Bríd Smith criticises timeline for Termination Pregnancy Act review

Thanks Deputy or Chair. Thanks Minister. Questions I have about the timeline. I do think there is a lot of anxiety that the timeline of this is really poor, because the Actals state that the review shall take place within three years. So, on 1 January 2022 we should be looking at the review, but given that it is not going to take place, starting with the process today, advertising for the Chair and publishing the terms of reference, you are saying now that it could be April before the Chair is appointed, and indeed it could be the summer or the autumn before the results of phase one are collated, known to us, etc. So, we do need clarity on the timeline, because it is all right for us here as politicians to sit wondering about these things, but in the meantime women are waiting, a lot of very anxious women are waiting for changes and for support and for recognition of the difficulties they face, as the same with the service providers. So, I think it is, to say the least, very sloppy, but I think that the timeline is very worrying. So, maybe yourself or Geraldine could come back and give us a definite parameter of when we can see the publication of the review of the Termination Pregnancy Act, the finished product. And I don't think we should say it could be summer or autumn, because then we are saying it could be June or October, because technically October is still in autumn and that is way too long for people to have to wait. The other issue I would like to go back to is the appointment of the Chair. And the fact that we have to e-tender because of the costs involved bothers me, because what really matters here is not, you know, for people who are at the receiving end of the restrictions of this legislation, what really matters is the human experience, the medical experience, how we can improve it. Now, when the Minister says the costs are involved could be up to £100,000, I just don't figure how you reach that, how you decide that that is the criteria in which you have to tender out. And I'm very worried that your desire to appoint a chair has been interfered with on the basis of the costs and how those costs are configured or arise as an issue. And the other thing I've been asked to raise by all of the groups is the question of appointing an expert panel, which I think Deputy Shortall touched on. And would this not have made the whole thing more manageable if you appointed a chair and an expert panel with all of the various expertise on reproductive rights, on human rights, on the provision of services, so that there's experts feeding into a chair rather than the chair having to be an amazing person who's so ambidextrous. They're expert on all of these areas. And could we revisit that? Because I think by revisiting that we'd have a better, broader review of the legislation and its operation, but we'd also have a more thorough process of knowing what's coming out of it is really very genuinely dealt with. I think to appoint one person only to deal with this is quite cumbersome and it confers on them an awful lot of powers and an awful lot of rights, if you like, over and above trying to do it with a group of experts. And I think we also need to, it hasn't been mentioned yet, but I think because the WHO guidelines were part of what we looked at, Jordan, the lead up to the legislation, that the WHO guidelines and the international experience has to be taken into consideration. So there's another talent that this one expert chair is going to have to have, as well as medical, legal and others. I just think that it's way open to interpretation who or what could be appointed and the explanation that you give on why your choices of appointing a chair were prevented from being implemented is a bit weak. And I would like you to go over that again, please. Thanks very much for the questions, Deputy. In terms of the timeline, just to be clear, the requirement in the Act is that the review is commenced within three years. It's not that it's concluded within three years, it's that it's commenced. Will it be April before a chair is appointed? No, it'll be early in the new year and the chair will be involved as quickly as possible. in phase one as well. Why are we going out to tender? Because the advice I have from the department is that there's a legal requirement to do that, given the likely quantum of money involved. To your question, I think you ask a really important question, Deputy, in terms of is the summer or autumn too long? Because obviously there are people who really are waiting for this. I think we have to try and strike a balance here. The report has to be meaningful. And for that, my view is that the consultation has to be meaningful and it has to be very comprehensive. So we need to consult widely with the public. We need to consult widely with service providers and we need to consult widely. And as I said, in my view, most importantly, with the women themselves. Doing that in a meaningful manner does take time. And then we do need to leave the chair time to absorb all of that information and make recommendations. So we're trying to find a balance to make sure that there is a sufficient amount of time for this to be a very meaningful review. And so our estimate then is summer or autumn. With review to expertise. So I fully agree that whoever the chair is, they will not have all of the expertise. I doubt there's anybody has all of the expertise that would be required. So it is absolutely my intention that they will have access to the expertise that they deem necessary. Do we call it an advisory panel or an expert panel? I have no issue with that at all. I think the most important thing is that no one is expecting this one person to be able to be across all of these quite complex issues. So will we have a multidisciplinary approach? Will they have access to the expertise that they deem requires? Absolutely they will. Okay. Can I just, Chair, if I can just bear with me for another couple of questions. Well, you see, I do think it matters to service providers and to users out there whether you just say you can have access to the expertise or whether we have an expert panel that is appointed and that we know who they are and what their background and their their contribution to this process is, what they are bringing to it. So I think we need to review that and look at the appointment of an expert panel. I just expressed my total dissatisfaction with the e-tendering for a chairperson. I think we should have known today who that chairperson is. And just on the question of that again, we're searching here in the office, but we can't find the criteria being published or a knee tender being published for that chair. You said that was being published today. And maybe the civil servants there could put that out as well as the stuff that we've just received. One last question is that there are issues that the legislation hasn't dealt with that are really important, like the safe zones. Because one of the factors on doctors providing the services is the question of protest and intimidation, either on their clinics, on their families, on their homes, or indeed the intimidation that that brings to the users of the service. So safe access zones need to be dealt with, and we haven't mentioned that at all, nor have we mentioned the issue of the safe access zones and the issue of extending the provision of access to free contraception. It's fine that it's coming in for women up to 25, but you don't stop being reproductive at the age of 25 or sexually active. And you might still be very poor and not be able to provide the type of contraception, be able to afford the type of contraception that you need. I think we need to look at that. And part of the recommendations of the committee that isn't in the legislation, obviously, but recommendations, key recommendations of the committee was to look at the question of a non ethos based sex education in this country. And we've no sign of that coming from the state. It's connected clearly with the question of crisis pregnancy and, you know, how we deal with the entire sector. So I think if you could answer me on safe zones, the non ethos based sex education and the extension of the provision of free contraception to cohorts over 25 years of age. Thanks very much for that, Deputy. With regards just to the e-tender criteria, I'll ask the department to circulate the criteria for that. And look, can I tell you, I fully share the frustration. There is nothing I would like more than to be able to just appoint the chair and get on with the work. So I share the frustration. However, I am advised that it is a legal requirement in terms of public procurement. And as such, I think all of our hands are tied, unfortunately, on that. From memory, Deputy, correct me if I'm wrong, but from memory, there were three policy areas which were discussed that were due to happen as part of this act. And the three you've mentioned, safe zones, free contraception and sex education. So two of them fall within my remit and one within Minister Foley's. I can assure you that Minister Foley is looking at that and is taking that very seriously. The two that fall within my remit, you'll be aware that I'm acting on both. So safe access zones has been tabled for priority drafting. That's happening at the moment. The Heads of Bill are being drafted by the Department. There is an ongoing conversation with the Attorney General's Office. And then it is my intention as early as possible. And I'll revert later to the committee with timelines to produce the Heads of Bill, to get a government agreement on that, to engage with the Committee for Health and to legislate to that effect. And that is a priority. And as you'll be aware in terms of free contraception, it's something that has been spoken about for some time. You'll be aware that I've allocated a very significant amount of money to next year's budget to bring this in. And this is historic. This hasn't happened before. We're starting with the age groups we are, Deputy. The advice we have, and it's what we've seen other countries do, is to start with particular age groups. But as you'll be aware, it is my intention that we will phase this for universal access in the coming years, as we increase the budget for it.