Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister for Health, Deputy Donnelly, is very welcome.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 1, 4 and 10 to 15, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 15, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:

“(iv) anyone who wishes to avail of the AHR, any surrogacy services or wishes to be a commissioning parent shall be required to meet all of the same requirements and standards as a person wishing to adopt a child;”.

These amendments outline specific regulations and penalties relating to surrogacy services and the abandonment of children conceived through surrogacy. They emphasise the importance of protecting the rights and well-being of children born through surrogacy arrangements and of imposing consequences on individuals who abandon such children.

The references to the Oviedo Convention, an international treaty aimed at protecting human rights in the field of biomedicine, underscore the commitment to upholding ethical principles and safeguarding surrogacy practices. By aligning with the standards set forth in the convention, the amendments aim to ensure that surrogacy services are provided in a manner that respects the rights and dignity of all parties, particularly the children conceived through such arrangements.

The amendment imposing penalties on individuals who abandon children after availing of surrogacy services will serve as a deterrent against negligent and irresponsible behaviour that could harm the child or the birth mother's well-being. By prohibiting such individuals from offering surrogacy services again, the legislation seeks to prevent further occurrences of child abandonment and to hold accountable those who fail to fulfil their responsibilities as parents.

The delineation of fines and imprisonment for offenders reflects the seriousness of child abandonment in the context of surrogacy and underscores the legal consequences faced by individuals who violate these regulations. By offering summary conviction and conviction on indictment options for penalties, the amendments provide a range of consequences based on the severity of the offences and aim to deter individuals from engaging in actions that could harm children born through surrogacy.

The amendments underscore the legislative commitment to protecting the rights of children born through surrogacy, preventing child abandonment and holding accountable individuals who neglect their parental responsibility in the context of surrogacy arrangements. By combining legal penalties with ethical standards rooted in international instruments such as the Oviedo Convention, the amendments seek to create a framework upholding the well-being and integrity of children conceived through surrogacy services.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senators for submitting this group of amendments. On amendment No. 1, I do not agree with the premise that an adoption application involving a child not genetically related is exactly the same as a surrogacy application involving a potential child who will be genetically related to at least one of the intending parents or possibly both of them. I am satisfied that we have the balance right as regards the safeguards in place and the requirements to be met by intending parents as part of the dual approval system for domestic surrogacy in order to best protect the rights and welfare of all parties involved.

Amendment No. 4 would duplicate in section 16 the requirement already contained in section 17 in relation to assisted human reproduction, AHR, treatment not being provided unless the provider is satisfied there is no significant risk of harm or neglect to the child.

In the context of amendment No.10, section 59(2) makes clear that a surrogate mother has the same rights as any other woman in respect of her pregnancy. These include the right to manage all aspects of her health during the pregnancy. It is not considered necessary to specifically refer to termination of pregnancy here, while the stipulation in section 26 that any woman shall, as standard practice, only be offered a single embryo transfer also applies to surrogacy cases.

On Amendment No. 11, the intending parents must have received appropriate counselling and legal advice prior to applying for approval of a surrogacy agreement. In addition, section 56(4) provides for the intending parents to give an undertaking that they shall take all necessary steps to provide care and ensure the welfare of any child born as a result of the agreement, and also that they will apply to the courts for a parental order in respect of that child.

Amendment No. 12 seeks to ban single men from accessing surrogacy. This would be unacceptably discriminatory. It is important to note that a single male applicant would have to be genetically related to the child and have to satisfy the regulatory authority that they met all the criteria before their application were approved.

Amendment No. 13 makes an interesting proposal in respect of life assurance. We have looked at issues relating to life assurance and health insurance in the context of surrogacy. However, it was deemed to be too prescriptive to include such a requirement in primary legislation. Obviously, it is open to intending parents and the surrogate mother to agree between themselves to make arrangements in these kinds of areas.

As regards guardianship of children born through surrogacy, section 7 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 provides that a parent may appoint a guardian to be a guardian of the child in the event of that parent’s death. Such a guardian is a guardian appointed by a person in his or her will. In circumstances where a child has no guardian, it is possible for the District Court under section 8 of the 1964 Act to appoint one. While it would be preferable for any parent of a child to appoint a guardian, the existing legislation does not require parents to do so. I do not propose to impose a requirement on parents of children born through surrogacy in relation to guardianship that is not required of people who become parents in other ways.

Amendment No. 14 proposes that only countries listed by the OECD and the DAC can be considered for classification as approved surrogacy jurisdictions. However, as the relevant section, section 52, relates solely to domestic surrogacy, it would not make sense to insert this amendment where it is proposed.

On the final amendment in the group, amendment No. 15, I believe that the offences provision in the Bill in relation to surrogacy and the requirement for intending parents to get preconception approval from the regulatory authority adequately deal with the concerns raised here. In particular, it is envisaged that any issues relating to previous offences against children or women would be discovered through the safety of the child assessment. As such, I am not in a position to accept the amendments.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am disappointed that the Minister will not accept amendment No. 15. I have been a foster parent over the years and I can tell him that sexual crimes against children are not exclusive to men; they also applies in the case of women. It is disturbing that he will not accept that, particularly in the context of someone who has been convicted of a crime against a child.

If the Minister is trying to maintain public trust and confidence in surrogacy services, adherence to strict regulations and standards that prioritise child protection and safety will be required. Implementing restrictions on individuals convicted of child sexual offences demonstrates a commitment to upholding principles of promoting transparency in surrogacy practices. Children born through surrogacy are among the most vulnerable. Prohibiting individuals convicted of sexual offences from participating in surrogacy helps protect these children from harm or exploitation; allowing individuals with a history of sexual abuse to participate in surrogacy increases the risk of abuse or harm to such children. This restriction serves as a preventative measure to reduce the likelihood of such risks and provide for the safety and well-being of the child.

Upholding ethical standards and legal regulations in surrogacy is essential to ensuring the integrity of the process and protecting the rights of all parties. That includes the child. Prohibiting individuals convicted of sexual offences aligns with these standards and reinforces whatever ethical principles are there. Surely there must be some ethical principles relating to surrogacy. Surrogacy should prioritise the best interests of the child and ensure a safe and nurturing environment for their upbringing. Excluding individuals with a history of child sexual offences from participating in surrogacy reflects a commitment to safeguarding child welfare and promoting a supportive and healthy family environment. It is a crucial safeguard to protect the interests and well-being of children born through surrogacy. By prioritising the child's safety and the legal and ethical standards, the restriction helps uphold the integrity of surrogacy arrangements and ensures a supportive and secure environment for the child's upbringing.I am disappointed the Minister would not accept this amendment, or that some safeguarding is not there, in that it would preclude people who may have been involved in and may have committed a sexual offence against a child from this legislation. To tell the truth, I am very disappointed.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to make some general points. Amendment No. 10 amends page 57, between lines 36 and 37. I just want to get it because it relates to what I want to say. The amendment would provide that “The surrogate mother only should be allowed decide on any reduction of embryos and must not be obliged by the commissioning adults or their agents to undergo an abortion.” The Minister ran through his responses to various amendments. I would be grateful if he would detail to the House again his rationale for not accepting that amendment before I go on.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank both Senators. As I said in my initial remarks, the concerns Senator Keogan very reasonably raised are already covered. It is not the case that there are no safeguards in place and that this would be inserting a safeguard at the last minute. There are, as I am sure she would support, numerous safeguards that would pick up not just on the offence she listed but much more broadly. She stipulated a single offence, which is a heinous crime. Nobody who has committed sexual assault or any sexual crime against a child should be considered an intending parent. There are numerous safeguards in place for exactly that. There is a concern that if we begin stipulating specific ones - heinous ones like the Senator mentioned – an argument could be made that the applicant may be guilty of other things that are not listed but then the courts may not have the discretion. I take the points the Senator raised very seriously. I assure her, anyone who is watching these proceedings and colleagues in the Seanad that there are layers of safeguards in place to pick up on exactly these things. The Senator has gone to some of the most serious and heinous crimes a human being could commit. The regulatory authority and the courts will have discretion on that and much more.

I assure the Senator we have built many safeguards into the legislation. In fact, the entire Bill is framed around protecting, in the first instance, the child and the surrogate, and then the intending parents as well. It is framed around the child. The child comes front and centre in all of this. There are numerous protections in place for the surrogate as well to make sure that domestic and international surrogacy is done in the right way, that there is not coercion involved and there are not some of the concerns, which people have very reasonable raised, involved. I take the Senator’s points very seriously. I assure her there are layers of protections in place that would identify that as well as a great many other considerations.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understood that the Minister was going to answer the question that I asked at this point. Will the Minister answer the question I asked, which relates to a different amendment? If he does not mind, will he give us his rationale for not accepting amendment No. 10, which is for discussion at this stage? I realise it is difficult because there are many amendments. I just want to be able to think as I go along. This is the amendment that would insert that "The surrogate mother only should be allowed decide on any reduction of embryos and must not be obliged by the commissioning adults or their agents to undergo an abortion", just for the avoidance of doubt. Would the Minister address his rationale for opposing that amendment please?

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As previously stated, the Bill makes it clear that the surrogate mother has the same rights as any other woman has during her pregnancy.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I feel that because we are in this brave new world, which I and many other people oppose, which involves, frankly, a commodification of children, as many people see it, and a deprivation of the rights of women. I realise we are talking in the context of domestic surrogacy but some of the same principles apply to the dangerous area of international surrogacy.

It is important, and we had a discussion about this to some degree last week. My friend and colleague, Senator McDowell, disagrees with me on aspects of the objection that I and many others have to this Bill. One of the phenomena of modern times, in many ways, is the contradictions in people’s thoughts that the human embryo is considered something that can be disposed of, created in surplus, experimented on, stored and eventually destroyed. The strange thing is that if one looks at various international bodies and so on, it is nonetheless still the case that there is much talk about the respect due to human embryos, and this is frequently stated. There is much concern around practices that are seen as contrary to human dignity, such as, for example, reproductive cloning of human beings, though I know that is not to be permitted under this Bill. This is, if you like, a strange contradiction because, at one level, there is frequently recourse to language that talks about the respect due for human embryos while, at the same time, the practices envisaged and permitted under law treat the human embryo as having no respect.

I listened to my colleague and friend, Senator McDowell, last week when he suggested that my concern about the respect and protection due to human embryos was rooted in philosophical or, he added, perhaps religious reasons. I wish to make it very clear that there is a common misunderstanding that goes along the lines that if religious bodies have concerns about something, those concerns can only be understood in religious terms. It is fatuous to suggest that because an acorn is different from an oak tree, an embryo is different from a human being. If you crush an acorn, you crush an oak tree. If you destroy a human embryo, you destroy a human being at his or her various earliest stages of life, where you have the full new individuality of a human person or persons. Of course, that embryo may lead to numerous persons being born if not destroyed. Therefore, the respect due to human embryos is a scientific and evidence-based position. Whether that is bolstered by religious thought or feeling about the sacredness of human life generally, which informs people’s opposition to all sorts of evils, such as human trafficking and all sorts of other things, in a sense is beside the point.

That is the reason these amendments need to be considered as important. Embryo reduction is a serious matter. It is a destruction of a human life at its earlier stage.

I will move on to ask about amendment No. 12. This is the amendment that proposes to make clear that “No single man shall be allowed to undertake surrogacy.” If I am not mistaken, the Minister’s reason for opposing this is he regards it as it as unacceptably discriminatory. I think this takes us, to some degree, into territory that we do not often discuss in these Houses but which certainly came up in the context of the recent referendum, which involved the proposed removal of the term “mother” from the Irish Constitution in the context of the recognition of the role of mothers in the home. I think it is well regarded now that that got up many people’s noses and that was no small part of people’s rejection of that referendum proposal. One of my criticisms of the legislation is that there has been little to no public consultation on what people think about many of its proposals. If we ask people whether they believe that, as far as is possible, a child should be brought up by a father and mother and, as far as is possible, by the child's own father and mother, I believe most would say "Yes." There is a widespread recognition, notwithstanding the heroism of many single parents and the support that is certainly due to them from the State, that we should, as a social principle, encourage the bringing up of children by their fathers and mothers. Of course, there are many life circumstances which may intervene to prevent that. Marriages break up and people die. There are all sorts of tragedies that may deprive a child of the opportunity to be brought up by his or her father and mother. However, there is a difference between that happening unavoidably and it being brought about intentionally. It is at the core of many people's concerns about surrogacy that it is proposed to deprive a child, up front and in advance, of the society and responsibility due to that child from one of his or her genetic parents, not to mention the sundering of the child from the woman who has nurtured him or her for nine months before giving birth. There is major concern about that.

