Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Cathaoirleach Gníomhach agus cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. It gives me no pleasure to say that while I very much recognise that there are people who are very attached to this Bill, who want to see it pass and who think it is a great thing, there are many other people of goodwill in this country who genuinely subscribe to an inclusive vision of human rights and human dignity who are absolutely horrified by what is in the Bill and who regard it as a shameful Bill. It gives me no pleasure to have to disagree with friends and colleagues in this House or elsewhere but the truth about it has to be told.

I have many serious concerns about the Bill that are all evidence-based and rooted in science. I recognise that not everybody will share my precise list of concerns, the highest of which are to do with the terrible problem of international surrogacy. I will list briefly the big concerns I and many others have, which many will share. The Bill proposes the legalisation of experimentation on human embryos. It empowers the production of surplus embryos that are human beings, which is a scientifically evidence-based statement. The Bill shows complete disregard for the right to life, despite all the cant that one hears from national and international bodies about the respect due to human embryos.

The Bill proposes legislation for domestic surrogacy and proposes a denial of a child's right to be nurtured by his or her natural parent, his or her birth mother. It also proposes the enabling of international surrogacy, which by definition cannot but be commercial however people try to deny it and say it is all about reasonable expenses only. There is no realistic way to identify an altruistic surrogate in another jurisdiction. The Bill allows for the commissioning of poor women in poor countries to provide their babies to richer individuals, financially advantaged single people or couples here in Ireland. That can only be described as a form of modern day trafficking and slavery. The Bill introduces a fiction of reasonable expenses to empower the expansion of international surrogacy, which is a multibillion euro industry as things stand. The Bill involves the expense of running this brave new AHR agency to facilitate surrogacy. That will all fall on the taxpayer.

The Bill creates a precedent, which is an important point, for international surrogacy law across Europe. It advances the facilitation of this very modern form of slavery at a time when we should seek to outlaw this practice worldwide, as is the case in most European countries and as is emphasised by many respected international organisations, documents and instruments that this should be the case. Here again we are being provided with complex legislation and very little time to consider it. We have seen this tactic played out a few times now by this Government, supported by a weak Sinn Féin opposition. We have the cosy consensus created between political parties, NGOs and votes being avoided. To my knowledge not a single vote was called in the Dáil on this 200-page legislation. All of this of course has passed without the general public being properly consulted or made aware and, it has to be said, with a largely compliant mainstream media that has focused only on human interest stories while refusing to try to tease out the debate and hear the concerns of all sides and experts on all sides, etc. The Bill passed through the Dáil without a vote at any stage, yet it is clear there are serious lacunae. The Government wants this House to deal with the Bill in under a fortnight with 200 pages for technical scrutiny thrown at us the week before elections, having taken a full week off for the elections. There are precious few hours to deal with it. This is turning the Dáil and the Seanad into a rubber-stamping exercise. Is it any wonder that people have very little respect for politicians? What is the Seanad for if it is not to scrutinise legislation line by line? Why are we being treated in such a cavalier fashion? Why does the public not know what is going on with this damaging legislation? There are very few countries in the world where surrogacy is legal. Greece is the only EU state that permits it. Why am I beginning to feel that our sleepy Parliament is again being used as a Trojan horse to enable the popularisation of surrogacy? It is for good reason that EU countries do not have surrogacy. They see it for what it is: a modern form of slavery. A child is always a gift and should never be the basis of a commercial contract in any way whatsoever. The proposed acceptance of this practice is really an outrage and an offence to anybody concerned with the rights of women, the rights of poorer women in particular and, indeed, the rights of children whose denial and hampering of their life experience in everything from breastfeeding to the society of at least one of their genetic parents and to the right of the society of their birth mother who nurtured them for nine months and bonded with them in the womb. All of this is intentionally to be deprived to the child upfront and in advance as part of surrogacy contracts.

The South Carolina slave code was comprehensive. It talked about chattels, personnel and people being owned but there is an element of ownership and selling going on here no matter how this issue is sliced and diced. It is a concern for people, from conservative-minded people to liberal-minded feminists, that this is what is going on here. The bottom line is this: rich people do not carry babies for poor people. The Minister mentioned that one of the concerns in the Bill is the surrogate moving on to different intending parents. Does this not let the cat out of the bag in showing just how transactional all of this is? He did not mention any discussion that took place or any need to consult with the general public about what they think of this recipe for a very 21st century form of slavery. If the Bill was regulating the procurement of body parts of willing donors from abroad on the payment of reasonable expenses running into thousands of euro, we would see it for what it was: trafficking in body parts and the exploitation of the poor by the rich. As I said, rich people do not carry babies for poorer people. Poor people do so because they are unable to resist economic exploitation - the surrogates mentioned by the Minister who might move on to different intending parents. Let us not fool ourselves. There is no genuine autonomy. For the same reason that we rightly criminalise the selling of people in prostitution and refuse to accept that there can somehow be free consent to one's own exploitation, the same issue arises here. Poor people need the money. This is a risky way of getting it and they are ready to take that risk.

