Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

First, I will address the specific provision the Minister referenced. It is section 24(5). It provides for a period of three years from the date on which that subsection comes into operation, a gamete to which paragraph (a) of that subsection does not apply may be used, basically, in an assisted human reproduction procedure. Then it goes through a whole series of issues.

The three years is the problem. I am going to ask the Minister to amend that on Report Stage because in circumstances where there is frozen material available to be utilised in assisted reproduction, that could be used over many years. In the context of that, it does not make sense that it is confined to a three-year period. For example, where a couple has an arrangement or where material is available, will it be the case that if one wants to have children, one had better have three in three years?

I do not understand the three-year provision. It creates unnecessary difficulties. Could the Minister clarify if, for example, this were to apply to an embryo, if a number of embryos were created - I understand it will apply - let us assume there are five frozen embryos that a husband and wife can utilise to conceive a child and a donor has been involved with regard to the material required to create the embryos, are we going to say to them, first, any ones that can be utilised to conceive must be done within three years of the enactment of the Bill because the donor was anonymous? That makes no sense. There is no merit in it and I would suggest that should be revisited.

When replying in respect of Deputy Mac Lochlainn's amendment, the Minister indicated that Parts 2 and 3 of the Bill will not be brought into force for a minimum of one year and possibly longer. I am of the view that Part 3 should be removed from the legislation entirely. The difficulty with Part 2 is that it contains provisions relating to identifying the children born through assisted reproduction. I am quite happy that the provisions which should have been left to the Department of Health to deal with in the first instance will not be brought into force for a minimum of one year. I suspect that some of them will never be brought into force in their current state.

There is an urgent need to make specific rules in respect of the area of parentage. Under the enabling provision in the legislation, at section 1(3), the Minister "may appoint by order or orders either generally or with reference to a particular purpose or provision and different days may be so appointed for different purposes or different provisions". Basically, this means that he or she may bring different sections into operation. There is an urgent need to provide clarity with regard to the parentage of children born through assisted reproduction. It is bad enough that we are leaving out children born by means of surrogacy, particularly in the context of the number of court cases which have taken place to date on that issue and the number of parents and children affected. We should not be saying that we are not going to provide clarity for children who are born via assisted reproduction for a minimum of one year and possibly longer.

I do not want the Minister to be in a position in the future where when she wishes to bring certain sections into operation, she will be of the view that she has made a pledge not to do so. I hope that when the legislation is enacted, the provisions which offer clarity regarding parentage will be brought into force. Even though I disagree with the necessity for individuals to be obliged to go before the courts to obtain orders or declarations of parentage which indicate that their parents consensually agreed to use assisted reproduction by donor, we should postpone the possibility of their being able to do so for a minimum or possibly a good deal longer. I ask the Minister to reconsider the blanket promise to the effect that Part 2 will not be brought into force for at least a year. The parentage identity provision should be implemented immediately.

I welcome the fact that Part 3 will not be brought into force for at least one year. It would be preferable if the matter to which it relates were dealt with by the Department of Health. Whatever the position, the three-year provision in section 24(5) must be revisited.