I do not accept the principle of surrogacy anyway and I certainly do not accept the principle that the State should smile on and regard as completely immaterial whether a child is brought into the world by one parent or two. However, there is another aspect to consider in this regard. If we were to ask people whether they would prefer that a child be brought into the world by a single commissioning mother who, for whatever reason, is bringing that child into the world using donor sperm, or by a single commissioning father, there would be much more opposition to the latter. In the public mind, there is something special about the role of mothers in particular. I am the first to stress that we need to talk much more in this society about the role of fathers in their children's lives and the consequences to children when they do not have fathers in their lives. We have been afraid to talk about that in the way we need to talk about it. However, there would be a much greater sense of opposition to an intention that a child would never have a mother in his or her life than to an intention of that child never having a father. There is something profoundly offensive in a child being deprived of his or her mother.

Talk about equality and discrimination just does not cut it when we consider the realities of what is due to a child. This is recognised in all sorts of indirect ways, including, for example, in our family law in the context of custody. There is a reason custody is generally accorded to the mother. There are injustices done to fathers in family courts but there is a reason courts generally accord custody to the mother. The sterile language of non-discrimination claims to some kind of virtue but is, in fact, the opposite. It is the denial of what most people would regard as common sense.

There should be a public debate on whether it is unacceptable discrimination to say it is better to contemplate a child being brought into the world by a single mother than by a single father, both of which are permitted and enabled by this legislation. We should have a real public discussion about that. I will not use the word "criminal" but one of the absolutely disgraceful things about this legislation is the lack of public consultation. I do not say there has been a lack of careful preparation. It is clear that an awful lot of work has gone into the preparation of the Bill, but all by people who want to get it over the line and shield it from as many objections as possible. As a consequence, we have the provision that only gestational surrogacy will be permitted and there will be at least one genetic parent among those who commission surrogacy. I get all of that. These provisions are slight improvements on what is a bad situation.

The idea has been articulated that it is unacceptably discriminatory to say a single man shall not be allowed to undertake surrogacy because the Bill would otherwise allow a single woman to do so. That shows the real weakness of the Bill. It is not thinking in terms of children's welfare at all. I have given out previously in this House about the Ombudsman for Children. I restate my objections to that office in regard to this legislation. While it has commented on it, made recommendations and, indeed, made certain propositions with which I would agree, such as the idea that, where it happens, a child has a right to a relationship with those who bring that child into existence through a surrogacy arrangement, the ombudsman has been criminally negligent by not objecting to surrogacy in the first place and not proposing strategies to prevent it from happening. It is yet another failure that the ombudsman is not even interested in vindicating the idea that a child should have a mother in his or her life. Frankly, how any of those who sit in this room with me can just smile on that situation beats me. If we put that question to a referendum, people would vote 80-20 against enabling arrangements that would deliberately deprive a child of ever having a mother in his or her life.

That leads to another question, which I hope the Minister will answer. I have not addressed it in amendments on Committee Stage but I hope to do so on Report Stage. Under the provisions of the Gender Recognition Act, a male person may have their preferred gender established as female. My question concerns a person who, having availed of the provisions of that Act to have a preferred gender of female, then decides to engage in a surrogacy arrangement. The person supplies their male gamete, which they are still capable of producing, thereby meeting the requirement that one of the intended parents have a genetic link to the child, secures a donated egg, obviously from a party other than the surrogate mother because only gestational surrogacy is permitted, and then engages the service of a surrogate. A pregnancy happens, a parental order is sought and the matter goes to the registrar for registration. As we know, civil registration allows for designation as parents but the words "mother" and "father" are still used.

I am asking a direct question regarding this scenario and I would appreciate a direct answer from the Minister because it will inform whether and how I table an amendment. Would a person who has availed of the Gender Recognition Act to have their preferred gender be female, having supplied a male gamete and engaged in a surrogacy arrangement, be able to present themselves to the world, to all intents and purposes, as the mother of that child, having secured a parental order, and would they be registered by an clárathoir as the mother of the child? I would be grateful for an answer to that question.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I seek the Acting Chairperson's guidance. The question Senator Mullen has raised is not covered in the amendments we are currently discussing but it is covered in the group comprising amendments Nos. 21, 26 and 33, which we will discuss later. Should we wait to discuss the Senator's question until we reach the amendments relevant to it?

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Senator Mullen consider his question relevant to the amendments we are currently discussing or is he happy to wait until we reach the later amendments?

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I consider it relevant but I am happy to wait. It is a reasonable question and it deserves a careful answer. I suppose I consider it relevant because I am talking about amendment No. 12, which states: “No single man shall be allowed to undertake surrogacy.” I am talking about a situation where a single man, a biological male at least, but who may have availed of the 2015 legislation to have their preferred gender as female, would thereby be enabled as a single man. We are talking about them undertaking surrogacy in that situation, although they may present to the world and have their preferred gender recognised as female. It is connected but I am equally happy to wait.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the Minister wishes to address it now, that is fine, although he has the option of waiting until later.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am happy to do it now. I am speaking to amendment No. 21 but I accept the point that it is related to the current amendments. Amendment No. 21 from Senators Mullen and Keogan would essentially mean the mother identified on the parenting order is not the genetic mother of the child and the father identified on the parenting order is not the genetic father of the child. My interpretation of where the Senators are going with this is to preclude any transgender person from availing of surrogacy, and that appears to be the intention. I guess Senator Mullen is directly asking that question. The very clear answer is “Yes”. Somebody who is transgender will have full rights to avail of surrogacy, as will anybody else.

I disagree entirely with the proposition that, as a society, we should say that a woman on her own can raise a child but a man on his own cannot raise a child. I fundamentally disagree. For me, it is an extraordinarily offensive proposition. There are men all over Ireland raising children on their own, be it through separation, divorce or bereavement, and they are exceptional fathers and exceptional men. I would find it extraordinary that we would say that men cannot raise children, or we should not entertain at the start of a family the idea that a man should not be allowed to have a child, but that a woman can and, of course, women do. I would fundamentally disagree with that proposition.

It is an interesting one. The Senator talked about women's rights and being a defender of women's rights at one point in his contribution. I disagree with that characterisation of his involvement in this. We have had debates on this and on safe access, and my observation is that the Senator works very hard and diligently to deprive women of their rights, particularly around fertility. Maybe he believes he is here defending women's rights. I certainly do not see it, I have to say.

When it comes to a single man who wants to have a child or children, surrogacy may be the only option available to him, and we are accepting that for a woman on her own. The Senator is pro-life. Surrogacy creates more life. It creates more children, more families and more mums and dads. I would have thought that people who are pro-family and pro-life, and indeed we are all pro-family and-----

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not all pro-life.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I guess it depends on one's definition. I have rarely met anyone who is anti-life. Surrogacy creates more children, children who otherwise would not exist. It creates more mums and dads and creates more wonderful families - that is what it does.

While I have taken great exception to the Senator’s characterisation of the pro-life debate, I respect everyone's view on termination of pregnancy across the spectrum. I disagree strongly with the Senator on his characterisation of it but I fully respect everybody's position on that. I would have thought people who are vehemently opposed to termination of pregnancy, which is a position I do not share but I respect, would be in favour of more children, more life and more mums, more dads and more families. I would have thought that.

I appreciate there is an ideological position and I appreciate there are some religious institutions that have taken a very public view, and that is fine. Certainly, on the Senator’s direct questions, a transgender man or woman under this Bill will have the same rights as everybody else. Can a man raise children in a wonderful, caring and loving way? Yes, he can, and yes, they do, all the time, all over our country.

With surrogacy, there are safeguards that we have to put in place and that is what this Bill spends a lot of time doing. However, what an extraordinary and wonderful thing it is for one parent or two parents who have tried to conceive naturally and have not been able to. Maybe they have tried assisted human reproduction or gone through IVF and they will have practically bankrupted themselves just trying to have a child. They will have potentially gone through rounds of IVF, which is so difficult for them; it is so hard for people going through IVF. Having done all of that, they might still not have had a child. What an extraordinary gift surrogacy can be so that these incredible women and men can be incredible parents and raise the most wonderful, beautiful children. I hope that answers the questions.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It does, but I would like to respond. I thank the Minister for his response. There are a number of charges in what he said. I am not going to take personally anything the Minister said but he introduced a note of moral judgmentalism vis-à-vis other people in his comments. I will not up the ante other than to say that I think the Minister’s moral and political vision, as exemplified by his conduct of his public role, is very stunted indeed. I regard his approach to this issue as cynical. The Minister relies excessively on emotional argument. He seeks to demonise his critics. I seek not to demonise the Minister, for sure, but I certainly utterly condemn the way he has gone about this issue and his lack of consultation. There are many things I could take issue with. For example, the Minister talks about “ideological” and “religious”, which is a kind of sneering way to describe an attitude-----

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You used those words.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not sneer. To be clear, I am not sneering, not at all.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Senator to keep it relevant.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I just want to address what the Minister has said, if I may. I think it is a rather sneering attitude to a position that is more correctly described as philosophical. We all have our philosophical views. Where I differ from the Minister and where he differs from me is that I believe that human life begins at conception. I believe that is a very scientific and evidentially respectable position because at that point, you have 46 chromosomes, you have new human individuality and you have momentum towards life.

The Minister accepts that one can sincerely hold that principle and he said he respects that view, but I will prove to him that he does not because he refused at all points to meet with a single pro-life organisation in previous times. He has consulted only those who believe that life is dispensable. It is quite hypocritical of the Minister to say that he respects everyone's views because he does not. He has refused to listen to or engage with reasonable people who have wanted to engage with him on various legislation on various issues. He has actually shown nothing but contempt for the alternative view. The Minister tells an untruth, demonstrably.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could we deal with the amendments?

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will.I am only responding to what was said, and I intend to do so respectfully. I have exposed, first of all, that the Minister's words are not borne out by reality. He has not shown respect for alternative views. He then went on to say that the position underlying the amendments here suggests that although I believe a woman on her own can raise a child, I do not believe a man on his own can do so. Of course, that is not what I believe and it is certainly not what Senator Keogan believes. It is not what the people who oppose surrogacy believe either. It is not what many people who have concerns about some of these legislative initiatives believe. In fact, if the Minister were listening to me, I talked about how heroic single parents can be and how they often deserve a much greater level of support than those in other situations and a much greater level of support than they get. However, it is neither today nor yesterday that Governments here decided that there is going to be no hierarchy in terms of the social vision of families. Those were words used by a former Minister, Frances Fitzgerald, during a debate on the children and family relationships legislation. If we say there is no hierarchy then we are saying that we may never express a social preference for an idea that most people would consider core and reasonable, namely, that as far as possible, a child should be brought into the world and raised by a father and mother, and as far as possible, by their own father and mother. The Minister disagrees with that proposition, but most people disagree with him about that. It is common sense, which, as many people have said, is not that common anymore. To say that it is more desirable that a child would be brought into the world by a father and mother and by their own father and mother is to do no more than to observe what is natural in our human condition.

