rather than talking about the issue. Whether that is done by the "Yes" side or the "No" side, it is very wrong.

Removing the eighth amendment would remove the equal right to life for a pregnant woman and the unborn from our Constitution. There are other rights in the Constitution such as the right to common good, and that concept will remain in the Constitution. We propose to remove the concept that an unborn child, a foetus of one, two, three or even ten weeks' gestation, has an equal right to life as one's sister, mother, niece or female friend. I do not believe that to be true and that is one of the reasons I am comfortable voting "Yes" in the referendum.

Above all, this is about accepting the reality that abortion exists in Ireland. In 1983, people thought that by putting that amendment into the Constitution, somehow there would be no terminations of pregnancy. We know that nine or ten women every day take the boat or plane to England or other countries to end their pregnancies and that two, three or probably more women every day import a pill over the Internet to be taken unsafely and without medical supervision, counselling, advice or being able to talk about the alternatives. That is what we want to change. Abortion is a reality in Ireland and in many ways we propose to recognise that reality and legislate for, and regulate, it.

The Deputy raised the issue of care and compassion. I have yet to hear from those who argue for a "No" vote, including Deputy Mattie McGrath, how they would care for and what compassion they would show towards the victims of violence he mentioned, such as a 13, 14 or 15 year old girl who may have been raped by her father, grandfather or uncle and is bleeding and in pain. What answer does the Deputy offer her?

For the past two weeks, the Taoiseach has been asking people to stop making comments that might damage the integrity of the Irish health system. I share his view in that regard. However, two of the country's senior medical professionals are endlessly repeating dangerous and reckless comments and the Taoiseach will not stand up to them because they support his view in the upcoming referendum. The Taoiseach can stand up and pontificate and purport to have infinite knowledge of everything. However, I have the heads of the Bill before me. The Taoiseach is aware that head 4 of the general scheme states that the life of an unborn child cannot be ended once it has reached viability. However, there is no reference to where that mark will be set. I suggest that the Taoiseach read that if he wishes to understand it. I suggested that to him last week but it is obvious that he has not yet done so. It is even more disturbing that provision is made in head 5 to nullify or cancel the prohibition in head 4. It is all over the place and that has been proven. I have the Bill in front of me and have studied it, as have legal professionals. We know that over 40% of abortions in England are carried out before the 12 week period. The Government is all over the place on this issue. The Taoiseach has no right to lecture us. We have compassion. Many organisations and agencies, which I support, assist victims of sexual violence on an hourly basis. We want more compassion, not the taking away of the last vestige of support for the unborn child - not a foetus - in the womb. We wish to maintain life from conception to end of life.

We have good maternity services in Ireland but we would be very unwise to think a relatively low maternal mortality rate means that we have the best maternity services in the world. We do not have that and never did.

We are close to the top, according to the World Health Organization.

Unfortunately, there are major shortcomings in our maternity services and that has been laid bare in several hospitals around the country in recent times-----

While the Taoiseach was Minister for Health.

-----and through a number of cases of which many Members are aware.

As Minister for Health I produced the first national maternity strategy, which is a strategy to improve our maternity services significantly, and as Taoiseach I am making sure the funding is in place to implement that over time.

Head 4, to which the Deputy referred, relates to viability, which is an issue of clinical judgment. It may be 23 weeks or it may be 24 weeks. It depends on a few things, namely, the gestation, the weight and the size. That has to be a clinical judgment. Part of the problem that we have in Ireland with our abortion laws is we have tried to define too much in the Constitution and have not allowed for clinical judgment. The term "viability" is there so clinical judgment can apply. We should bear in mind that medical science changes. It may be the case over time that viability comes down in terms of weeks, so we want to provide for that too. We do not want to put in 22 weeks or 23 weeks and then find out in a few years that new technology brings that backwards. That is why we put viability in as a legal concept, so it is based on clinical judgment of gestation, weight, size and modern clinical science.

What about head 5?

Head 5 relates to emergency situations. Supervision exists already in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act to allow for one doctor to intervene-----

The time is up.

-----in those emergency situations, and that is what that is for.