Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his robust rejection of these amendments. I will go through all of them and point out the errors in their conception, if you pardon the pun. Amendment No. 1, which is based on the idea that parents entering into surrogacy should be on par with adoptive parents and meet the criteria for adoption, seeks to conflate surrogacy and adoption, which are different things in the journey to becoming a parent. It does not recognise that one or both will be the biological parents of the child. It fails to understand that the adoption process perhaps needs to be reformed. It sets up that process as some champion of a pathway to parenting when it is deeply flawed in many instances.

Many people who go down the surrogacy route may have had cancer. They may be in remission and may have been told they are healthy. They may be 20 years along from their original cancer diagnosis, but because of that original diagnosis they are denied the opportunity of adoption. They go through a process where they are called into a room, having gone through the various stages of adoption, to be told there will be a weighting put on their age based on the particular illness they once had or may be at risk of having again. That consequently pulls them out of being eligible for adoption. Many surrogacy parents have already faced into the horror of a process where they put in an application and are contacted four years later to be invited to start engaging in the process. When they are in the process, they are called out to be told something is an impediment and they have to be rejected. They would win, but they would have to go to a judicial review. They may overturn it on judicial review and make themselves eligible for adoption. We also need to look at the success of adoption as a route to parenthood, and back to the shame that there are so many millions of children in the world who would do fantastically within a family. However, adoption to my mind is no longer fit for purpose and has not been for a very long time. To equate the two is to be ignorant as to the reality of adoption and to conflate two completely different routes to parenthood.

Amendment No. 4 smacks of a statement that Selina Bonnie made to the disability matters committee on International Women's Day in 2021. She and her husband were going forward for fertility treatment. She was a disabled woman who unfortunately died earlier this year. She was told she could only undergo and engage in fertility treatment if she could guarantee that her child would not be disabled. There is an inherent discrimination within amendment No. 4, which discriminates against people with disabilities and obliges them to prove that their child will not be disabled. It is really quite appalling in its wording. I gladly reject it. None of the sentiments within it are at all appropriate to this discussion.

I move to amendment No. 10. For a start, let us dispel some of the myths going on here. It feels like an eternity ago when Micheál Martin, as Minister for Health, asked the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction to produce a report, which was finally published in April 2005 after an incredibly long and detailed process. It recommended a regulatory authority, which is exactly what is in this Bill. It recommended the legalisation of surrogacy, which is exactly what is in this Bill. They had 23 plenary meetings and several working groups. They went into this in depth. They were all professionals and people in a position to have a so-called objective opinion, not that there is anything wrong with being subjective as I am accused of, because that is the nature of democracy. Members of the House reflect the real lives of people in Ireland. The report was published as long ago as 2005, which means that this has been spoken about for 19 years. It has been part of public discussion for more than 19 years, with a recognised and respected report sitting on the public shelf for digestion. The idea that this is suddenly something new, which was never consulted on, is wrong.

In 2012 there was Alan Shatter's list of proofs for court. We had the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill 2017, which led to the committee saying that we needed to do something different on international surrogacy and to examine it further. We then had the commissioning of Professor Conor O'Mahony as special rapporteur on child protection - the clue is in the name - and his report was finalised in December 2020 and was published in spring 2021. It formed the basis for the Joint Committee on International Surrogacy. That Oireachtas committee heard from people across the board, including the Ombudsman for Children who came and presented to the committee. Dr. Niall Muldoon does not need me to stand up for him but I want to say that as an individual in public life and as the Ombudsman for Children, Dr. Muldoon is filled with integrity. His reports often tell off the Government and often challenge us. He is certainly no puppet of anybody. He is an amazing champion for children. Following last week's charges by Senator Mullen, I forwarded him the most recent email on this matter from the ombudsman so that he was aware. The ombudsman's submission and the entirety of that meeting of the international surrogacy committee are publicly available to show what the various positions are. We then come to this Bill, which has been the subject of hours of debate. I know I have exhibited impatience in respect of it over the past couple of years. That was because I am on the front line when it comes to people's reality and the challenges they face in their lives. Here we are, however, with an incredibly well-thought-through piece of legislation. In the context of the issues and challenges I have raised, I have always been impressed by the sheer depth of discussion that has gone on in the context of the answers provided. The three officials here with the Minister are included in that regard.

We need to remember that the recommendations of the committee were all about trying to conceive legislation that will enshrine the Verona principles. Let us just remember where those principles came from. They are from an international organisation that is 100 years old this year. That organisation worked with the United Nations and put down the original 12 recommendations that laid the groundwork for the international convention on the adoption of children. We are dealing with an incredibly reputable body and the incredibly reputable people who signed those principles and who recommended them. These are people of great international standing who had the imprimatur of the UN in setting out the Verona principles. A core sentiment of the views and advocacy relating to the principles was the idea that the surrogate mother would always have and hold bodily autonomy. We discussed this at the surrogacy committee. We upheld the idea absolutely that the surrogate mother should have an absolute say over her own body throughout, including choosing an abortion and the termination of the pregnancy at some point. It is not just about her having a termination imposed on her. It is also that she may choose it or that she may reject it but that she at all times has a say in respect of her bodily autonomy and her right to that.

Best practice in the context of embryo transfer, and a recommendation for the supposed success rates in IVF, is actually the transfer of one embryo, not any more than that. Two would be the norm, but one embryo is now considered best practice. This is talked about in this context in the Bill. This causes hardship for some people who feel that the more are transferred, the better the chance. Actually, it works contrary to that. The environment of the uterus is the best place to nurture a smaller number of transferred embryos.