Of course, there are situations where life circumstances make that impossible. We do not shun or stigmatise people in that situation; we rally round and we give them even more support but we do not abandon our social vision. If asked what they want for their child, would most parents like their child to bring another child into the world on their own or would they like them to be in a stable, long-term, loving relationship where children are valued? Anybody with a titter of wit would say that the latter situation is the one to aspire to and hope for. The reason that makes sense is because in this legislation we are not talking about what unavoidably happens. What unavoidably happens, tragically, for some, is infertility. That I get. What is unavoidable for single people is that they cannot bring children into the world on their own. That I get. What is unavoidable for a same-sex couple is that they cannot bring a child into the world on their own. That I get. What is inevitable is that this will be a cause of sorrow and sadness for them. That I get, and I sympathise. However, my position is that if we take children's rights and welfare seriously, we do not put the aspiration of adults in as the priority but, rather, we operate for what is in the best interests of children. We should not intend and foresee the children being deprived of things that are considered fundamental, normal and good, like the society of a mother in their lives. That is basic. The society of their birth mother who brings them into the world is basic. The society and responsibility of both of their genetic parents is basic. It may not seem basic because we have travelled a road where, through many years and many different pieces of legislation, we have been giving adults what they want. We give adults what they want partly because politicians are weak and unprincipled and susceptible to NGOs and lobby groups that can talk about their own pain. Their own pain deserves sympathy and a response. We have a compliant media that refuses to ask the hard questions of all sides and which refuses to say who will be the unwilling victims of these arrangements, if we make them. An example would be the surrogate mother who is exploited internationally in her poverty to advantage people who have resources. That is the unprincipled political outcome. It is the perfect storm of unprincipled politicians, a compliant media and highly vocal advocacy groups. The reality of their pain and suffering should never be dismissed; it should be acknowledged and sympathised with. However, there is also the issue of the invisibility of those who lose out as a result of the arrangements that are proposed. The woman in Ukraine is invisible. That is why we are not saying, contrary to what the Minister said, that a man on his own cannot raise a child. Many men do, and heroically so. The issue is, should we set out to deprive a child of ever having a mother in his or her life? That is profoundly wrong and unjust. It proceeds from a stunted, perverted vision of human rights that ignores the rights of children.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Mullen, please keep your contribution relevant to the amendments being discussed.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am being very relevant.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not sure you are.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am talking about amendment No. 12 and why it matters, if that is of any help. When the Minister disputes my assertion that I am concerned for women's rights as part of this equation, his basis for saying so is that I disagree with abortion. However, I actually disagree with abortion partly because it hurts many women and, of course, many unborn children are killed. That is the Minister's only basis for his suggestion in respect of my credentials on women. Thankfully, I do not depend on the Minister's good opinion. The Minister is the one dishonouring women’s rights in this legislation when he enables the victimisation of impoverished women in poorer countries through the provision of international surrogacy.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator has gone off the amendments again.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am coming to the end of my point. I am not here to go on longer than I have to but I will answer in full each charge that has been made. It is the Minister who dishonours women’s rights when, in the legislation, he refuses to acknowledge that a child should never be deprived of a mother. That is exactly what happens here. In surrogacy, children are deprived of their birth mother and where single men or same-sex male couples are allowed to commission a child, the Minister is deliberately depriving a child of ever having a mother in their life. That is a scandal and it will not stand to his good reputation when we or others look back on history.

The final issue the Minister raised was that he is proud to champion the fact that a transgender person may become a parent through surrogacy. I will confine my concerns about that to the issue of where a single transgender person, a male with gender dysphoria who has a preferred gender of female under the 2015 legislation, brings a child into the world using their own sperm and then presents themselves to the world as that child’s mother. What planet are people on if they think that is acceptable? Here again, the Minister is not respecting women’s rights. If he really respected women's rights, he would not allow a situation where a male person is the sole commissioning parent of a child to be born through surrogacy, does so using his own male gamete, and then presents himself as the child’s mother. That is not fair on the child or on the transgender individual, the person with gender dysphoria. Here again, however, the Minister does all this in the name of equality. This is colour by numbers at this stage. The Minister is taking bits of previous legislation that were ill-advised in themselves and we are now coming to the ever more chaotic conclusions of those bits of previous legislation. I cannot persuade the Minister today to see how wrongheaded he is. I can only put on the record that he is no champion of women’s rights with this legislation, if ever he was.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Mullen, please speak to the amendments.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Certainly, the Minister should think again about enabling any kind of surrogacy arrangement, whether involving a transgender person or otherwise, that would intentionally foresee depriving a child of ever having a mother in his or her life. That is wrong.

Fiona O'Loughlin (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to object and to say that I feel amendment No. 12 is completely wrong. It is gendered and discriminatory. While Senator Mullen was speaking about single men not being allowed to undertake surrogacy, he also mentioned gay men in a partnership or marriage. One of my neighbours in County Kildare is Brian Dowling, who is well known. He and his husband Arthur already have a daughter through domestic surrogacy, through Brian's sister Aoife, and they are expecting another baby. Their family, which exudes love, joy and happiness, has all of the different support measures in place. I honestly do not believe that anybody would go down the surrogacy path if they did not have supports in other ways through friends, family and a support network. I object to what the Senator has said. He has spoken about this being a philosophical argument. Cicero, Socrates, Confucius and Buddhism all talk about the importance of parenthood. They all talk about the importance of family. While there can be a philosophical background or support to either side of the argument, we are talking about practicalities and giving practical supports to those who wish to be parents and wish to give love and support to the children who may hopefully come into their lives. I wanted to make that point and speak against amendment No. 12.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Keogan has a point of order.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I find the accusation made by the Senator really unwarranted. Unlike many Members of the Seanad I have had 122 children in my care over the years and many of them were victims of child sexual abuse perpetrated on them not just by somebody male in their family but also by somebody female in their family. That amendment was tabled with only the interest of the child in mind. I have stood many times in this Chamber discussing child protection, Senator Kearney, and you know that-----

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----Senator Seery Kearney and you know that-----

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Through the Chair, please.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and how important that is for me. In fact, if I go back to------

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will Senator Keogan conclude her point of order?

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----who the Senator quoted earlier-----

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will Senator Keogan conclude her point of order?

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----she quoted Professor Conor O'Mahony and he actually-----

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will you conclude your point of order?

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am counteracting what the Senator said.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Keogan can reply to the debate afterwards.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can we hear from Senator Seery Kearney if she wants to continue?

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I listened to every word that Senator Seery Kearney said. I always find her sincere and impressive. I think she is wrong on a number of things she said. She was allowed to speak, quite rightly, without any interruption from the Chair. I insist on the same treatment for myself and for Senator Keogan as well. During my equally long intervention, when I tried to address all the points that had come at me, I was interrupted several times by the Chair. I demand equal respect from the Chair for all sides in this House. I just want to put that on the record quite clearly.

I want to return to something I did not address earlier, which is the Minister's exhortation to those who see themselves as pro-life to see that surrogacy entails the bringing into the world of new life. Once a new life is in being, that life takes precedence and respect for that child takes precedence. That is why pro-life people are opposed to abortion. It is why I agree with the limited contribution of the Ombudsman for Children when he said that once this situation comes into being - namely, the relationship between the child and the parents who have brought the child into being through surrogacy arrangements - under the Convention on the Rights of the Child there has to be a recognition of that right for the sake of the child. My view is that this should be addressed through guardianship and through ancillary legislative or regulatory mechanisms that ensure the child is in no way disadvantaged.

However, I also believe that in order to discourage it from happening prospectively, there should be penalties where people engage in surrogacy arrangements because it is against the interests of future children. This question of where the test of the child's best interests comes into play was commented on by Professor Conor O'Mahony when he talked about the application of the best interests principle and suggested that really it ought to be something that addresses the real-life circumstances of an individual child rather than the hypothetical circumstances of unidentified children. I take that point. That is why I support measures that allow for the recognition of the relationship in being in respect of the intending parents who have brought a child into the world through surrogacy, that being in the child's best interest. I think that best interest can be achieved by recognising the legislation for the individual rights of the children and providing for a position of guardianship. However, I think penalties are needed, as I said, to prevent it from happening in the future.

I think it was Professor Conor O'Mahony who said to the Oireachtas committee - I will say in passing that I pitied anybody who had a dissenting view on that committee - that almost all international surrogacy arrangements have a commercial dimension at play and asked how else one is to identify a surrogate internationally. I do not know whether he is at peace with what the Government has done. I have not consulted him on that point. I would give him credit for having said that much but I stand by my criticism of the children's ombudsman for failing to call out what is going on here. It seems that for the children's ombudsman and so many other children's rights advocates, the child's rights only begin once the adults have got what they want. Heaven protect us if it should ever become the fashion at the embryo screening stage to deprive children to be brought into the world of a limb, or something else that could be achieved with the horrors of modern science. It seems that the best the Office of the Ombudsman for Children could say in that situation is that the children should be enabled to have prosthetic limbs once they are born, but it would have nothing to say about the circumstances in which they are brought into being.

Let us be clear. The child's rights should take precedence from the beginning the child's life happens. It cannot be logical to say that because you are pro-life and you respect all human life, you can never have quibbles with the way a child is brought into being. For God's sake, we all condemn coercion in sexual relationships where that leads a child to be brought into being. The child is innocent of the wrong circumstances in which they were brought into being. What we are saying here is that surrogacy arrangements intentionally deprive the child of certain things that a child should always be considered entitled to. It is suboptimal to bring a child into the world knowing that they will never have mother love. It is suboptimal to bring a child into the world in a way that intentionally deprives them of ever, for example, having access to their mother's breast milk. It is one thing for these things to happen normally and naturally as a result of life circumstances; it is another thing to put your own desire for parenthood ahead of what a child is entitled to expect, whether that child is in being or not.

Anybody who denies that there are real human rights concerns being expressed here is in cloud-cuckoo-land or is in absolute denial. Senator Seery Kearney talks about people's dreams and people dreaming of being parents. I completely sympathise, but in life we do not always get to realise our dreams at the expense of others, and nor should we, but that is what is going on here. People are being enabled to realise their dreams - their very natural human aspirations - but to have them realised in a way that does injustice; first and foremost to the women in the context of international surrogacy who are exploited in their poverty.It is horrendous that any First World, civilised, human-rights-respecting country would allow this. It is not rich women who carry babies for poorer women but rather poorer women in their economic disadvantage who grasp at this opportunity to make money from financially advantaged people. It is shameful we smile on this by regulating it.

It is not about people's dreams, as important as people's dreams are. There is something more important. We cannot put a whiff of incense on all of this by saying we are determined to regulate this in an ethical way when what we are doing is fundamentally unethical. Senator Seery Kearney talked about the preciousness of embryos, and I thought of Alice in Wonderlandand how words mean whatever I describe them to mean. How can she talk about the preciousness of embryos when this very legislation contemplates the screening out, the destruction of and the experimentation on human embryos? To say that at the heart of this is how precious we realise human embryos to be is not the reality of this legislation.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Seery Kearney has raised a very fair and important question. She makes her point eloquently as always. While I disagree with her, we are getting to the important core of this. This was something about which I meant to speak in my response. The Senator said we assume every mother is perfect. She suggested there was an assumption in our amendments that every mother is perfect, etc. She then talked about circumstances in which no one is to blame. Sometimes, there very much is someone to blame when motherhood or fatherhood is imperfect. I do not deny for a minute there can be suboptimal parenting. In fact, one could say, by definition, all human experience is suboptimal because we all fall and fail to be our best selves at times. However, do we then say everything is relative? Do we then say that nothing may be insisted on as essential? That is the big failure here.

It is not just a philosophical view that says children do better when they are brought up by a mother and a father. For example, there are all sorts of social evidence on marriage, educational outcomes, attitudes to law, involvement in criminality and drug taking. A lot of social science points to the advantages children have in certain family situations. We cannot be in denial about reality and what is truthful. Therefore, it is not just the expression of philosophical opinions which may or may not be right. There is an evidence base for a lot of what most people believe is ideal or preferable for children. There is evidence that children do better when they are brought up in two-parent families. There is evidence that fathers' absence from children's lives can be problematic and can be associated with social problems and so forth. Ask any family lawyer or any judge in the children's courts. There is a lot we can say that is true or probably true.

The idea that we can completely relativise maleness and femaleness is at the heart of gender ideology and queer theory, the idea that it does not matter if you are a man or a woman and or male or female; there is no real difference. This idea was at the heart of the recent referendums, as well. There was a clear mission to relativise fatherhood and motherhood and to play down the significance of those concepts, ideas and basic necessities. Nature speaks more loudly than any of these ideological propositions and what nature, backed up by evidence, shows is that it is good for children to be brought up by a father and a mother and, where possible, their own father and mother.

