Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I listened to what the Minister said yesterday in the Seanad. I was very disappointed to hear the language he used and that he would appear at this late stage to be moving the goalposts. The committee was never tasked with presenting legislation. That is not our job; it is the job of the Minister and the Government to do that. When we look back to our remit, the joint committee was to consider and make recommendations on measures. That is our role and we cannot go outside that role. I ask the Minister to take a look at the remit of the committee so he fully understands what our role is.

It is also disappointing because, at the very start of this committee, we had concerns about what our role was and how it would be incorporated into the workings of Government. We attempted at every stage to get clarity on that matter. We first wrote to the Minister on 25 March, although we did not receive a response. We also wrote on 14 April, asking that he clarify the role of the committee and how he would consider any report published by the committee in the consideration of the Bill, but it was four or five weeks before we received a response. As we all know, this committee is a 12-week committee so we have a very tight deadline. It is very challenging but we have stepped up to the challenge and we have put in as much time as possible to get this done thoroughly. It is disappointing that, despite limited engagement from the Minister, he would then stand up and misrepresent the functions of this committee in the Seanad.

This committee was never to present legislation for consideration. I am conscious of the work that every member of the committee has done. It is unfortunate that this would now appear to undermine the level of input and the level of effort, not only of the committee members, but also the witnesses who have come in to tell us their often very personal stories. For those people to now feel their input will potentially not be considered is unacceptable.

I agree with the suggestion to invite the Minister in. I see Senator Ruane is now with us and she may want to comment. The proposal is that we invite the Minister in next week, or potentially the week after, to seek clarity on this. We are due to finish and present our report on 7 July and the Dáil will be rising within a week at that point. There is an entire summer recess period where the Minister and his Department could take our recommendations, draft them and turn them into legislation that can be utilised. There is no way what we are doing is delaying the AHR Bill. The fact that is being indicated is incorrect and wrong.

We will leave it at that that because we have witnesses before the committee. Is it agreed that we invite in the Minister? Agreed. Hopefully, we will finally get some clarity on the matter.

I apologise to our witnesses for the delay. In our meeting today, we will consider how to best prevent the exploitation or coercion of surrogates and intending parents, and ensure intending parents have an understanding of the full implications of the surrogacy process. On behalf of the committee, I welcome to the committee room Ms Edwina Oakes, Ms Marian O’Tuama and Ms Victoria Reid from the Irish Fertility Counsellors Association. Joining us online are Ms Sara Cohen and Ms Sharon O'Shea.

Before we begin, I will deal with the issue of privilege and some housekeeping matters. All witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction. There are limitations to parliamentary privilege for witnesses attending remotely outside of the Leinster House campus and, as such, they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness who is physically present. Witnesses participating in this committee session from a jurisdiction outside the State are advised that they should also be mindful of their own domestic law and how it might apply to the evidence that they give.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit members to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask members participating via Microsoft Teams that prior to making a contribution to the meeting they confirm they are on the grounds of the Leinster House complex.

I invite the witnesses to make their opening statements and we will then go to questions. I first call Ms Cohen.