Embryos are treasured by surrogacy families. In some instances where women have been obliged to have hysterectomies, if they are to run the risk of infertility as a consequence of their treatment or cancer treatment, the HSE has for a long time promoted and funded the harvesting and storage of eggs in advance of any treatment. The HSE has even shipped embryos in such circumstances to locations where a surrogacy is to be take place. There is at least one mother here today who has had the benefit of that. The preciousness of embryos lies at the heart of this matter. Many people will never have their own genetic embryos again. Nothing is disposable here. It is not about using emotion; it is about using facts - stating the facts of our lives, the facts of our society and the facts of our experience.

Amendment No. 10 is not necessary because the legislation not only responds to the report of the international surrogacy committee, it goes further than that in many instances - some harshly and some may be disagreed with - and it was an argument in the Lower House that it is not liberal enough. Mainly, this was about the fact that everybody wanted an ethical framework based on the Verona principles. Basing it on the autonomy of the surrogate mother is very important in that regard.

There is an idea that there must be an amendment in respect of testamentary guardians. Amendment No. 11 states: "Any surrogate parent shall be required to sign a declaration demonstrating they understand the risks and effects of their decision.” I am not sure who the surrogate parent is in this instance. Is it the surrogate mother? Is it the intending parents? The terminology in that amendment is incorrect. Counselling and legislation are enshrined in the legislation. Any of us who have been before the courts have already had to put in affidavits and proofs that the surrogate mother knew what she was doing. Again, the amendment demonstrates a misunderstanding of the process that families are going through and the process that surrogates work with in order to arrive at a place where consent to parental orders, such as they are at the moment, is given. The amendment is not necessary.

We then come to the contentious amendment No. 12. On this journey and in my general life, I have had the honour of meeting many people, among them men who all of their lives have dreamed of being parents. It is not down to their sexuality that they want to do that. It is just down to an inherent human instinct to want to have a child. I was deeply impressed by the testimony given at the surrogacy committee by Gearóid Kenny Moore, who referred to his first date with his husband and the fact that they discussed their absolute desire to have children, just as my husband and I talked about it on our first date. The idea that one's gender somehow includes you or excludes you from that inherent human desire is appalling. During my adult life, I have sat with men whose partners have just had a miscarriage as they cared for them in that pain and in their loss. They nobly move to support their partner who is going through the physical experience of a miscarriage, but they too feel the loss emotionally. They too have had all of the dreams of a lifetime that go along with however long a pregnancy lasts for, or however short it might be. There is an advert on television at the moment in which a couple are buying shoes for the child going to school and it jumps to the idea of a father practicing his speech for his daughter's wedding. Men have those wishes and desires, and they make excellent fathers. The presumption behind amendment No. 12 is quite appalling. It is a terrible indictment of men, which I fundamentally and absolutely reject. It also makes an assumption that every mother is a brilliant mother, is perfect and that we are all apple pie and ice cream - the American term.

One of the signatories to this amendment is a foster mother and should know that when things break down, this is not the case. She should also know that there are various reasons for this happening and that nobody is to blame. The idea that one gender is perfect and should be allowed to be a parent on their own and that men should not be allowed to be parents on their own is appalling.That is an appalling, sweeping statement and presumption about all men regardless of their sexuality.

Amendment No. 13 is, unusually, one of the few amendments I have sympathy for. I agree with the Minister that the idea of life assurance is too prescriptive for primary legislation but certainly it is something that should be considered.

With regard to parents adding in new guardians for their surrogate children in the event of their death, people do that. When people go to the solicitor testamentary guardians are one of the first things they are recommended to put in place once the process is confirmed. That is something that can be advised by the regulatory authority at the material time of anyone making an application. Also, many of us had to go down the route of making sure we, as the second parent, are the testamentary guardians for our husbands who are the biological fathers of our children and that goes for same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Again, the basis of that amendment shows a misunderstanding of what is involved and how everyone approaches surrogacy, the responsibility of becoming a parent and the seriousness with which they engage in this process.

I do not have a comment on amendment No. 14. I think it is a matter for an AAHRA. What clinic and country is approved and how is a matter for the regulatory authority.

With regard to amendment No. 15, I support the Minister in saying "under no circumstances". Any reading of this legislation clearly demonstrates that people accessing fertility treatment have to go through a screening process set out in this Bill; that is deeply offensive to people who need to access fertility treatment. I have already had words over here. Seriously, so someone has a diagnosis of requiring fertility treatment, that he or she is infertile or there is some element that is infertile, and then he or she has to prove himself or herself to be able to access a scientifically available medical treatment. That because people get a diagnosis of infertility all of a sudden they have to prove, under the Bill, they are upright human beings is quite harsh. There was much discussion on this on Committee Stage in the Dáil. I appreciate it is a best practice standard and that it goes to the sentiment of putting a child first and ensuring the best interests of the child but this correlation between infertility and having to prove oneself to be a decent human being needs to be challenged and pushed back on in sentiment, if not in practical legality in this legislation. Part of that screening will be for all sorts of criminal offences. Someone who has been convicted of dangerous driving shows him or herself to be demonstrably unsafe to have a child in the car. A whole heap of convictions and circumstances will be considered. There is counselling and a whole raft of safeguards. Let us get to the fact that what needed to be said in this is that: "No one who was convicted of a child sexual offence either in our outside the State shall be allowed to participate in or avail of surrogacy services." I think the sentiment behind that amendment casts aspersions on anyone who enters surrogacy. It is a sweeping statement that we are suspicious and we are a stereotype, particularly for a gay couple. It goes to a stereotype I would have thought we had long since extinguished and anyone who proposes to bring it in to the area of general aspersions-----