Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am in no way playing the person rather than the ball. Senator Seery Kearney knows that I am sincere in my convictions around this issue. I speak for many people when I say that a child is entitled to be brought into the world by a father and a mother and where possible, by his or her own father and mother. It is not me, it is the Government, supported by Senator Seery Kearney, that is advancing big social change with this legislation. It is taking the novel step. It cannot whinge if people such as myself and Senator Keogan who have well-founded, evidence-based, authentic human rights concerns about the impact of this on surrogate women who are generally financially disadvantaged, and on children for whom certain rights are being deliberately, intentionally denied them, forever, under the processes here into which the State is putting its resources and energy, express them. Therefore, when I say, “What about the single, well-heeled male?” I am not talking about the same-sex couple. It is disingenuous to say that I am. Although I have always said that I include such couples, and in light of what I just said, I have an issue with access to surrogacy by same-sex couples. That is because it breaks what I believe is one of the golden rules, which is not to intentionally deprive a child of his or her own father or mother. Of course I have an issue with that. However, the issue I raise is at the even more extreme end, which is that this legislation contemplates that a single man, and I do not say a single woman because there is a public instinct that is well founded that it is even more inappropriate for a single man, as young as 21, to be able to commission a child who will not have a mother in his or her life. We are being told about all the safeguards. However, what we are being told is basically “trust us, the regulator will be robust”.

At the very least it should be a requirement that there will not be any sexual abuse history or that the person is not on the sex offenders’ register, for the avoidance of doubt. Unless simply relying on the strength of numbers, when trying to advance social change the Government should include that in a way that is without prejudice to other issues, that the regulator might also look into. If it really cared about public perception of the possible dangers and downsides here, the Government would have embraced that and made its own amendment of it. The reason it did not is because it is going for a complete, rights-based approach that does not want any suggestion that there might be anything inappropriate, ever, about a person wanting to access surrogacy for his or her own aspirations to parenthood. There is a world of difference between this and Senator O’Hara’s frankly fatuous invocation of the concept of sterilisation. There are millions of situations where things happen naturally that one might prefer did not happen. For example, a rapist might conceive or through a relationship with a person of the opposite sex bring a child into the world consensually. Is that desirable? I think not. Once the child is conceived, that child has a right to life, in my view, and I hope you share that point of view. When it comes to calling the State to support the process where a rapist who cannot manage to bring a child into the world consensually, has the State any interest in saying “No, we are not going to help you, because we have a possible concern”?

I am simply trying to illustrate the obvious point that there is a difference between what happens naturally and which cannot and should not be interfered with, and the State, when in a position to offer or withhold help through its administrative systems or resources, is perfectly entitled to make and to seek certain calculations about what would be in the best interests of children. That is the point. It is an obvious point.