THE VINCENT BROWNE INTERVIEW/Micheál Martin: Minister for Health has further enhanced his reputation and is a prime candidate to one day lead Fianna Fail
• Micheál Martin is probably the success of the 1997-2002 Government. He left the Department of Education nearly three years ago with a glowing reputation for what his predecessor in the Department of Health and Children, Mr Brian Cowen, described as "Angola".
In over two years in "Angola" he has managed to avoid most of the landmines and, if anything, further enhanced his reputation in the most difficult of Departments.
Perhaps surprisingly, as he reveals in this interview, he wants to remain in Health if Fianna Fáil is returned to office in the general election.
There is no doubt that he will be returned to the Dáil at the head of the poll in the Cork South Central constituency. There has been no more popular politician in Cork since Jack Lynch to whom he is regularly compared. If he is permitted by the electorate and the Taoiseach to remain in Health, and if he carries through on the promise of the Health Strategy, which he launched belatedly towards the end of last year, he will be the prime candidate to take over the Fianna Fáil leadership from Mr Bertie Ahern when he goes or is forced to go (an unlikely prospect now but one never knows).
He is aged 41, has been in the Dáil since 1989 and before going into politics was a secondary teacher and a shop steward for ASTI.
When asked in a recent radio interview what opposition politician he most admired he nominated Mr Richard Bruton, who as Fine Gael spokesman on Education "marked" him when he was Minister for Education.
Perhaps ironically, the handling of abortion referendums has become the responsibility of the Minister for Health and he has been the Minister to sponsor the current constitutional amendment.
VB: How do the proposals now on offer (the Constitutional Amendment and the accompanying Bill) in any way legitimise the availability or use of the morning-after-pill?
MM: At present, the criminal law on abortion is the Offences Against The Person Act of 1861. Our proposals repeal that legislation in Ireland and it ensures that in the new criminal law on abortion that there would be no question of criminal sanction for the use or administration of the morning-after pill.
VB: But the issue is whether under the present constitutional regime, which will be unchanged by the new proposals in this respect, whether under this regime, the sale and the use of the morning-after-pill is legal?
MM: The Irish Medicines Board did actually seek Senior Counsel opinion on the usage of the morning-after-pill in the present circumstances and were advised that they could license the morning-after-pill in present circumstances.
VB: Even though the present Article 43.3 protects the life of the unborn with no reference to implantation, just unborn meaning from the time of contraception?
MM: Our legal advisers advise us that the constitutional position of the morning-after-pill is not open to doubt - that it is compatible with Article 43.3.
VB: The reality is that most legal opinion holds that the morning-after-pill would not be legal under present circumstances and will remain illegal if the changes you propose are ratified?
MM: Yes, but the Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy Bill clearly defines the law on abortion particularly in terms of the defining of abortion as that which takes place after implantation. Our legal advice is that that is a significant strength in this contention. I would acknowledge that anything is open to legal challenge, but that's our advice.
VB: If at a future stage the Supreme Court were to find that the availability and use of the morning-after-pill were in conflict with constitutional protection of the right to life of the unborn, would you personally be in favour of a further constitutional change protecting the use and availability of the morning-after-pill?
MM: Yes, I believe the morning-after-pill is not an abortifacient and I would also be in favour of a legal framework that would facilitate its availability.
VB: Why should a woman who has been violently raped and is suicidal at the prospect of bringing the child of a rapist to full term, why should such a woman be denied an abortion?
MM: Well, the issue there is, first, the advice we have and we've looked at a variety of submissions that were made by psychiatrists in particular to the Oireachtas Committee and clearly the advice does not suggest that abortion is the first or indeed is the treatment that is offered to a person who is suicidal.
VB: Is it entirely improbable that a woman who has been violently raped would be suicidal at the prospect of bringing a child of a rapist to full term?
MM: Well, I think it would obviously, in that situation it would be a devastating event for the woman concerned, there's no question about that. But there has been no unequivocal evidence or evidence produced to the effect that an abortion would actually help the situation.
VB: How about the X case?
MM: In the X case, I am not aware of psychiatric advice made available for the X case.
VB: There was psychological advice made available. It said that the girl was suicidal as a consequence of her pregnancy.
MM: I think abortion is not the solution to that problem. The advice that was very eloquently articulated at the Oireachtas Committee was to the effect that suicidal tendencies are invariably multifactorial.
VB: Do you think the Supreme Court judges were wrong in the X case?
MM: No, I'm just talking in terms of legislating for this and in terms of creating a constitutional framework, you have to look at the broader issue and the issue, the suicide one, is one of the major issues here in terms of our consideration of the proposals.