Even if social science did not point to the benefits for children in this regard, there is also the fact that a child has certain rights. Children have a right not to be deliberately deprived of their genetic parent in their lives. They have a right. That is what makes sperm and egg donation so problematic because children are being deliberately brought into the world in a way which intentionally deprives the child of a genetic parent. It is also what makes surrogacy so problematic from the child's perspective in that children are being deprived of the right to know the birth mother who has nurtured them for nine months. Who here is willing to say there is no bonding of any significance between a birth mother and her child during the time in the womb and that they are absolutely certain there are no future traumas involved either for the mother or for the child as a result of that sundry? Who here could take the book or, if you are a secularist, make your affirmation to say it absolutely does not matter? In the field of epigenetics, we know the birth mother and her biology can contribute to certain future realities for the child, even if she is not the genetic parent of the child. Science is telling us so much which I suspect the proponents of this Bill would rather not hear.

No one is claiming a father cannot be a good father if he is bringing up a child on his own or indeed a mother cannot be a good mother if she is bringing up her child alone. However, that does not mean that children should be deliberately deprived in advance of ever having a father in their lives or of ever having a mother in their lives. That is to put adults' aspirations first by relativising the goods of fatherhood and motherhood. It is a selfish thing to propose because it does not put the child's best interests first. It says that at least the child can be glad he or she is alive. I will agree to that. It is better a child is alive than dead, but are we really saying it does not matter in what circumstances or subject to what disadvantages, disability or genetic pre-interventions a child is brought into this world? Is the child just supposed to be glad to be brought into the world? We know that is wrong in the context of non-consensual sexual relationships. We cannot justify the bringing into being of a child in that regard, although we can certainly never justify the killing of the child in that context either.

The contradictions are all on the side of the proponents of this Bill because they do not have a record in defending the child's best interests from the moment they are conceived. Our position is to defend a child's best interest right from the get-go of their lives and to say that even before a child is brought into being, they should not be intentionally disadvantaged in the way we have described. Of course, we have pointed to the abuses of women which are intrinsic to the whole process, particularly in the context of international surrogacy.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister wish to speak to that?

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I am fine.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are you pressing the amendment, Senator Mullen?

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will not press it at this point.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You are not pressing it. Are you withdrawing it?

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As it was discussed, regarding amendment No. 21, the Minister-----

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 21 is not part of this grouping of amendments.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, but the Minister spoke to it and I just want to say-----

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator will have an opportunity later on.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I only want to say one thing, which is that it is incorrectly drafted and is in error, and it will be brought forward in a more correct form on Report Stage.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 2 is in the names of Senators Mullen and Keogan. Are either of them moving it?

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is withdrawn.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not moved then.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, was it moved? May I ask the assistance of the secretariat, through the Chair? We may move, withdraw and then bring forward on Report Stage if we deem fit? Is that correct?

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If it arises out of Committee proceedings.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So the Senator is moving and withdrawing it.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 22, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following: “(4)Nothing within this Act or any regulation set in relation to this Act shall violate the Oviedo Convention.”.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 3 from Senators Mullen and Keogan is out of order because of a potential charge on the Revenue.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 28, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “(ii) assisted human reproduction should only be provided where such treatment does not pose a disproportionate risk to the health of a child that may be born as a result of such treatment,

(iii) an AHR treatment provider shall not provide AHR treatment to a relevant person unless the provider is satisfied, based on the information available to the provider, that the relevant person, and each other relevant person, does not present a potential significant risk of harm or neglect to—

(I) any child that may be born as a result of such treatment, or

(II) any other child.”.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 8 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 34, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following: “(a) any potential or relevant donor shall be required to sign a declaration demonstrating they understand the risks and effects of their decision. This shall include a legally binding commitment to care for a child in the event they are disabled or don’t possess certain characteristics. The declaration shall clearly outline that there is no power differentiation between the commissioning parents and the surrogate parent. The declaration shall also include a legal binding obligation stating that surrogacy is not being entered into for profit by the surrogate parent or other relevant parties,”.

I bring the amendment to the attention of the House. It provides that on page 34, in section 20, provisions supplementary to section 19, that there be inserted the following provision:

any potential or relevant donor shall be required to sign a declaration demonstrating they understand the risks and effects of their decision. This shall include a legally binding commitment to care for a child in the event they are disabled or do not possess certain characteristics. The declaration shall clearly outline that there is no power differentiation between the commissioning parents and the surrogate parent. The declaration shall also include a legal binding obligation stating that surrogacy is not being entered into for profit by the surrogate parent or other relevant parties.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senators for submitting these amendments. However, all three amendments appear to relate to surrogacy whereas the relevant sections each proposes to amend are not primarily or at all concerned with surrogacy. Maybe the intention was to insert them in a different part of the Bill.

Amendment No. 5 seeks to amend section 20, which is concerned with the consent of donors of gametes for use by others in any donor-assisted human reproduction procedure, not just a surrogacy agreement.

Amendment No. 6 seeks to amend section 37, which is concerned with the screening of donors of gametes or embryos for use by others in a donor-assisted human reproduction procedure.

Amendment No. 8 seeks to amend section 43, which is concerned with posthumous assisted human reproduction, something that is not permitted to be provided as part of a surrogacy agreement under this Bill.

In any event, donors of gametes for use in any assisted human reproduction procedure or in any surrogacy agreement must consent to not having any parental rights or responsibilities in respect of any child born with the use of their donation. Therefore, there is no question of a donor entering into a “legally binding commitment to care for a child”. Furthermore, this is in line with the current approach in Ireland, as per the provisions of the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015, which was commenced in May 2020. Accordingly, I will not be accepting these three amendments.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for the reply. I will take a look again at the positioning of things. I will request to withdraw the amendments, by leave of the House, in a moment.

I will make some quick points that are relevant here and I might ask the Minister a question. It is well worth our considering what the obligations of a donor should be where a person gives their own gametes for use in assisted human reproduction, including, but not confined to, surrogacy arrangements? As I have said already in this House, I believe a child should not intentionally be deprived of the society of, a relationship with, and the responsibility to them from, any person who has a genetic link with them or, indeed, a mother who carries them to birth. I believe that is an obligation to the child because, in the vast majority of circumstances, aside from rape or sexual abuse situations, the giving of one’s gametes in the creation of a new life is a voluntary act. We mature human beings should live with the consequences of our actions. That is core to being mature and grown up. To me, there is something fundamentally wrong with promoting or enabling an attitude that a person can give up their gametes, their own genetic identity, and know that those gametes will be used in the engendering – if that is the correct word – of a child and then have no responsibilities in regard to that. Now of course, that is the logic of the brave new world we have entered into and not just with this legislation but previously with recognition of the begetting of children using donor gametes.It is a matter of essential truth and natural law that where a person voluntarily or willingly allows their gametes to be used in the bringing of children into the world, they should have responsibilities. I do not know why all those sperm donors are from Nordic countries; I hope there is nothing racist involved in those particular choices, but who knows? It is not for those of us who oppose it to have to worry too much about what is going on or why people choose donors from particular countries. However, if people understood that the donation of their gametes could carry civil consequences for them, for example, that any child born of their gametes might have a right to some provision by them in the future, then people might have second thoughts about donating their gametes, or indeed selling them, as undoubtedly happens. There is a real question about what the obligations of an egg or sperm donor should be. There may be circumstances where they should not be held to have some responsibility towards a child. However, I cannot think of any such circumstances where they freely and voluntarily enable their gametes to be used in the bringing of children into the world.

While we are talking about donors, that raises the issue of what we consider appropriate or who we consider appropriate to bring children into the world? In the normal course of human events it is not something we need to engage with because people do what comes naturally and children are born as a result. However, where we legislate and presume to regulate the process whereby children are brought into the world - we give thanks for that little voice I can hear in the Chamber that was brought into the world at some point in the not-too-distant past - it is certainly appropriate to ask about the past of that person and what the intentions of that person might be. I will return to that issue, if I may, later on, in the context of amendment No. 15, which has already been briefly discussed.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have not touched on the issue of disability. This is something I might ask the Minister to assist me with. In the event that a child is the subject of a surrogacy contract or agreement and, in the course of the pregnancy, it emerges that the child has a disability, sadly in the world we now live in it is considered acceptable to end the life of that child where they have a disability in many jurisdictions, including our own, where the disability has a certain level of severity is it only the surrogate who may seek to have a termination of pregnancy? Is the surrogacy agreement in any way allowed to provide for consultation or input by the commissioning parents into any decision in that regard?

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The question has nothing whatsoever to do with the amendments. Should we proceed?

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It does, because we are talking about what happens to a child if he or she is disabled or does not possess certain characteristics. I am asking for assistance about what the Bill proposes. If the Minister prefers to give it to me at a later point, that is fine. If he wants to specify that point, that is fine. It is a reasonable question and it deserves a reasonable answer.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As previously stated, the surrogate will have exactly the same rights as any other woman who is pregnant.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does that mean that there is and can be no input from the intending parents who are engaging in a surrogacy agreement into any decision about whether a child who in utero has a disability lives or dies?

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The surrogate will have exactly the same rights as any woman who is pregnant. In the same way that no person can interfere with any pregnant woman in terms of the choices she makes, the same situation will apply to the surrogate.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there a legal prohibition on there being any stipulation or any change in the agreement around moneys to be paid or conditions in the surrogacy agreement? Even if it is entirely the surrogate's decision in respect of the continuation of a pregnancy, is it the provision of the Bill that that decision will not and cannot interfere with any of the provisions of the surrogacy agreement and their operation?

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Senator wish to give us an example? It is quite a theoretical question

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If there are provisions in the surrogacy agreement, presumably it provides for the payment of reasonable expenses and so on. Are there other elements of the surrogacy agreement that might depend on whether the surrogate has the child or not? Could there be elements of the agreement that would depend on whether the surrogate has a child or not? I am trying to establish whether anything could operate to overbear the will of the surrogate mother in this situation.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator might be able to give an example. All I can say is that the surrogate mother has exactly the same rights as any pregnant woman. The only part of the surrogacy agreement which is enforceable is in respect of reasonable expenses.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 43, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following: “(2) Any potential or relevant donor shall be required to sign a declaration demonstrating they understand the risks and effects of their decision. This shall include a legally binding commitment to care for a child in the event they are disabled or don’t possess certain characteristics. The declaration shall clearly outline that there is no power differentiation between the commissioning parents and the surrogate parent. The declaration shall also include a legal binding obligation stating that surrogacy is not being entered into for profit by the surrogate parent or other relevant parties.”.

Marie Sherlock (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 44, to delete lines 21 to 29 and substitute the following:

“(a) an appropriate medical specialist has stated in the specified form that—

(i) the child is due to undergo medical treatment, or suffers from a progressive disorder, which in the opinion of the specialist is likely to cause a significant impairment to the child’s fertility, and

(ii) such storage is in the child’s best interests,”.

I am conscious that there are many amendments before us. I intend to only speak once in order that we get through this Bill. It will be a momentous day when we finally see the Bill passed by the House. Many of us have been waiting years to have a legislative framework in place for assisted human reproduction. This is an emotional day, in particular for those who have been campaigning for a legislative framework for surrogacy. I pay tribute to everybody who has been involved in that, including Senator Seery Kearney and those in the Gallery.

We have had clinicians operating with a degree of uncertainty in this space for many years. Patients have also been aware of the degree of regulatory uncertainty. I spoke last week about the Wild West, as it were, that has prevailed in some circumstances, with some providers operating in a profit-driven sector. Not all providers are for-profit operations but some are, with the result that there were not sufficient protections in place for those seeking assisted human reproduction treatment in this country.

I am thinking today of the women and the couples who have gone through plus or minus 10,000 cycles every year in recent years. I am also thinking about all those who could not afford IVF but who will now have their hopes raised. It is great that we have a public scheme. It is important to reiterate that we want to see more people accessing that scheme.

