Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I feel that because we are in this brave new world, which I and many other people oppose, which involves, frankly, a commodification of children, as many people see it, and a deprivation of the rights of women. I realise we are talking in the context of domestic surrogacy but some of the same principles apply to the dangerous area of international surrogacy.

It is important, and we had a discussion about this to some degree last week. My friend and colleague, Senator McDowell, disagrees with me on aspects of the objection that I and many others have to this Bill. One of the phenomena of modern times, in many ways, is the contradictions in people’s thoughts that the human embryo is considered something that can be disposed of, created in surplus, experimented on, stored and eventually destroyed. The strange thing is that if one looks at various international bodies and so on, it is nonetheless still the case that there is much talk about the respect due to human embryos, and this is frequently stated. There is much concern around practices that are seen as contrary to human dignity, such as, for example, reproductive cloning of human beings, though I know that is not to be permitted under this Bill. This is, if you like, a strange contradiction because, at one level, there is frequently recourse to language that talks about the respect due for human embryos while, at the same time, the practices envisaged and permitted under law treat the human embryo as having no respect.

I listened to my colleague and friend, Senator McDowell, last week when he suggested that my concern about the respect and protection due to human embryos was rooted in philosophical or, he added, perhaps religious reasons. I wish to make it very clear that there is a common misunderstanding that goes along the lines that if religious bodies have concerns about something, those concerns can only be understood in religious terms. It is fatuous to suggest that because an acorn is different from an oak tree, an embryo is different from a human being. If you crush an acorn, you crush an oak tree. If you destroy a human embryo, you destroy a human being at his or her various earliest stages of life, where you have the full new individuality of a human person or persons. Of course, that embryo may lead to numerous persons being born if not destroyed. Therefore, the respect due to human embryos is a scientific and evidence-based position. Whether that is bolstered by religious thought or feeling about the sacredness of human life generally, which informs people’s opposition to all sorts of evils, such as human trafficking and all sorts of other things, in a sense is beside the point.

That is the reason these amendments need to be considered as important. Embryo reduction is a serious matter. It is a destruction of a human life at its earlier stage.

I will move on to ask about amendment No. 12. This is the amendment that proposes to make clear that “No single man shall be allowed to undertake surrogacy.” If I am not mistaken, the Minister’s reason for opposing this is he regards it as it as unacceptably discriminatory. I think this takes us, to some degree, into territory that we do not often discuss in these Houses but which certainly came up in the context of the recent referendum, which involved the proposed removal of the term “mother” from the Irish Constitution in the context of the recognition of the role of mothers in the home. I think it is well regarded now that that got up many people’s noses and that was no small part of people’s rejection of that referendum proposal. One of my criticisms of the legislation is that there has been little to no public consultation on what people think about many of its proposals. If we ask people whether they believe that, as far as is possible, a child should be brought up by a father and mother and, as far as is possible, by the child's own father and mother, I believe most would say "Yes." There is a widespread recognition, notwithstanding the heroism of many single parents and the support that is certainly due to them from the State, that we should, as a social principle, encourage the bringing up of children by their fathers and mothers. Of course, there are many life circumstances which may intervene to prevent that. Marriages break up and people die. There are all sorts of tragedies that may deprive a child of the opportunity to be brought up by his or her father and mother. However, there is a difference between that happening unavoidably and it being brought about intentionally. It is at the core of many people's concerns about surrogacy that it is proposed to deprive a child, up front and in advance, of the society and responsibility due to that child from one of his or her genetic parents, not to mention the sundering of the child from the woman who has nurtured him or her for nine months before giving birth. There is major concern about that.

I do not accept the principle of surrogacy anyway and I certainly do not accept the principle that the State should smile on and regard as completely immaterial whether a child is brought into the world by one parent or two. However, there is another aspect to consider in this regard. If we were to ask people whether they would prefer that a child be brought into the world by a single commissioning mother who, for whatever reason, is bringing that child into the world using donor sperm, or by a single commissioning father, there would be much more opposition to the latter. In the public mind, there is something special about the role of mothers in particular. I am the first to stress that we need to talk much more in this society about the role of fathers in their children's lives and the consequences to children when they do not have fathers in their lives. We have been afraid to talk about that in the way we need to talk about it. However, there would be a much greater sense of opposition to an intention that a child would never have a mother in his or her life than to an intention of that child never having a father. There is something profoundly offensive in a child being deprived of his or her mother.

Talk about equality and discrimination just does not cut it when we consider the realities of what is due to a child. This is recognised in all sorts of indirect ways, including, for example, in our family law in the context of custody. There is a reason custody is generally accorded to the mother. There are injustices done to fathers in family courts but there is a reason courts generally accord custody to the mother. The sterile language of non-discrimination claims to some kind of virtue but is, in fact, the opposite. It is the denial of what most people would regard as common sense.

There should be a public debate on whether it is unacceptable discrimination to say it is better to contemplate a child being brought into the world by a single mother than by a single father, both of which are permitted and enabled by this legislation. We should have a real public discussion about that. I will not use the word "criminal" but one of the absolutely disgraceful things about this legislation is the lack of public consultation. I do not say there has been a lack of careful preparation. It is clear that an awful lot of work has gone into the preparation of the Bill, but all by people who want to get it over the line and shield it from as many objections as possible. As a consequence, we have the provision that only gestational surrogacy will be permitted and there will be at least one genetic parent among those who commission surrogacy. I get all of that. These provisions are slight improvements on what is a bad situation.

The idea has been articulated that it is unacceptably discriminatory to say a single man shall not be allowed to undertake surrogacy because the Bill would otherwise allow a single woman to do so. That shows the real weakness of the Bill. It is not thinking in terms of children's welfare at all. I have given out previously in this House about the Ombudsman for Children. I restate my objections to that office in regard to this legislation. While it has commented on it, made recommendations and, indeed, made certain propositions with which I would agree, such as the idea that, where it happens, a child has a right to a relationship with those who bring that child into existence through a surrogacy arrangement, the ombudsman has been criminally negligent by not objecting to surrogacy in the first place and not proposing strategies to prevent it from happening. It is yet another failure that the ombudsman is not even interested in vindicating the idea that a child should have a mother in his or her life. Frankly, how any of those who sit in this room with me can just smile on that situation beats me. If we put that question to a referendum, people would vote 80-20 against enabling arrangements that would deliberately deprive a child of ever having a mother in his or her life.

That leads to another question, which I hope the Minister will answer. I have not addressed it in amendments on Committee Stage but I hope to do so on Report Stage. Under the provisions of the Gender Recognition Act, a male person may have their preferred gender established as female. My question concerns a person who, having availed of the provisions of that Act to have a preferred gender of female, then decides to engage in a surrogacy arrangement. The person supplies their male gamete, which they are still capable of producing, thereby meeting the requirement that one of the intended parents have a genetic link to the child, secures a donated egg, obviously from a party other than the surrogate mother because only gestational surrogacy is permitted, and then engages the service of a surrogate. A pregnancy happens, a parental order is sought and the matter goes to the registrar for registration. As we know, civil registration allows for designation as parents but the words "mother" and "father" are still used.

I am asking a direct question regarding this scenario and I would appreciate a direct answer from the Minister because it will inform whether and how I table an amendment. Would a person who has availed of the Gender Recognition Act to have their preferred gender be female, having supplied a male gamete and engaged in a surrogacy arrangement, be able to present themselves to the world, to all intents and purposes, as the mother of that child, having secured a parental order, and would they be registered by an clárathoir as the mother of the child? I would be grateful for an answer to that question.