Clearly, I think we have to take on board the fact that suicidal tendencies are generally multifactorial, there is never one single cause. I spoke psychiatrists myself in relation to that issue and that the treatment is to treat the various factors that give rise to the conditions of suicidal tendencies generally and that you would not offer abortion as a "treatment" because it could exacerbate the situation further. In addition to that, the problem with the suicide issue is that if you begin to legislate for suicide, in effect, would be bringing in a fairly liberal abortion regime. That issue hasn't been addressed to date. The other side of the coin that has to be addressed is how would you actually legislate for a suicide exception. No political party has put forward the detailed legislation that would be required to give effect to that. I think that's a major failing on the pro-choice side, particularly on the political parties who are opposing the amendment.
VB: Do you think the X case was bogus?
MM: I don't. No. No I don't think the X case was bogus at all.
VB: Then why are you proposing an arrangement which would have denied the girl in the X case an abortion?
MM: We don't think suicide is grounds for an abortion. If it is your objective that you don't want a liberalised abortion regime in the country, if that is your objective, then you don't facilitate the use of suicide as a grounds for abortion.
VB: Do you think the C case was bogus (the case of a pregnant young Traveller girl who was suicidal - in this case Mr Justice Geoghan in the High Court said it was permissible for public funds to be used to assist this girl travel to England to obtain an abortion since, in such circumstances, abortion would be legal here)?
MM: I don't think it was bogus and we have provided circumstances such as those in the C case in the Bill we have proposed.
VB: How?
MM: Well in Section 4 to sub-section 2 it is stated that this Act does not operate to restrict any persons travelling to another state on the grounds that his or her intended conduct there would, if it occurred. in this State, would constitute an offence under Section 2.
VB: But wouldn't what you propose prevent a health board from using public monies to assist a person going aboard to have an abortion?
MM: How?
VB: Because the judge in the C case said that the health board could assist this girl to go abroad to have a procedure because it was legal here, legal here because of the X case on suicide. But if your proposal is ratified, then the procedure will not be legal here and, by inference, health boards would not be permitted to assist.
MM: No.
VB: That's what he said.
MM: That's what he said but in terms of his decision, the advice we have from the Attorney General is very, very strong on this and I think he would be particularly well aware of that case that Section 42 was specifically put in, specifically put in to provide for that potentiality.
VB: There is substantial legal opinion that says he is wrong.
MM: How he is he wrong? Section 4.2 says that you can travel to England for a purpose which may be even illegal in this country . The health board would be acting only in the context of loco parentis if the child was in the care of the health board and there is nothing in that sub-section that would restrict the health board in so doing.
VB: In 1992, Fianna Fáil said that if the electorate rejected the substantive amendment, that which sought to close the so called "suicide loophole", what is now known as the "suicide loophole", Fianna Fáil would propose no more constitutional change but would legislate it instead. Why didn't the party do that?
MM: Well, I think at the time in the aftermath of that particular referendum, I think the people reflected, or the party reflected on that and didn't proceed with that. I don't think there was a majority view in favour of legislating for suicide. But what is clear is that from '97 onwards, the Taoiseach had given a commitment on a further amendment.
VB: In the event of this proposal being defeated, what will Fianna Fáil do then?
MM: I think we will reflect on it. It is a matter ultimately for the people to decide. You are then looking at a more liberal abortion regime. It's not something that I would be in favour of in terms of legislating, I think we would have to reflect on that carefully and I think that if the people decide one way or the other on this, we will reflect on the decision of the people and then we will see how we'll go forward.
VB: How would it lead to a more liberal abortion regime unless you are in a position of believing that women are going to lie, pretend they are suicidal when in fact they are not?
MM: It's not a question of women telling lies or anything like that, it's a question of over time that becomes the vehicle or the mechanism through which a more liberalised abortion regime is introduced.
VB: In the event of Fianna Fáil being returned to power would it be your personal preference, and I know appointment to the Cabinet is the prerogative of the Taoiseach, but would it be your personal preference to be re-appointed to the Department of Health?
MM: Yes. I've put that to the Taoiseach, although it's a matter for the Taoiseach ultimately to decide in the aftermath of the election. But I've been two-and-a-half-years in the Department of Health and Children . It takes longer to get things off the ground in Health than in other Departments. I've just formulated a new health strategy for the next 10 years and I would like to be overseeing the early implementation of that.
VB: Brian Cowen once famously described the Department of Health as "Angola" because of the number of land-mines that were around, have you found it to be so?
MM: There have been times when Brian Cowen's phrases come back to haunt me. I remember my former adviser, the late Gobnait O'Connell came in one afternoon, we were only about six months in the office and about six crises had emerged and I just looked at her and she looked at me and she said "well, he did say it was Angola".
"But the danger in Health is that you can end up fire-fighting all the time. That's one of the big problems with the whole area and that's why we arranged to go down the strategy route because we could spend all our time putting out fires, here, there and everywhere.