Shame on the Minister and shame on his Department for countenancing this as a part of our law in a country that protests its support for civil rights and human dignity. Laws are supposed to protect the weak and vulnerable to prevent this from happening. This law promotes and enables a form of trafficking in children. This is commercial surrogacy by the back door, which is a big business exploiting poor women and the rights of children. It is being enabled here under the guise of reasonable compensation. Yes, it is tragic that some families and some people are unable to conceive, yet we cannot compromise on the universal rights of mothers and children for that sake and for the sake of lesser, even if important and sensitive, considerations. We have no right to commodify children and I say that to the civil servants involved in this as well as to the Minister and the politicians. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights"; there is none of that here. Surrogate motherhood is based on the exploitation of women's bodies and their reproductive capacities for the benefit of third parties. It is a humiliation of women.It undermines the very notion of human dignity, and for the whole of society.

I would like to ask one question. Where is our Ombudsman for Children in all of this? The Ombudsman for Children said that where surrogacy arrangements had already taken place, human rights instruments would demand that there be recognition of the relationship between the intending parents and the children. I get that because the child's best interests, once it has happened, should be taken into account and should have the primary place. However, we cannot do that in a way that incentivises the ongoing reality of this practice. There should be an amnesty for where it has already taken place but there should be penalties for any future involvement with international surrogacy and if it does happen, those penalties should continue to apply. Guardianship and the securing of a child's equal rights in every case, one by one, is the way to balance that difficult situation. This is a practice that should not be happening, but when it does happen we should not victimise the children. We cannot do that unless we insist that there will be penalties for being involved in international surrogacy, even if there is to be a retrospective recognition of the relationship as the least worse outcome and in order to protect the child's best interests.

The Ombudsman has been shamefully absent on this. How can it be in pursuance of children's rights? To be fair to him, he did say that the agenda to prohibit international commercial surrogacy was understandable. However, what a weak and lily-livered word "understandable" is. It is necessary to oppose international surrogacy and anything that could be commercial surrogacy by the back door. The Ombudsman for Children has been silent on the strategies needed to oppose, counter and discourage it in this country and other countries. It is still the majority view. I think only Greece has it in the EU.

The United Nations special rapporteur, in her study on surrogacy in 2018, said that surrogacy arrangements constitute sale of children whenever the surrogate mother of a third party receives remuneration or any other consideration in exchange for transferring the child. I think that is happening in this Bill but by sleight of hand, notwithstanding the protestations that this does not involve commercial surrogacy.

It would also appear, and the Minister may be of assistance to me here, that this legislation as drafted might allow a father to be declared a mother. How does this intersect with the operation of the Gender Recognition Act 2015? In the definition, the male gamete is described as something to have been produced in the body of a male. Is it the Minister's intention to say, for example, that a person who has changed their gender and who has a preferred gender now as female, though remaining capable of producing a male gamete, is not to be allowed to be the parent, or may that person be a parent as a single commissioning parent procuring an egg from a donor and then having a third-party surrogate carry that baby to term? Is the Minister's intention then that this biological male could present himself to the world and, indeed, seek registration under the civil registration legislation as the mother of that child? Is that his intention? I would like clarity on that because it would certainly show very little regard for the recent decision of the people in the referendum in which the concept and meaning of motherhood, and the value to be attributed to motherhood, were a central part of the debate. I say that knowing that the term "mother" is not constitutionally defined. However, it would certainly show clear ongoing contempt by the Government for motherhood and its value if, as a direct or indirect possibility of this Bill, a biological male could seek to be an intending parent, as mother of a child to be produced by a surrogate mother. We will just have to hear what the Minister has to say on that.

To those who say it is very hard-hearted to oppose this Bill when we have all these people who would love to have children - and I sympathise with them - remember the pain, suffering and abuse of the surrogate mothers involved as well. One such mother, Rachel, said:

Most hurtfully I was not invited to the twin's christening. I was used for my uterus, and then discarded when I was no longer needed. It was the most degrading and horrific experience. My mental health collapsed ...

I never talk about what happened to anyone, not even to close relatives, as I do not want to relive what happened to me.

[...]

Women should not be encouraged to endanger their emotional and physical health and safety ... Women matter.

Not under this Bill.