Professor Nóirín Hayes:

In my opening statement I hope I made two things clear about the birth certificate. The language of the Bill needs to be more cognisant of the rights of the child. In that way we should limit the extent to which we create procedures and processes marking them out as different. Births now happen in a variety of ways, with a complexity of opportunities.

On the proposal of a surrogacy certificate, I did not have a difficulty with giving the information about surrogacy. My problem was that it was not a birth certificate. The proposal was that it should be a birth certificate by surrogacy or a birth certificate by donor with access to available information on the complexity of the parentage of a child in whatever way it happens. While the field is new, the research that is accumulating indicates that hiding or obscuring information about identity complicates the developmental trajectory later in life. For children, it increases the likelihood of difficulties and distress. I would certainly propose that as much information as possible be made available to children. Parents should be encouraged and the process and procedures may actually feed into that encouragement by their openness.

I pick the Senator up on one word he used. He spoke about child well-being. It is important to note that the Bill refers to welfare and not to well-being, which is a much more complex concept. Many of us are trying to present the evidence of how we can maximise the child's well-being.

The Senator proposed a question on surrogacy to Professor Madden and he originally proposed it openly. In information that is being made generally and not just for intending parents and potential surrogates we need to discuss the complexities of it. We need to make the information available. From the point of view of the action we are proposing, I do not think there is sufficient evidence to categorically discourage surrogacy. I am certainly not against the research by experts of experience, who have much to contribute.