We know that the waiting periods are far longer than they should be. We have been told they are approximately 18 weeks at the moment, when they should be 12 weeks. We hear that the waiting time to see a consultant is approximately ten months, but that is not good enough. I appreciate that the system is getting up and running but it needs to do better. The Labour Party has talked about that. Having a publicly funded IVF system is brilliant but there is a glaring gap in that not everybody can access the scheme on an equal basis in the absence of having reproductive health leave in the workplace. I pay tribute to the work of the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman. He commissioned the PLACES research project. I also commend Professor Keelin O'Donoghue of UCC for looking at pregnancy loss and the impact of that in the workplace. I appeal to the Minister in that regard because the research has been stalled and there are no commitments to progress it. We want the Government to follow through on what we saw as commitments to legislate for workplace leave for those who experience early pregnancy loss in particular, and those who are going through fertility treatment. That is a particular focus of the Labour Party. We all know it is not a once-off procedure, and it does involve time out of the workplace. Not everybody can take time off work.

Amendment No. 7 to section 39 relates to the preservation and storage of gametes or the reproductive tissue of a child or person under the age of 18 in the event that the person is facing a treatment that will significantly or permanently diminish their fertility. We welcome that provision. I raised last week that there was provision in the original Bill for those under the age of 18 who face infertility arising from a condition they have. We know that these are rare conditions that affect a small number of children, but it is enormous for those children and their families. I refer to children with Turner syndrome, galactosaemia and blepharophimosis, ptosis, and epicanthus inversus, BPES, syndrome. There are children who lose their fertility because of their treatment or because of their condition – the two are separate. We strongly believe that provision should be made in the legislation in order that they have the potential to have children later in life when they are adults. I refer to those for whom infertility is a side effect of the condition they have. I am not a clinician but I am a legislator. The Minister is also a legislator. We are all legislators. When I see provision for one set of children in the Bill – those who have to undergo treatment that will impair their fertility – and I do not see provision for another group of children who will experience infertility because of a condition that they have, I must ask the reason for that.

I hear what the Minister has said: that he will bring forward amending legislation in September, but I cannot for the life of me understand why that is the case when we have such a significant Bill before us. The Minister, and all of us, know that time is of the essence. There is a very real fear that we may not see the legislation in September. I would like to hear precisely what the Minister will bring forward in September – whether it is primary legislation or a statutory instrument.What precisely is going to be done in September? I am very concerned that the commitments to legislate that are being made today will never be implemented.

I want to make another important point with regard to this amendment. I am really conscious that there are people in the Gallery today, including clinicians, who have been working in this area for many years. As legislators, we are effectively having to legislate to regulate and supervise the processes surrounding assisted human reproduction. While many of us here may understand the inputs and the outputs, very few of us in this Chamber understand the science and the medicine relating to the actual processes. Therefore, we are very much in the hands of the clinicians in how we shape this Bill. I am really glad they have been a very significant part of the conversation in formulating the Bill we have in front of us today. However, I raise one concern. When I raised an issue last week that had been articulated to me by paediatricians and experts in the field of assisted human reproduction, I felt those concerns were dismissed out of hand. I was taken aback by the manner in which the Minister dealt with those concerns. There is a distinction between infertility brought about by treatment and infertility brought about by a condition. I believe the Minister does not recognise that distinction and, as I read it as a legislator, neither does this Bill. I do not say it lightly but I believe his response last week, in which he questioned the ethics of the clinicians who brought this concern to us, reflected an arrogance. We are all too aware in this House that for many decades there was an arrogance on the part of legislators when it came to legislating for reproductive and fertility rights in this country.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is about time.

Marie Sherlock (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to think that arrogance is behind us. I would like to think that arrogance is beneath any Minister for Health, but unfortunately it was an arrogance we saw last week. It was regrettable that the Minister was calling out the ethics of the clinicians who brought those concerns to us, particularly when many of them gave enormous public service to this State while sitting on the 2005 Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction, about which Senator Seery Kearney spoke. It was the Tánaiste, Deputy Martin, who was Minister for Health and Children then. It was that long ago. There are clinicians who have sat at various committees with the Department of Health. There are clinicians who have sat at the committee during pre-legislative scrutiny and attended other committees in this Oireachtas. They have served our State well. They have acted in the public interest and done everything, whenever they were asked, to try to ensure we would have a comprehensive and best-practice set of laws in this country.

I go back to the substance of the amendment. Last week, the Minister said:

I want to assure everybody that no child will be excluded. If the treating doctors say that there is a risk to a child for any reason, whether a progressive condition, a non-progressive condition or a treatment he or she has to go through, that child will be covered. That is the policy position.

That may be the policy position and it may be the Minister's position, but I do not read it as the position in the legislation. If there is anything the past decades have informed us on, or if there are any lessons to take, the first is that we should absolutely trust the doctors but the second is that we need to provide certainty to those doctors. There are questions now and there needs to be legal clarity given to those patients, those children under the age of 18, who are currently undergoing gamete or reproductive tissue storage or preservation. If it is not included in this Bill, where stands that storage or preservation treatment for those children who have conditions which unfortunately and very sadly for them is bringing about an early menopause or is significantly impairing their fertility? Crucially, I would like to have that certainty in this Bill. I have very real concerns that we will be back here in September specifically dealing with the changes the Minister says he will bring. I take it in good faith that he is committed to doing so but time is of the essence and I do not see why we would waste an opportunity now by not introducing them.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to start by acknowledging the Labour Party's support for this Bill. It is very welcome. However, I think descending into name-calling is unfortunate and personalising it in that way is deeply unfortunate. I disagree entirely with how the Senator has just characterised the discussion she and I are having. I know that when I was in opposition, for years and years I tried to convince sitting Ministers to amend legislation in ways that were important to me. It very rarely happened. I could count on one hand the number of times it happened. I committed to the Senator, right here, seven days ago that I would amend the legislation based on what she had brought forward. I do not understand why she would describe that interaction and my commitment to her and to these children as "arrogance".

When it comes to the ethics, what I specifically questioned was a letter to parents which sounded incorrect to me. It sounded technically and legally incorrect and I have no doubt will have caused great distress to those parents. The Senator can go back and read the blacks as to what was said. It really worried me that any clinician would write a letter like that to parents. I do not think the letter should have been written and I do question it. I certainly do not question anybody's bona fides, be they in private practice or the HSE, in terms of trying to come to the best possible answer. Ultimately, this Bill will be regulating private practice and work within the HSE. As I laid out to the Seanad last week, the reason we changed it was because we got a very strong representation from the experts in the HSE. That is the reason. When the Senator laid forward the counterargument - indeed, I had consulted before coming in to Second Stage on that basis - I agreed to incorporate her amendments. I do not understand why she would come in a week later and be having the same debate.

I heard the Senator. I listened very carefully. We prepared for Second Stage last week on the basis of her submission. I sought additional clinical advice. I got it and I committed to the Senator that I was going to change the Bill. That is what happened last week. I just do not understand the representation she is putting forward today. We are working together on this. We are changing the Bill based on the Senator's representations. She read out my commitment, which is that we are going to include both the conditions and the treatment. In this case, the HSE got it half-right and so we are going to add in the other half. The reason we are not doing it now is because there is a danger the entire Bill would not get through all Stages in the Oireachtas in the next three weeks, which is something I am not willing to allow happen. In my wrap-up, I will go through the list of policy issues which we are going to be amending in the Bill. I apologise to the Senator; I thought she would be reasonably happy with last week. She brought something forward; I have agreed to amend the Bill. I do not understand her contribution today. I am puzzled by it.

Marie Sherlock (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his response. First, I am much more inexperienced legislator than he is but in the past four and half years I have spent here, I have seen the Government table amendments to Government Bills. We see this on a regular basis. We all faced a deadline of last Monday for amendments to this Bill and it was absolutely open to the Minister to bring forward an amendment to his own Bill.Why, therefore, did he not do it this week, as opposed to having to set up a whole new process in September? That does not make sense to me.

The second thing I want to say is in regard to my use of the "arrogance”. I was very carefully using the word “arrogance” and I felt the Minister was disingenuous in how he characterised what I said, because I used the word “arrogance” in the context of him questioning the ethics of the clinicians who raised concerns with us. I would have liked to have thought that if a Minister for Health heard a Senator or Deputy raise the concerns of a clinician, those concerns would at least have been listened to, as opposed to being dismissed out of hand and their ethics being questioned. That is at the heart of why I believe there was an arrogance in the Minister’s reply. I will respectfully await the legislation in September. I will be here to support it and I will say “Tá” all the way, but it makes no sense to me that the Department has sat on its hands for the past week and did not table an amendment to do what the Minister says he is going to do.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would also like a bit of clarity on the latter point. I heard what Senator Sherlock said last week and I heard the Minister’s response. I did actually wonder why he used the word “unethical”. I wondered if there were some facts at the Minister’s disposal that he was not sharing with us. I could understand why the Minister might say the letter from these clinicians was incorrect. However, when he says that something is unethical, he is making a fairly serious moral charge, although it was not clear to me who the Minister was talking about. Was this just an imprecision in the Minister’s language, or is it the case that he regards it as unethical to write something that was mistaken because they should know better and do their homework before they write something that the Minister is now saying is mistaken? Was there something else that the Minister knew of? Did he think that they had some vested interest in leading people astray? It is very unusual to hear the use of a term like “unethical” when all the information the Minister had supplied us with had indicated that whatever was written in a letter or letters was wrong. There are lots of reasons people put stuff that is wrong into letters or give inaccurate information without necessarily being unethical. What was the Minister’s intent in saying that it was unethical?

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would say to Senator Sherlock that it is typically not possible to turn around a Government amendment that quickly. I spent many years in opposition, and I have tabled God knows how many amendments. As we all know, the Opposition amendments do not have to go through the same legal rigour. There is a process in place whereby we must have drafters and we must take legal advice in the Department. It also has to go through the Office of the Attorney General. Given that this is a clinical issue, we would have needed to pull the HSE clinicians back in. In that time period, it would have put the whole Bill at risk.

On Senator Mullen’s point, there is no additional information. I am purely going on what Senator Sherlock read out. To write to parents around technical amendments to a Bill and to say this will mean their child can never conceive in the future is pretty extraordinary thing to do but that is just my opinion. Maybe it was simply technically incorrect, but I do not know. Yet, Senator Mullen and I have been around here a long time and we know that people do various things to influence legislation. Certainly, the nature of that did not sit well with me. That was it.

Marie Sherlock (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have purposely tried not to personalise this, and I have not mentioned names today. However, unless there is any doubt, it is worth saying it on the record that the Minister received a letter and many emails from clinicians with concerns about the issues I have raised. An email was addressed to the Minister at the start of this week. It was from three clinicians, namely, Dr. John Waterstone, consultant gynaecologist and medical director of the Waterstone Clinic; Dr. Mary Wingfield, former consultant at the National Maternity Hospital and former clinical director of Merrion Fertility Clinic; and Dr. John Kennedy, medical director at Thérapie Fertility. These are three very well-known experts in the field of assisted human reproduction and they have many decades of experience behind them. They speak of the need for this Bill. They are hugely supportive of this Bill and they want it to go through. The Minister spoke of experts in the Department of Health. These experts say that the HSE, although I take it they mean the Department of Health, from whom the Minister takes advice, while it has many excellent doctors and staff, it has historically no experience in the provision of AHR services and has never, to their knowledge, contacted any AHR specialist regarding the medically complex aspects of this Bill. I want to put on the record that these are three of the leading AHR experts in this country. They obviously speak with many of the other experts in this country in that field. They feel they were not properly consulted on the medically complex aspects of this Bill.

