Health Minister James Reilly may have intervened inappropriately to restrict the mandate of the recent Government Expert Group on abortion, the Oireachtas Health Committee has been told.

The claim was made by Prof William Binchy of TCD on the second day of the Committee's hearing on the abortion issue. He claimed the indications were that Dr Reilly had sought to direct or influence the expert group to depart from the terms of reference set by the Government.

He claims this intervention led to the likelihood of the Government legislating for abortion on the grounds of suicidal ideation.

He said the recent report of the Expert Group proceeded on the basis that its menu of options for recommendations be restricted only to those compatible with the 'discredited' 1992 Supreme Court decision on abortion where the mother's life is at risk.

Prof Binchy said the Expert Group's report stated that the 'only brief' given to it by the Minister was to deal with the 2010 European Court judgement on our abortion situation 'and to advise the Government on giving effect to existing constitutional provisions'.

He queried when the Minister might have given such a briefing and on whose authority, and why the Minister appeared to narrow the group's mandate.

According to Prof Binchy, this was a narrower mandate than the remit the Government gave the Expert Group,  when it was set up which included: 'taking into account the constitutional, legal, medical and ethical considerations involved in the formulation of public policy' in the area of termination of pregnancy when the mother's life is at risk.

Prof Binchy said if the Minister sought to direct or influence the expert group to depart from terms of reference set for it by the Government, 'that would be a source of serious concern as to the legality of such an intervention'.

He claimed the Expert Group Report indicated that such an intervention was made by the Minister and it restricted its options. "The Minister has been silent on the matter. I would respectfully encourage the Committee to find answers to this highly disturbing mystery."

Prof Binchy said this issue was significant, because if the Expert Group's remit had not been restricted to giving effect to Constitutional provisions, it could have addressed the central issue of suicidal ideation and would have been free to come forward with an option or options that brought our law into line with existing practice in Irish hospitals.

He said rather than rushing to introduce legislation giving effect to the 'discredited' X Case decision of 1992, on grounds for termination when the mother's life was at risk, clarification of existing medical practice in this area could be provided through protocols and guidelines.

Prof Binchy said the issue of suicide and termination was completely separate and should be dealt with separately. There should be a full study of available international evidence on this issue and of existing practice among psychiatrists.

He said for the first time since Independence a Government was contemplating introducing legislation allowing the taking of the innocent lives of human beings.

Prof Binchy added that currently during pregnancy, mothers and children received the best of care in Irish hospitals, with doctors doing their utmost to protect women's lives, even where this resulted in the unintended loss of life of their unborn child.

He claimed this reality would be altered by introducing an abortion regime into our hospitals, which would change existing medical practice, most obviously in the context of suicidal ideation.

"In these cases, obstetricians would be called on to engage in procedures resulting in the death of a child where there is no obstetric justification."

Prof Binchy said the European Court of Human Rights does not require the Irish Government to give legislative substance to the 1992 Supreme Court ruling that it is lawful to take the life of an unborn child on the grounds of suicidal ideation.

"What it requires is something quite different - that or law on medical care during pregnancy be transparent and that there be a possibility of review or appeal from medical decisions."

Former Supreme Court judge, Catherine McGuinness told the Committee the Supreme Court’s X case judgment could only be altered by another constitutional referendum.