David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I have a very similar amendment on the same issue. We had a lengthy discussion with the officials on this issue and we got some clarity on it. What was explained to us is that the threshold of the obligations on providers to ensure there is not any risk to the child is lower than originally intended because of some of the changes that were made. Having said that, it is a very extensive obligation to place on fertility clinics and providers of services. We all want to make sure there are very robust protections for children. Nobody is arguing that they should not be there.

My understanding of what was said by the officials is that there is a self-declaration process, so the intending parents, for example, will have to fill in a self-declaration form, as any of us do if we are going to the United States, about whether they were ever in jail. The Minister knows the obvious questions that people are asked. Perhaps there are some very similar questions asked in this regard. That declaration is fine from the perspective of the intending parents, but we are setting a legislative bar here and we are saying there is an onus and responsibility on the provider to satisfy itself on the risk. That is something that will be very difficult for providers to do because, for example, they do not have access to Garda vetting. We are asking them to essentially take at face value what is being said by the intending parents but the obligation is onerous.

Deputy Shortall has suggested an amendment along the lines of the provider being aware, which might be better wording. Legislative thresholds and bars that have to be hit are very important. As I said at the briefing, it is always the hard cases that get the attention and become subject to very critical questions if, for example, something was missed, possibly through no fault of a provider. People could say the providers had an obligation and they signed off on it, even if they had no way to investigate and nobody wants them to do that. For those reasons, we had a very lengthy discussion. This is a very important issue that needs to be clarified. If we could amend the provision while still having a level of protection, that might be a better way to deal with this from a legislative perspective.

I am interested in the Minister's thoughts on it.