I understand that the Department of Health has its own set of clinicians to consult and the HSE has other clinicians to consult. Ultimately, we are looking at talking to the people who are the leaders in this particular field. They have put this in a private letter to the Minister, part of which I have read into the record today because it is really important that when the Minister uses the word “personalising”, we are clear about the facts.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In a way, it is ironic because I suspect that I would regard some of the procedures they are involved in as unethical. Nonetheless, I defend their right to not be accused of being unethical if they communicate certain beliefs about the state of things that they believe these to be true in good faith. I can only conclude, if Senator Sherlock and I are speaking about the same letter, that the Minister regards those people as having acted unethically in communicating in the way they did. The Minister is either saying they said something that they knew not to be true, or that they were reckless in saying something; in other words, that they had constructive knowledge that they were being were reckless in saying something that would have been shown not to be true had they checked their facts. The Minister obviously wanted to go beyond saying that they were mistaken. He wanted to, in some way suggest, impugn or at least put it out there that they might be acting dishonourably. That is quite a serious thing to say about people but, obviously, the Minister did so under privilege. Yet, if I were a clinician and I put something in the letter that I believed to be true, I would not be happy with the Minister for Health going around and saying that I had acted unethically or even suggesting that I had acted unethically.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will address this one more time. What Senator Sherlock stated is simply false. The Senator stated that some of the people she has referenced - and I have not used any names in here - were not consulted. I can tell the Senator categorically there was extensive consultation with at least one of the people she referenced. It was an extensive consultation. Unfortunately, it is not true that there was no consultation with the experts in the private sector. There was extensive technical ongoing consultation on a great many of these issues.

Marie Sherlock (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be pressing the amendment.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I can imagine that there will be quite a bit of debate on section 51. Before starting it could we take a short break?

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 9, 16, 27, 29, 49 and 53 are related and will be discussed together.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 56, line 32, to delete “two years” and substitute “five years”.

This is to substitute “two years” with “five years”. We want to do this in light of the recent influx because of the war in Ukraine. Ukraine is probably the largest market in the world for surrogacy at this moment in time, which is why we have asked for this to be extended to five years. In committee, I wanted to bring in a number of witnesses but that was not possible for a number of reasons. One of those was Mykola Kuleba, who was Ukraine's commissioner of the President of Ukraine on the rights of the child. Basically, he has huge concerns with commercial surrogacy and has stated in a document that: "Ukraine has become a supermarket for surrogacy. The child is already becoming a commodity, but a woman is an incubator that has to carry this product for someone." These are the words he used. He continued:

If during the pregnancy, the clients decide that they no longer want the child, the surrogate must have an abortion. If she doesn't, all the funds must be returned. If she gives birth to the child and customers don't want to take it away, she has to give the child to an orphanage, because she has no rights to it.

These were the words that this child commissioner in Ukraine used in relation to surrogacy. I am concerned because obviously many of people who have come from Ukraine over the last couple of years are women, so I would like to extend this legislation to five years rather than two.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will add a few words. I thank the Cathaoirleach and welcome him back. I want to emphasise my support for what Senator Keogan said. I again stress that I am concerned that these provisions are happening at all and that we are providing for them at all. Regarding domestic surrogacy, if there were to be no commercial nexus it would at least be easier to try to ensure that. It is debatable as to whether one can fully ensure that there is no commercial nexus and, certainly, it is much harder in the context of international surrogacy. This is a precaution, among other desirable precautions, is that the person who enters into a surrogacy agreement has been habitually and lawfully resident in the State for less than two years.

Senator Seery Kearney spoke of the agency of women who allow themselves to be drawn into providing surrogacy services. It seems to me that this is the best weak defence against the argument that surrogacy exploits the poor. Surrogacy undeniably exploits the poor. As I said earlier, you do not see rich women carrying babies for poor women. This may happen in the most exceptional of circumstances where a rich woman sees herself doing so altruistically. I wonder whether such a person exists when one considers what is involved in getting pregnant, as well as the eventual loss of a child you have nurtured in your womb for nine months. I believe that no woman would willingly choose to do this.

We heard from Senator McDowell about a situation where a person carried a baby because her sibling was unable to have to have a child, so I suppose there are always exceptions. Yet, the reality of surrogacy is that it is the exploitation of the poor by the rich. A woman who provides surrogacy services puts herself through all the emotional, downstream consequences of having been sundered from the child she has nurtured and brought to birth. Indeed, health risks can be associated with carrying a child who is not genetically your own. All those issues are at play here. Senator Seery Kearney speaks sincerely but wrongly in talking up the agency of women who provide surrogacy services.

I do not know if Senator Seery Kearney was already in these Houses when we eventually criminalised the purchaser of sexual services. The same arguments were made over the years. This goes back to when I was first elected in 2007. I was informed by the excellent work being done by Ruhama and other organisations, which state that nobody really freely consents to sell themselves in prostitution because there are invariably situations of abuse, financial disadvantage and sometimes drug addiction, so the person in that situation is in a truly pathetic situation.Therefore, it is not possible to say that they are somehow freely contractual. Of course there are people who advocate for a contractual and transactional approach to this and say a person is entitled to sell their body, but we do not allow that as a matter of public policy in this country any more. One of the reasons is that we do not truly recognise that there can be free agency as a matter of public policy. There cannot be free agency to sell yourself in that way and therefore it is in no denial of your normal right to engage in free contracts, any more than one could say that there could never be a right to freely sell your own body parts. We all know what we would think of it. These issues are terribly complex. We extol those who freely and voluntarily donate an organ for the sake of another human being, but we condemn, deplore and criminalise any possible financial connection in that regard. It seems to me that the surrogacy situation is exactly in parallel with it, because here you have a person selling something of themselves - their nurturing power, their nurturing self - something that a person should never be asked to sell. I know the Minister will respond that this is not commercial, but as we will show and have shown, it is, inevitably and unavoidably, commercial especially when we get to the international surrogacy situation. This de facto lack of freedom even if not de jure, that is built into the surrogacy contract is reason for this proposed amendment. When you think about it, we already know that people who come to the country are desperately poor and disadvantaged. There can be language and all sorts of other barriers in the way of their flourishing. They are more easily prone to exploitation. We know all about women who are trafficked into the country and what they suffer and undergo. We could say that not nearly enough is being done by the organs of the State to combat human trafficking. That is why we fare so badly in the US Trafficking in Persons Report so frequently. When it comes then to the idea that a person might enter into a surrogacy arrangement as a surrogate mother only having been habitually and lawfully resident in the State for not less than two years, I am not suggesting that people will be procuring illegal entrance into the State for the purposes of surrogacy arrangements but we are talking in this amendment about a person having to be habitually and lawfully resident in the State. In the very unusual and tragic circumstances that we have found ourselves in this country, there are people who are habitually and lawfully resident in the State for a relatively short period, and for at least two years at this point, who remain profoundly vulnerable and where there is a far greater risk of inducement being involved in some way. It is also the case that some of these people are very young and, therefore, by substituting five years for two years, we would be at least seeking to ensure that they would not be quite so young than they would otherwise be when they enter into this contract that is undoubtedly harmful to them over the longer term.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senators for submitting the first four amendments in this grouping. With regard to amendment No. 9, which proposes to increase the length of time that a prospective surrogate mother in a domestic arrangement has to have been resident in the State from two years to five years, the residency requirement of two years was included to act as a safeguard against trafficking and to allow the demonstration of some form of lasting connection with the country. I consider that we have struck the correct balance in setting the period at two years and that five years may be viewed as an excessively long period of time. However, there is no right answer. It is a matter of informed judgment on all our parts. It is the kind of issue that can be and will be looked at as part of the review of the legislation, which is part of the Bill itself. Amendment No. 27 similarly proposes the same situation for international surrogacy, and the same points are made.

Amendments Nos. 16 and 29 seek to increase the minimum age from 21 to 25 for an intending parent to apply for approval for a proposed surrogacy arrangement, be that for domestic or international surrogacy. The minimum age for the provision of AHR treatment generally is 18 years. The age limit for surrogacy was set at 21 to reflect the specific additional complexity and difficult issues that arise from undertaking a surrogacy agreement. The extra life experience and maturity a person of 21 would generally have are important factors here, as well as potentially giving enough time for intending parents to be able to demonstrate that they require surrogacy to start a family, for instance.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I notice that these amendments are grouped and I am not entirely happy with that. Can I ask for clarification?

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Mullen should go ahead.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to be able to speak to some of these amendments more sequentially.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. The groupings have been agreed. As Senator Mullen is aware, they are not done to prevent Members speaking.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The amendments in this group are 9, 16, 27, 29, 49 and 53. They are related and can be discussed together.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, it is just that I do not necessarily want to discuss them in that order. That is what I am saying.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is Senator Mullen's difficulty?

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My difficulty is that I might rather speak to some of the amendments at the point where I move them.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The norm, as Senator Mullen knows, is that we group related amendments. I am not trying to be obstructive to the Senator.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I understand that. I am just saying that I will have to go through them in a different way.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the precedent of the House, as Senator Mullen knows well.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will do my best.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As a long-standing Member of the House, he knows that is the precedent.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not crying "foul".

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator can, but he is wrong if he does.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do not contradict me before I make an assertion. I am just saying that. When were the groupings agreed, by the way? Was it on the Order of Business?

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The groupings were probably circulated either last night or this morning. Members would have been aware of that before they came into the Chamber.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would they have been agreed on the Order of Business?

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When amendment No. 9 was moved, I read out the grouping.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I probably did not hear that. I should have squawked at that point and perhaps I would have got a hearing.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Mullen should have.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine. I will try and squawk in future, for all the good it might do.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be helpful to the Senator, in case he always thinks that I am trying to be unfair to him, which is not the case, but just so he understands, if he decides at other junctures of the Bill that the groupings are not to his liking, and he may want to speak to a particular amendment at that time, he can do so, if there is consensus in the House. If I am in the Chair I will certainly allow the Senator to put his case.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you for that, a Chathaoirligh. I have already spoken to amendment No. 9. There are real concerns in relation to human trafficking in connection with surrogacy. It is bad enough that certainty will exist on the passing of this legislation, but practices that we would all regard as slavery are something we should avoid entirely.

I note that the Minister says that he is striking a balance. He adverts to the review after three years, but I put it to him that he could also review bringing it back to two years. He could take the more precautionary step at this juncture and at the three-year review stage, one could argue then in the other direction and he could ask whether it still needs to be five years. As the Minister said himself, we are entering into unknown territory with this legislation. He has curated a piece of legislation that is without precedent. I would have thought that the precautionary principle would say that the Minister would go with this - particularly given what is happening in the country in recent years, because it is easy to imagine someone bringing over a newly arrived migrant and that person then being exploited for the purpose of surrogacy.People who engage in surrogacy services should, at the minimum, be able to demonstrate that they have a certain level of permanency in our State. As we all know, two years is nothing. The last two years and the time since the start of the Ukrainian war have absolutely flown. Failure to accept the precaution on offer in our amendment risks the intent of the Minister's own precautionary position, as adopted in the legislation, being rendered moot. I urge the Minister to rethink his position.

Amendment No. 16 is self-explanatory. It is again about protecting the person. Section 56(2) at line 30 of page 61 reads "Any intending parent shall have attained the age of 21 years". We propose that this be increased to 25 years. This is about the idea of a very young adult taking the extraordinary life step of bringing a child into the world with the support and agency of the State in a manner that in all likelihood will entail the use of donated sperm or a donated egg and, in this case, the use of a woman as a surrogate mother.

We could have an endless debate as to the appropriate age at which to permit certain things, for example, the age of consent in sexual matters, the age at which one may take alcohol and the age at which one may vote. In some quarters, it is coming into vogue to suggest that children as young as 16 should be enabled to vote. I take the view that those who propose the lowering of these ages of consent or permissibility very often fail to take into account the science in respect of a person's development. For example, why do insurance companies charge young men so much to get insurance to drive their cars? We all know why. It is a decision based on statistics. It might not always seem just to those young men, and perhaps young women, that the insurance companies do what they do but it is all down to what we know about the maturity or otherwise of young people even into their 20s. We hear people talk about the development of the frontal lobe and so on. While I am slow to say that we should put the voting age back up from 18 to 21, it is certainly as logical to propose that as it is to propose lowering it to 16 years of age.

In the same way, we should not be afraid to say that, while the bringing of a child into the world might happen at a much younger age when people do what comes naturally, the idea that the procuring of child through surrogacy and contract in this way by a person as young as 21 is one of the many problematic aspects of the Bill. Before I continue, will the Minister again detail the reason he is not accepting that particular amendment?

