Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

My officials are working with their counterparts in the Departments of Justice and Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, as well as the Office of the Attorney General, on further possible amendments. We are examining bringing forward additional amendments on Report Stage in this House in respect of donor-assisted human reproduction procedures which take place abroad, and parentage in circumstances where a donor-conceived child has been born abroad. Again, these are core things that were asked for by the parents in the advocacy groups. We are working our way through that.

The Government has been working on the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill for some time. I gave a commitment, to the despair of some, that we would have the fully amended AHR Bill through the Government by the end of last year, including the Bill within a Bill which is the international surrogacy Bill. It is now 256 amendments over 100 pages which we are working through at the moment. Thanks to a huge effort by officials, by Members of the Oireachtas and by the advocacy groups as well, we are now on Committee Stage which is great.

As I have outlined, some aspects of the Labour Party’s Bill are already being incorporated in the Government’s Bill. There are others that I have not referenced. I covered the granting of citizenship. The inclusion of procedures that took place abroad is something we are working on. It is legally complex but we are trying to find a solution to it. Therefore quite a number of the issues raised are included in the Bill or in the amendments I am bringing through the Government’s AHR Bill. One or two of the issues raised are in conflict with EU law. Payments for donors is contrary to the existing EU directive and a forthcoming EU directive, so some measures cannot be taken for that reason. Then there are one or two measures where there is just a difference of view. For instance, on judicial discretion, there is a different view in government to the one taken in this Private Members’ Bill.

The area of donor-assisted reproduction is complex and it is not only about parentage. I am not suggesting that the Deputy is saying that it is. It is crucial that any measures taken ensure the safety of the procedures, provide absolute certainty as regards parentage for donor-conceived children and maintain very high levels of protection for donor-conceived children’s right to identity. That is very important in the legislation we are bringing through. These concerns form a core aspect of the legislation. It is for this reason that we will not be legislating for at-home insemination.

I pushed my officials very hard on this, which was an ask from some of the groups. I tried it from various angles, including proposing that a certified clinician from a clinic might come to someone's house. We did look to find ways, because I have great sympathy with people in this position on a human level. This is a very intimate, important and special time, and many people are saying they really do not want to have to go to a clinic for this. Medically, there is no reason to go to a clinic. I accept that. I have great sympathy with this. I got very clear rebuttals from our legal people and from the Department for children which stated that the right of identity of the child must be paramount and that was why they did not want to move on it.

I accepted an amendment from Deputy Cullinane yesterday for a three-year review of the Act. I want to make clear that this is new ground and that we are legislating for new technologies in some cases. When it comes to international surrogacy, Ireland will, I believe, be the first country anywhere to have legislated in the way we are doing. I hope the Bill I have brought forward will get a lot right. Inevitably, however, some things will not work in the way we are hoping and anticipating that they will work. We need to be very open about that. As stated, yesterday I accepted an opposition amendment for a full review after three years, but we need to be open to changing this as matters unfold.

The route we need to take lies not through the Private Member's Bill before the House but through the Government Bill that is currently on Committee Stage. I have one or two comments to make on this matter. We have a very comprehensive Bill. It is cognisant of the asks and the measures dealt with in Deputy Bacik's Bill. That is why some of them are covered in the Government's Bill. Where they are not covered, there have been very thorough investigations made and positions taken. There is a live Government Bill. I suggest that if the Deputy wants to have these discussions directly in respect of the Bill that we know will be passed - hopefully - she should table amendments to it. We had a meeting of the select committee yesterday. Further meetings will be taking place in the coming weeks, which means that there will be further opportunities for members of the Opposition to table amendments to that Bill.. I do not mean this as a criticism of what Deputy Bacik is doing - I know she is operating in good faith - but uncertainty would be created if we had two live Bills - one on Committee Stage and, the other having passed Second Stage, proceeding to Committee Stage - that were in conflict with each other in some respects. We must provide certainty on retrospective parentage, prospective parentage, the rules relating to citizenship, etc. Having two live Bills would create a lack of certainty. That would not be useful. It would be better to debate everything in the context of one Bill and make the necessary calls. As stated, I have already introduced several amendments on the basis of representations from the advocacy groups. I am open to further amendments. We signalled that very clearly at the committee meeting yesterday. We will be having further amendments on Report Stage and, potentially, in the Seanad as well. This is very much a live process.

It is for that reason that I tabled amendment No. 1, which calls for the Bill to be read a second time nine months from now. I did not want to oppose Deputy Bacik's Bill. I wanted to at least provide the option for us to not divide the House. I fully respect the Deputy's right to vote against my amendment. I at least wanted to not oppose the Bill before the House and provide an option to say that we will not divide the House and that there is a live Bill in respect of which all of these issues can be looked at and voted on on Committee and Report Stages. I do, however, fully respect the Deputy's right to do whatever she wants in terms of her Private Member's Bill.

We all agree that legislation in this area is long overdue. These are complex and sensitive issues for many people. We are aware that at the heart of the details we are debating are people's lives, their need for parentage of children who are here now and who must have that and their hopes for what is needed when it comes to future parentage and legislative backing for assisted human reproduction, donor-assisted human reproduction and domestic and international surrogacy.

Given the size and complexity of the Government Bill and the new amendments we have brought forward, a number of meetings of the Select Committee on Health will be needed to consider what is involved. My hope is that we can move forward quickly. We will be before the House then for Report Stage. That will be quite a detailed session. I want to get the Health (Assisted Human Reproduction) Bill passed.

The Deputy referenced upcoming elections. Who knows what is going to happen, but the longest it can be to the general election is a little over 12 months.

See this speech in context