Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

This has been an instructive and good discussion. I thank everyone for that. I feel the need to begin by saying we must be sure that the characterisation of intended parents reflects that they are not out to snatch any child. Neither do they ever consider their surrogate mother to be nothing, but as the person who gave birth to their precious and much-wanted child. I clarify this point, lest there be anyone who might misunderstand the discussion we have rightly been having.

Dr. Mulligan has helpfully set out three possible levels of consideration in the context of proposed legislation in this area. The term "commercial surrogacy" is used, and I would venture to say that, at times, the term is used in a weaponised manner to discourage anyone from even considering international surrogacy from a legislative perspective. As Dr. Mulligan stated, there is no definition of "commercial surrogacy". The term encompasses an understanding of many aspects, beginning with someone being compensated, and there is a provision for compensation in the context of donor-assisted reproduction in section 19 of the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015, as Dr. Mulligan stated. Everything is included in this regard, from that aspect, including people being rightfully compensated, or their mere expenses, perhaps vouched expenses, being covered, all the way to the criminal end of things, which involves pure child trafficking. Unfortunately, those who have not been intimately involved with surrogacy or who have not got a good level of familiarity with the experience or the law tend to look in that latter direction. Those who want to discourage legislation tend to characterise surrogacy only in the context of that extreme end of things.

To recap, there is no definition of "commercial surrogacy". In that lies a problem, because the Canadian model, for example, provides for compensated surrogacy. Unfortunately, going to Canada or the US is the only option for same-sex male couples. Therefore, if we were to go down a route of referring to commercial surrogacy without further definition, we would be excluding such couples from the possibility of becoming parents. That stands at absolute variance with the forward trajectory we have had since the referendum on marriage equality. We have not decided that same-sex male couples cannot have children. By its nature, however, they need to have children through surrogacy. Our characterisation of commercial surrogacy also lends itself to stigmatising intending parents and children born via surrogacy in commercial arrangements abroad. We must be sensitive in that regard and I would value Dr. Mulligan's views on this aspect.

This brings us to something I already mentioned to Dr. Mulligan. I disagree with her usage of "liberal" in the context of labelling one of the potential approaches. It should either be "discretionary" or "broad". The use of "liberal" assumes that we want to permit everything. It is a loaded term. I do not believe anyone, especially me, wants that approach for surrogacy. I will leave it at that, because we will probably get another round of questions later.