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Senator Seery Kearney.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator. As stated, AHR treatment is generally available at 18. The age limit for surrogacy was set at 21 to reflect the additional complexities and issues that can arise. We were also cognisant of the need to allow enough time for intending parents to be able to demonstrate that they require surrogacy to start a family. The proposal is to move the age to 25. I do not believe that is necessary. While the Senator references the very significant decision people take to start a family, people obviously make that decision at many ages, often below 25 or 21 and sometimes below 18. I believe 21 strikes the appropriate balance.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak to Senator Seery Kearney's amendments Nos. 49 and 53. I reiterate the position laid out on Second Stage in this Chamber last week, which is that the current policy intent of the Bill is that a court and a judge will have the discretion to waive the residency requirement for retrospective applications. For future applications that will not be the case for the pre-order that has to be established. It is specifically for retrospective cases. One could ask why we should have it at all. Why put it in when we have a strong test for the best interests of the child? The reason it was put in was to guard against things happening since the heads of the Bill were known. The Second Stage Dáil session on this was in March 2022. We knew this would take time and did not want a situation whereby people might say we have a few years until the Bill is commenced where we can avail of this retrospective. We needed to put some safeguards in place for the surrogates. That is really what it is about. It is not really about surrogacies that happened before 2022 when the detail and the approach were well known. There will inevitably be cases where the surrogate cannot be found, where documentary evidence cannot be found or where the surrogate is not willing to provide an affidavit. As the Senator says, a sister might have come back from Australia to be a surrogate but may not have been resident in Ireland for the full 12 months beforehand. As the Bill stands, the clear legal advice I have is that the judge already has that discretion. That is the first point. The second point is that discretion is absolutely the Government's policy intent. For anyone in the Courts Service, for example, who might be interpreting future applications, I want to be clear that the unambiguous intent is that the courts will have that discretion. It is not an absolute requirement for retrospective applications. There is a third point. I know this has been raised as a real concern for some parents who will be applying to the courts. Even with those two things, the final safeguard we are making is to amend this legislation through the amending Bill to make it explicit, so that there can be no question of it being misinterpreted in the future. I hope to have that ready as soon as the Dáil reconvenes in September. I do not know if we will use Senator Seery Kearney's exact wording, but it will be something like that, to make explicit what is implicit.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was obvious last year that the Minister is entirely in facilitatory mode. It does not matter what human rights abuses are entailed here. The adults shall have what they want. Amendment No. 27 is obviously the international surrogacy version of the amendments to which I already spoke. I propose the deletion in page 77 of lines 4 to 6, which refer to a surrogate mother who is an EU citizen and who has been habitually and lawfully resident in that jurisdiction for not less than five years immediately preceding her entering into the agreement. This is not just a matter of changing it from two years to five years in terms of habitual and lawful residency. It also requires that the surrogate mother be an EU citizen. I am obviously trying to limit the worst effects of what the Government and its supporters contemplate doing here. Like the old man in Connemara supposedly asked by some tourists for directions to Dublin, I would not start from here. Since this is what the Minister is proposing, however, I challenge him at least to accept this amendment.

One other downstream version of what the Government proposes to do is here is the risk of the development of a surrogacy industry, with foreign surrogates being brought to Ireland to avail of the medical system here. I would like the Minister to tell me why he does not accept the proposed limitation of this to surrogate mothers who are EU citizens. I imagine his reason for not accepting the two years to five years change is similar to the one he gave earlier in the context of the amendment on domestic surrogacy.Why will the Minister not accept the requirement that the surrogate mother be an EU citizen?

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not see any reason that we would.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have just put it to the Minister that there is a risk of the development of a surrogacy industry. We know the international context here. We heard what the Ukrainian situation is. Senator Seery Kearney does not like the language but the question is if what is said is true. That is more important than courtesy. There are human rights at stake here. There are people being violated and exploited here. I know Senator Seery Kearney and the Minister do not accept that but that is the experience that cannot be denied.

I had a Zoom or MS Teams conference yesterday in which we heard from people who have been hurt by surrogacy, including a woman who made herself available for an altruistic surrogacy and who suffered in a way that she had not foreseen as a result of doing it. There are many silent victims of this. We also heard from a young woman who was brought to life through surrogacy; I am sure she is very happy to be alive but she disagrees with what is going on here and the way it impacts on people. It is wrong to dismiss them as the shrieking minority, so to speak, although those are not Senator Seery Kearney's words, of course. It is a form of denialism. There is international concern about this. This is novel. Greece is the only country that allows this. What we are proposing to say here is that if you must embrace the aspirations of people who want to bring children into the world through surrogacy, at least do your best to stop an industry developing with, as I said, foreign surrogates coming to Ireland to avail of the medical system.

It is too glib, frankly, for the Minister to say he sees no reason why he should. We know he is not for turning. We know he is captured, but he should at least try to give some sort of credible reason why. Given the mass exploitation of people on our Continent and worldwide, and the ferment and displacement brought about by the invasion of Ukraine and so many other factors, there are financially and otherwise vulnerable people who might be brought to the jurisdiction for this. I put it to the Minister that it is not enough to say he sees no reason why. This is a problematic reality that involves the exploitation of the poor.

By the way, if all of this is so good, why is it not possible just to get this done in Ireland using Irish citizens or to get it done in the EU using EU citizens? Why is it that you have to enable international surrogacy? The reason is that there are not enough poor people to exploit in Ireland and the EU.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is what is at work here.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabh mo leithscéal. I ask Members in the Gallery to refrain from engagement. Unfortunately, you cannot.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are rules in the House.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will bring in the Senator to reply.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Gallery cannot make comments. I appreciate-----

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you. I remind all people to be careful in the language they use.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not in the Stella Cinema in Rathmines where people get to react to what they see on the screen. We are talking about human rights abuses.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not a point of order.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you. I appreciate it is a very sensitive matter that we are dealing with. I remind Members in the House that the use of language by everybody is important and that includes all of us. I ask Members to be cognisant of that. We are talking about the use of language and we are talking about people who have feelings. I remind Members to please be sensitive to what we are saying and how we say it.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, and we have to be sensitive to the poor women of this world who are being completely forgotten by this legislation, who are exploited for their bodies, and the trafficking that is going on, the trading in children, the commodification of children, the denial upfront, in advance and forever of a child's right to be loved and nurtured by their birth mother, who has cared for them for nine months in the womb, and the denial of the right of a child to be loved and to have their genetic parents responsible for them.

I am not standing up here for the good of my health. I am standing up here because I am protesting against the human rights abuses that this legislation entails. As much as I respect and value my colleagues in the Seanad, and as much as I sympathise with those who have not been able to have children and who have used or want to use surrogacy in order to do so, I am protesting that it is an abuse of human rights. I am saying, and have to reiterate, that the reason international surrogacy is on the agenda here is that there are not enough poor women who can be accessed to do this in Ireland or in the EU. That is the only reason. That is why I say it is because there are not enough poor people to exploit.

It is not that people want, in the first instance, to exploit the poor when they seek a child through surrogacy. It is that, as a consequence of what they are doing in order to alleviate their situation, they are willing to contemplate a process that is intrinsically exploitative of the poor. As I said earlier, and it was no less insensitive to say, you do not see rich women carrying babies for poor women. You only see poor women carrying babies for rich women. That is why countless feminist groups object to this. That is why countless international fora have discussed this. That is why countless international rapporteurs, people who describe themselves as social liberals on all sorts of other issues, object to this. It is because they see in this something that is intrinsically and unavoidably exploitative of people.

That is the hard reality it is my sad duty to express on this floor today. It gives me no pleasure that people's feelings get hurt because I tell the truth as I believe it to be. However, what kind of representation would I be giving to the women who have been hurt through the exploitation of their bodies by surrogacy, to the children who have been deprived of everything from the nurturing, care and love of their birth mother, their genetic parent where that parent is permanently sundered from them, to their right to breastfeeding where possible, and all of those other things that surrogacy deliberately forecloses the possibility of - what kind of service would I be giving to those people if I did not speak out strongly against this? The same applies to Senator Keogan. We are using strong language because strong language is required and because what is before us is profoundly unjust. It is banned in every European country except Greece. It is the Minister and the supporters of this Bill who are engaging in aberrant behaviour, not those of us who believe this legislation is profoundly wrong and speak out strongly against it.

You lose friends when you stand up for things you believe in and you tell the truth. Your duty is not to set out to deliberately offend. Your duty is always to speak the truth as you know it on the basis of the facts as you have them, but you cannot sugarcoat your message out of courtesy to the point where you conceal the important point that you want to make. I am sorry to be the cause of anybody's sense of offence but I cannot but tell the truth as I see it. I cannot but call a spade a spade here. Therefore, I must reiterate that the fact of international surrogacy is that it exploits the poor.

It is proposed to have this legislated for here because domestic surrogacy or even confining it to EU-based surrogates does not give advocates of surrogacy what they want.The reason is the economic disadvantage internationally of the women who will be available for surrogacy compared with the economic disadvantage in the EU. There is no other reason. It was put to me on Limerick radio the other day when I mentioned the point about how even reasonable expenses can run into tens of thousands of dollars – or euro, as it will be in this situation - that this is a lot of money for an impoverished woman in Ukraine. It is also in a situation where we cannot possibly or properly regulate what is going on, so there will be all sorts of middlemen offering legal services at high cost, and this will be all dressed up as a reasonable expense. In reality, we will have commercial surrogacy by the backdoor. It was put to me on Limerick radio that I was wrong because American women make themselves available as surrogates as well and that is not a poor country. I then asked how much they charge. Is it hundreds of thousands?

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Some $250,000.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Any advance? This is criminal, except it is being made lawful.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Senator to speak to the relevant amendments.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is precisely on this point. I ask the Minister to give me something better than his glib response that he sees no reason to confine this to EU citizens. It is the least he can do if he wants to pretend, however weakly, that he is not smiling on and counting on the exploitation of poor women by those who are in a financially advantageous position over them. That is the reason for this amendment. It is an evidence-based proposal. Those who are concerned by surrogacy, not to say those who have been hurt by it, are entitled to a better answer than what has been given.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can we stay to the amendments?

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome to the Public Gallery the newly elected councillor for Cork city, Councillor Pádraig Rice. He is very welcome. I thank him for being here.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to say three things. First, the Cathaoirleach and I were elected to Dáil Éireann on the same day in 2011. I have sat through and participated in many debates in the Dáil and in the Seanad, as has he. Some of those debates have been very difficult and some have been very divisive. Never until now have I seen a Member of Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann openly mock people in the Gallery.I am not referring to his initial outrageous comments but to his allusion to this not being the Stella Cinema and to people not being allowed to react.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to say directly to Senator Mullen that in 13 years I have never seen visitors to Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann mocked by a Member of the Oireachtas. I put it to him that he is an absolute disgrace for doing that today.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Second, Senator Mullen, without any irony, is setting himself up today as a defender of women’s rights. He is no champion of women’s rights. He has sought for years to control women. He has sought to control them through the Constitution, he has sought to control them through legislation, and he sought to control them through dogma. He has an obsession with controlling their reproductive health and people’s sexuality. He contends you cannot get married if you are a gay man or woman. Apparently, you should not be allowed to try to be a single father, for some reason. The Senator is no champion of women’s rights.

The third point I want to make is on the amendment. The Senator asks why we would not confine surrogacy to the EU. What is he trying to achieve? Is he trying to say those with an income below a certain level should not be allowed to be involved in surrogacy? There are poor people in Ireland, all across the EU and all across the rest of the world. What about Canada? No? America? No? What about the UK? The UK is not in the EU. The Senator has a big problem with Ukraine being allowed. Ukraine is going to join the EU, so I put it to the Senator that my short answer was a polite version of saying his proposal is nonsensical. Yes, we need to protect surrogates all over the world and, yes, this is a conservative Bill, so we have not done something that lacks any decent rationale or consideration, which is what the Senator is proposing in saying surrogacy should be within the EU. He is saying a country that has left the EU should not be included and that we do not want surrogacy in a country coming into the EU, but that we will allow it for those in the EU. We are not doing anything like that; what we are doing is setting up a regulatory authority that will, on a country-by-country basis and within countries on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, and on the basis of every single application for surrogacy by an intending parent or parents, go through all the safeguards to ensure surrogacy is safe and that the very genuine concerns raised regarding exploitation around the world are addressed. We are not doing this according to some bizarre geopolitical line on a map but in a considered, legally robust way, jurisdiction by jurisdiction and case by case. That is why I am not accepting the Senator’s amendments. In his response, he should apologise to the people in the Gallery.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise to the people in the Gallery for their being so badly served by such a weak and verbally inadequate Minister, who has no principles and whose only mission in life is to give the loudest and most influential lobbyists whatever they want to please the media but who is in no way animated by principles of justice or a reflective approach to inclusivity when it comes to legislation and protecting the weak. He has no interest in these whatsoever. He is probably the worst Minister we have ever had. He is no friend of children with scoliosis – that is for sure – but he is very good at the virtue-signalling politics that gets you plaudits in certain quarters.

