Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I did not intend to speak today, but listening to some of the comments has raised new queries for me that are related to the section, notwithstanding the piece around ensuring no one is on the sexual offences register, which to me seems obvious. I am concerned, regarding how the section is worded, where that leads if we are looking at what the regulatory authority actually looks at. Is it looking at the sex offenders register alone or is it actually using Garda vetting, which then places offences into different categories? This will then capture people in the same category as those who have committed a sexual offence but who will not have actually committed a sexual offence. For example, in the Garda vetting piece, someone who has been caught in possession of a small amount of drugs is in the same category as someone who has committed a violent sexual crime. Regarding this section, have we taken into account that nobody else with convictions in the general sense will be caught up in that process when it is taking place? There is an argument that poor women cannot make decisions about their own bodies. I spoke a lot about this on the surrogacy committee at the time in relation to agency and autonomy. Just because you are poor does not mean you are not smart and cannot make good decisions or give to the world in a particular way. The arguments are not being made in the Chamber about how poor women are to access surrogacy, because they have fertility issues as well. How do poor families, poor couples and people who have convictions because of poverty ensure they can access surrogacy and not get caught up in a system where they cannot do so and get support from the State? I do not know if the Minister can comment on it, but I want to make sure that section the Minister says captures the concern does not accidentally capture a load of other things in this tight regulation that actually then excludes a load of people from accessing surrogacy in the first place. I would love to have that on the record.

To pick up on a point Senator Seery Kearney made about a bar that has to be reached and it being something we should somehow just expect, women who have gone through surrogacy and who have experienced poverty are judged, as are men and families. Traveller families have been judged. Disabled women and men have been judged about how they parent. The bar then being set, if you are also infertile, of having to be able prove you can be a parent is a bar no normal person ever has to meet. Discussing this bar is important. It is not saying the discussion should not happen, but being able to recognise that, for some people to have to prove themselves beyond all ability that anyone else would ever have to prove themselves, and that is not only those who will access surrogacy or IVF treatment but is also other people, it is not okay to expect people to be non-human. It is okay to be human, flawed, to parent wrong and to make mistakes. Sometimes it is okay to have a criminal conviction. Sometimes you might be in recovery from addiction. There are a multitude of things, and I do not want for that multitude of things that are okay when it comes to being a mother or a father with that multitude of complexities to then ostracise people from the surrogacy conversation because they are not allowed be those human things and make those human mistakes throughout their lives or that they have to be some superhuman form of a parent that actually does not exist in the main population in the first place. The two things are connected and it is to make sure that section does not push out people who have other convictions and that we are very explicit, when we talk about the regulatory body, that we are only talking about sexual offences and we are not talking about other things that may remove people from the surrogacy process.