Marie Sherlock (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 44, to delete lines 21 to 29 and substitute the following:

“(a) an appropriate medical specialist has stated in the specified form that—

(i) the child is due to undergo medical treatment, or suffers from a progressive disorder, which in the opinion of the specialist is likely to cause a significant impairment to the child’s fertility, and

(ii) such storage is in the child’s best interests,”.

I am conscious that there are many amendments before us. I intend to only speak once in order that we get through this Bill. It will be a momentous day when we finally see the Bill passed by the House. Many of us have been waiting years to have a legislative framework in place for assisted human reproduction. This is an emotional day, in particular for those who have been campaigning for a legislative framework for surrogacy. I pay tribute to everybody who has been involved in that, including Senator Seery Kearney and those in the Gallery.

We have had clinicians operating with a degree of uncertainty in this space for many years. Patients have also been aware of the degree of regulatory uncertainty. I spoke last week about the Wild West, as it were, that has prevailed in some circumstances, with some providers operating in a profit-driven sector. Not all providers are for-profit operations but some are, with the result that there were not sufficient protections in place for those seeking assisted human reproduction treatment in this country.

I am thinking today of the women and the couples who have gone through plus or minus 10,000 cycles every year in recent years. I am also thinking about all those who could not afford IVF but who will now have their hopes raised. It is great that we have a public scheme. It is important to reiterate that we want to see more people accessing that scheme.

We know that the waiting periods are far longer than they should be. We have been told they are approximately 18 weeks at the moment, when they should be 12 weeks. We hear that the waiting time to see a consultant is approximately ten months, but that is not good enough. I appreciate that the system is getting up and running but it needs to do better. The Labour Party has talked about that. Having a publicly funded IVF system is brilliant but there is a glaring gap in that not everybody can access the scheme on an equal basis in the absence of having reproductive health leave in the workplace. I pay tribute to the work of the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman. He commissioned the PLACES research project. I also commend Professor Keelin O'Donoghue of UCC for looking at pregnancy loss and the impact of that in the workplace. I appeal to the Minister in that regard because the research has been stalled and there are no commitments to progress it. We want the Government to follow through on what we saw as commitments to legislate for workplace leave for those who experience early pregnancy loss in particular, and those who are going through fertility treatment. That is a particular focus of the Labour Party. We all know it is not a once-off procedure, and it does involve time out of the workplace. Not everybody can take time off work.

Amendment No. 7 to section 39 relates to the preservation and storage of gametes or the reproductive tissue of a child or person under the age of 18 in the event that the person is facing a treatment that will significantly or permanently diminish their fertility. We welcome that provision. I raised last week that there was provision in the original Bill for those under the age of 18 who face infertility arising from a condition they have. We know that these are rare conditions that affect a small number of children, but it is enormous for those children and their families. I refer to children with Turner syndrome, galactosaemia and blepharophimosis, ptosis, and epicanthus inversus, BPES, syndrome. There are children who lose their fertility because of their treatment or because of their condition – the two are separate. We strongly believe that provision should be made in the legislation in order that they have the potential to have children later in life when they are adults. I refer to those for whom infertility is a side effect of the condition they have. I am not a clinician but I am a legislator. The Minister is also a legislator. We are all legislators. When I see provision for one set of children in the Bill – those who have to undergo treatment that will impair their fertility – and I do not see provision for another group of children who will experience infertility because of a condition that they have, I must ask the reason for that.

I hear what the Minister has said: that he will bring forward amending legislation in September, but I cannot for the life of me understand why that is the case when we have such a significant Bill before us. The Minister, and all of us, know that time is of the essence. There is a very real fear that we may not see the legislation in September. I would like to hear precisely what the Minister will bring forward in September – whether it is primary legislation or a statutory instrument.What precisely is going to be done in September? I am very concerned that the commitments to legislate that are being made today will never be implemented.

I want to make another important point with regard to this amendment. I am really conscious that there are people in the Gallery today, including clinicians, who have been working in this area for many years. As legislators, we are effectively having to legislate to regulate and supervise the processes surrounding assisted human reproduction. While many of us here may understand the inputs and the outputs, very few of us in this Chamber understand the science and the medicine relating to the actual processes. Therefore, we are very much in the hands of the clinicians in how we shape this Bill. I am really glad they have been a very significant part of the conversation in formulating the Bill we have in front of us today. However, I raise one concern. When I raised an issue last week that had been articulated to me by paediatricians and experts in the field of assisted human reproduction, I felt those concerns were dismissed out of hand. I was taken aback by the manner in which the Minister dealt with those concerns. There is a distinction between infertility brought about by treatment and infertility brought about by a condition. I believe the Minister does not recognise that distinction and, as I read it as a legislator, neither does this Bill. I do not say it lightly but I believe his response last week, in which he questioned the ethics of the clinicians who brought this concern to us, reflected an arrogance. We are all too aware in this House that for many decades there was an arrogance on the part of legislators when it came to legislating for reproductive and fertility rights in this country.