The Minister has tried more than once in this House to engage in some kind of verbal bluster to demonise people like me, who challenge him strongly. He does not like being challenged strongly. His PR people tell him the best approach to this is to come out fighting and to try to humiliate and belittle the person who points out the error of his Government’s ways.

Annie Hoey (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could the Senator stick to the amendments?

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would be delighted to; however, Senator Seery Kearney was allowed to expatiate at length, not just once but twice, as I pointed out before the Chair came in. I am not going to stand for being the one who is constantly interrupted and asked to stick to the amendment. I am very clearly replying to what the Minister said, and I will do so. Okay?

The first and obvious error the Minister made was to suggest I had mocked the people in the Gallery. Far from it, I had expressed disquiet at their behaviour. It is not the practice in here to allow visitors in the Public Gallery to make noise or express approval or disapproval, or to try to intimidate or influence Members in the discharge of their duties. That is a clearly established rule, not just in this House but also in the Dáil.

I understand why people might be annoyed at me. I am certainly far from mocking them. As I said earlier, I feel great sympathy for them regarding the position in which they have found themselves; however, I disagree with surrogacy. I disagree especially with international surrogacy and believe it breaches human rights. That is the reason. Therefore, I reserve my right to say, as I did, that this is not some place of public entertainment where people can make noise in response to things they like or do not like, or express horror or emotion. That is not what this House is for, and it might be no harm if Members here, not just visitors, remembered that as well.

Whether one is a champion of women’s rights is very much in the eye of the beholder, but I can say to the Minister that I have always been clear about two things that I honestly believe based on evidence, namely that every child has a right to live from the moment he or she is brought into being at conception and that every child has a right to be brought up, insofar as possible, by a father and mother, preferably his or her own. Those two principles have guided my public life and public advocacy on these matters. The Minister may seek to demonise them as coming from some kind of controlling mentality or fixation on other people’s bodies, but these intervals are well understood by people of all faiths and none and by people of humanitarian good-will, intent and practice, all over the world. In fact, these principles reflected the standard human understanding of things up to a few decades ago. Given that I challenge the mores of the times and legal developments that deprive some children of their right to their very existence, and because I challenge ways of bringing children into being that deprive them of things to which they should be seen as having a right, I will not be told that I am an enemy of women’s rights. In fact, what surprises me-----

Annie Hoey (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not wish to interrupt the Senator but I want to acknowledge visitors in the Gallery who are about to leave. Could the Senator indulge me and allow me to welcome them? After that, the Senator will be more than welcome to resume. I welcome the young people who are here from Roscommon Comhairle na nÓg, who are witnessing democracy fully in action here today. I hope they are enjoying the hearty debate going back and forth. They are more than welcome here. I am aware that they are guests of Senator Dolan. I am welcoming them now because I know they are about to leave. Forgive me for having interrupted Senator Mullen. He can have the floor again.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would also like to say “Up the Rossies” considering that I live only about five miles from the Roscommon border. I am as frequently in Roscommon as I am in County Galway. Fáilte romhaibh agus go n-éirí go geal libh. They are listening to the robust expression of our democracy, or what is our noisy democracy at times, but it is better to have a noisy democracy than a democracy in which people are silenced because of groupthink. That is why we sometimes have to disagree, hopefully never too disagreeably, in this Chamber. Sometimes we have to disagree about important things, and we are certainly doing that here today.

One of the features of my life in recent times is my being approached by women and men who may not share my views on other important issues, including the right to life itself, but who do see the injustices of much of the other things the Government has been proposing in recent times, including the arrangements around surrogacy. Only recently, after I had had my hair cut, a woman in the same salon asked me whether I was a politician.I said I was and asked if I was in trouble. She said I was not in trouble and wished to say she admired my stance on the referendum, that she voted no in both referenda as well. She told me we were not always bedfellows. I felt like saying to her since we are in bed together now, we might have some pillow talk about some of those issues on which we disagreed in the past. That is my experience, although I obviously did not say that. There are people who agree and disagree on different issues of importance but there are many women who are profoundly offended by this legislation because they see it as an attack, not just on womanhood, but on motherhood, not to mention the abuses of the child's rights in the situation.

Senator Seery Kearney made two points which deserve and merit a response. The first point concerns the not-to-worry thinking that there is really no reason to fear we are going into a dark place because there will be licensing of all of these providers by the new body which is being set up, namely, the Assisted Human Reproduction Regulatory Authority, AHRRA. How can one have confidence it will not be as captured by the surrogacy industry as the Minister and the Government have been? Time after time, we see the concept of regulation and the establishment of regulatory authorities are really just other words to describe how we permit this in a way that does not frighten the horses. People will have no confidence these licensing clinics will not be entirely facilitative rather than restrictive. I go further than that; as far as international surrogacy arrangements are concerned, there is simply no way this can be policed remotely from Ireland. That is another reason this should be confined to EU citizens, if it is to be done at all. The further you get away from this jurisdiction, the harder it will be to have any control on what is happening, no matter what the rules say. The Minister, Senator Seery Kearney and everyone knows it but it does not suit them to admit it. That is why, in many of the instances under discussion here, it makes no sense to talk about safeguards and what they might deliver. The international situation will indeed be a dark picture.

Senator Seery Kearney made another point which I thought was interesting. She said looks forward to the day when there will be more widespread domestic surrogacy. She did not go as far as to say I think - although maybe she did on the record - that she looks forward to the day when it is not necessary to engage in international surrogacy arrangements. She made an interesting point when she mentioned that one of the reasons people in our jurisdiction do not make themselves available as surrogate mothers is because they do not want or would not want to have any responsibilities towards the child financially, by way of inheritance or otherwise. Does that not really show what an unnatural thing we are talking about? We want to bring forward an arrangement and make this available in such a way which would enable the carrying of a child in the womb by that child's mother for nine months, who will give birth to that child after exchanging some genetic information or influence through epigenetics, after the nurturing and the bonding and a lot of other stuff we know about and indeed we do not know about, and for that mother not to have any obligations to the child. That goes to the heart of what is wrong about all of this.

I wish to make a point on which I agree with Senator Seery Kearney. To quote The Saw Doctors, it is not today or yesterday that she and I have disagreed on this issue. I remember the first day we disagreed on this; it was to do with an entirely different matter which was being debated on the floor of this House. I mentioned my belief that a child should not be sundered from his or her birth mother, that a child should be brought up by a father and a mother and, as far as possible, by their own father and mother and that this should be considered socially desirable, always encouraged and never deliberately prevented, as is what is happening in this case. I made comments in this regard but I may not have made them in any great detail. I remember the newly elected Senator Seery Kearney taking me to task immediately after the debate. At the time, I was unaware of the Senator's personal story. She did so in her admirable but very forceful way. I just about fended off the verbal onslaught, as I recall. Why do I recall that? The Senator mentioned there are people online who suggest she should not have a voice. I disagree with them if they suggest she should not be part of the-----

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will give way to the Senator if she wishes to tell me who said it.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Senator Seery Kearney wish to be more specific? I do not know whether I have a friend who would say such a thing.

Annie Hoey (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask Senator Mullen to speak through the Chair and for all Senators to speak to the amendment.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am willing to give way to Senator Seery Kearney if she wishes to name and shame. I will criticise such a point of view on the floor of this House. Does Senator Seery Kearney wish to name those people?

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. Let me say clearly, when I saw the operation of the surrogacy committee, and the way in which Senator Keogan, in particular, was treated, I was tempted to wonder whether the normal, mature, careful, respectful, deliberate process we expect in Parliament and in its committees was being undermined by the fact that personal feelings were so strong around the issue. At one point, I was tempted to think it would have been more appropriate if Senator Seery Kearney had been a witness rather than a member. However, I corrected my own thinking on that before I ever expressed it because that would have been the wrong view. She has a mandate and, as an elected representative, she has the same right as anyone else to speak to any issue, to be on any committee and to be part of the normal parliamentary process.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This debate is wandering all over the place at this point.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Any of us who have anything which looks like a vested interest should always declare it and she cannot be faulted on that score. Senator Seery Kearney is crystal clear about where she comes from. I have nothing but compliments for the Senator on this occasion. However, when one has such strong personal feelings on a matter, it behoves us all, as it behoves me when I talk about issues that upset me, tend to worry me or cause me a strong reaction, one has to call oneself aside and ask if one is being fair to the opponent whose feelings may be as strong as mine but in the other direction. That is why the only thing on which I disagree with the Senator today is around the process issue and her taking me to task for expressing, as forcefully as I need to, my opinion in opposition to the forceful way in which she has expressed her opinion. Her feelings are important but they are no more important than any other person's feelings in this debate.

Annie Hoey (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Mullen must speak to the amendment, please.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are a lot of people who do not have Senator Seery Kearney's advocacy skills and who are not elected representatives or powerful people. Those people wish to express their concern and some of them have been personally hurt by all of this. If there are people on the Internet who say ugly things then shame on them. If there are people on the Internet who say Senator Seery Kearney should not have a voice, then shame on them. However, I say shame on anyone who says that people who come forward and speak about this issue from the perspective of their pain are somehow patsies as Senator Seery Kearney has suggested, although she did not use that word. We are invited to understand that the people who have engaged in surrogacy and are happy with it need to be heard and that their feelings are very important. I agree with that; their feelings are very important. However, we are invited to think there is somehow less validity to the experience of those who have been hurt by surrogacy. I wonder about the logical basis for that idea which has come from Senator Seery Kearney today. I am sorry she thinks my argument is twisted.

Annie Hoey (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please speak to the amendment Senator Mullen. The Senator must speak through the Chair rather than speaking directly to Senator Seery Kearney.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak through the Chair but I will not speak just to the amendment; I will speak to the charges which have been made. I hope we understand each other. I wish to reiterate that I oppose the stigmatising of anyone. An argument which has been used against people who oppose surrogacy is that they are somehow out to stigmatise the families and children involved. No, they are not. I certainly criticise and stigmatise the process.People should not have access to this process. It is violative of women's rights and dignity and of children's basic and fundamental rights. Where a child comes into the world as the result of a violent act, it is not stigmatising of that child to say the violent act should never have taken place. By analogy-----

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The debate is just wandering aimlessly. The Senator is filibustering.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do you want me to give way, Minister?

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have been listening. I do not want that. I want you to stop talking nonsense.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You are poor enough at speaking up when it comes to giving an answer. You are just irritated.

Annie Hoey (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Senator and the Minister to speak through the Chair.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In his heart, the Minister is not a liberal at all. He is a totalitarian. He does not "like it up 'im", to quote "Dad's Army".

Annie Hoey (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That has nothing to do with the amendments.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister does not like being told uncomfortable truths.

Annie Hoey (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not to do with the amendments.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He feels the need to interrupt, whereas all I have done-----

Annie Hoey (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not to do with the amendments.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Nobody is being stigmatised here but there is a process that ought to be strongly criticised. Those are my remarks in response to the unjust charges of the Minister and Senator Seery Kearney.

Annie Hoey (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will keep to the amendments. I thank the Senator for her intervention.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to speak.

Annie Hoey (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Senator's contribution going to be on the amendments?

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. My mother and father made a fine job of rearing me but, unlike Senator Seery Kearney, I need lots of advice from people all the time.

Annie Hoey (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is marvellous. We are going to keep to the amendments and hear a little less about our parents and who is or is not giving us advice.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Vótáil.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Members claiming a division please rise?

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As fewer than five Members have risen I declare the question defeated. In accordance with Standing Order 61 the names of the Senators dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Seanad.