It is welcome that the Leader has set aside time this week for a debate on the report of the expert group on the judgment in the A, B and C case. I am delighted that we will have the opportunity to debate it, having seen the opinion poll in The Sunday Business Post that showed that 85% supported the introduction of legislation to implement the judgment in the X case, as required by the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the A, B and C case. We do this in the light of the huge change in public opinion on the issue.

Time has been provided for statements on the budget tomorrow evening. An issue worthy of debate in this House, either as part of the debate tomorrow evening or at a later date, is the nature and focus of the taxation system. I welcome the anticipated move from a tax on income to a tax on property. The current system is overly reliant on taxation on income. We have not moved in the way that other European countries have to have a tax on property. As pointed out by economists, this is a wealth tax. It is important that those who own houses worth more pay more. I note that the Commission on Taxation has pointed out that there are 3,000 houses in Ireland worth more than €1 million and that €500 million would be generated in a full year from a new property tax. It is important this change be made and that it be made on an equitable basis. It is important that we debate the difference between property values in Dublin and the rest of the country in this regard because property prices in Dublin rose higher for a longer period and have remained higher. There is an element of concern that people living in Dublin may be disadvantaged in some way, depending on how the tax is formulated.

In due course we might also have to debate the difference between south Dublin and the rest of the country on other issues.

Putting Labour first.

Reports of disquiet and disunity within the Government aside, I welcome the report that social protection rates, as part of the ongoing discussions between the parties in government, have been ringfenced. There is great fear among the working poor about a property tax which some might find unmanageable. There is also fear about the impact of further cuts in social protection rates. It is hoped the budget, while being tough, will be as merciful and as fair as possible.

Also on weekend reports, Senator Ivana Bacik mentioned an opinion poll. It is clear from that opinion poll that there is a great deal of confusion. While many indicated that they would favour legislation to implement the judgment in the X case, two thirds, approximately 63%, indicated they would favour the removal of suicide as a ground for abortion because, as we know, medically speaking, it is a dubious base on which to provide for abortion.

That is not the issue on which they were polled.

Many are terrified that it would lead to abortion on demand. For this reason, I welcome the Unite for Life rally today. There are people who want to show solidarity in providing the best medical care for women during pregnancy and the unborn child and who wish to protect the two patient model which has served the country so well. I ask the Leader to convey to the Government that it would be wrong and manipulative to rush the debate on what needs to be done in response to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. Worryingly, it has been reported that what happened in Galway is a lot less clear than it was made out to be. It has also been reported that the The Irish Times never suggested a termination might have saved the life of Savita Halappanavar, yet everywhere this tragic story is being co-opted in a campaign to have abortion legislation rushed through and frighten Fine Gael Deputies and Senators, in particular.

After 20 years, it is not rushing.

Contrary to what the Senator says-----

Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?

I hope there will be openness to rolling on the debate on the expert group's report into the new year, if necessary. There are questions about the way in which the tragedy in Galway is being used. There is also great concern among the public about legislating on bogus medical grounds for what would, in effect, be an abortion on demand regime.

There are also concerns about the expert group and how it interpreted its remit. According to its terms of reference it does not seem to have had a duty to exclude-----

The Senator is over time.

Senator Bacik suggested we must legislate in order to comply with the European Court of Human Rights. That is factually wrong. We remain free in Ireland to decide our law on abortion. I hope-----

The Senator is over time.

The word coming from some members of the Government is that we should move to give clarity on necessary interventions in respect of any physical conditions but need to have a more careful conversation about legislating for abortion on grounds of mental health, because 95% of abortions in Britain take place on those grounds. It is clear where we are going with this and what those who are seeking to rush it wish to achieve.