Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Thank you for that, a Chathaoirligh. I have already spoken to amendment No. 9. There are real concerns in relation to human trafficking in connection with surrogacy. It is bad enough that certainty will exist on the passing of this legislation, but practices that we would all regard as slavery are something we should avoid entirely.

I note that the Minister says that he is striking a balance. He adverts to the review after three years, but I put it to him that he could also review bringing it back to two years. He could take the more precautionary step at this juncture and at the three-year review stage, one could argue then in the other direction and he could ask whether it still needs to be five years. As the Minister said himself, we are entering into unknown territory with this legislation. He has curated a piece of legislation that is without precedent. I would have thought that the precautionary principle would say that the Minister would go with this - particularly given what is happening in the country in recent years, because it is easy to imagine someone bringing over a newly arrived migrant and that person then being exploited for the purpose of surrogacy.People who engage in surrogacy services should, at the minimum, be able to demonstrate that they have a certain level of permanency in our State. As we all know, two years is nothing. The last two years and the time since the start of the Ukrainian war have absolutely flown. Failure to accept the precaution on offer in our amendment risks the intent of the Minister's own precautionary position, as adopted in the legislation, being rendered moot. I urge the Minister to rethink his position.

Amendment No. 16 is self-explanatory. It is again about protecting the person. Section 56(2) at line 30 of page 61 reads "Any intending parent shall have attained the age of 21 years". We propose that this be increased to 25 years. This is about the idea of a very young adult taking the extraordinary life step of bringing a child into the world with the support and agency of the State in a manner that in all likelihood will entail the use of donated sperm or a donated egg and, in this case, the use of a woman as a surrogate mother.

We could have an endless debate as to the appropriate age at which to permit certain things, for example, the age of consent in sexual matters, the age at which one may take alcohol and the age at which one may vote. In some quarters, it is coming into vogue to suggest that children as young as 16 should be enabled to vote. I take the view that those who propose the lowering of these ages of consent or permissibility very often fail to take into account the science in respect of a person's development. For example, why do insurance companies charge young men so much to get insurance to drive their cars? We all know why. It is a decision based on statistics. It might not always seem just to those young men, and perhaps young women, that the insurance companies do what they do but it is all down to what we know about the maturity or otherwise of young people even into their 20s. We hear people talk about the development of the frontal lobe and so on. While I am slow to say that we should put the voting age back up from 18 to 21, it is certainly as logical to propose that as it is to propose lowering it to 16 years of age.

In the same way, we should not be afraid to say that, while the bringing of a child into the world might happen at a much younger age when people do what comes naturally, the idea that the procuring of child through surrogacy and contract in this way by a person as young as 21 is one of the many problematic aspects of the Bill. Before I continue, will the Minister again detail the reason he is not accepting that particular amendment?