Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Many different issues have been raised and I will endeavour to go through them. I will start by making a point on some of the comments made around the rights or suitability of two men or two women to raise a child. People have their own view and I will not try to dissuade anyone of their views; they are what they are. I will say in a personal capacity and as Minister for Health and a member of this Government that the Government fully believes that one parent or two parents – be they two men, two women or a man and a woman – will always do their very best. Some of us as parents will do well. We all struggle as parents on a weekly basis. I see no reason that two men or two women would struggle any more or less than a man and a woman. I think it comes down to the individual. I am not getting into a debate about right and wrong. That is my deeply held view.

I have a concern in this debate, which has been articulated by various Senators, that what comes out of this may be misrepresented. Senator Seery Kearney read into the record Senator Keogan’s public statement that this country gets sicker by the day. That does not reflect the reasoned and evidence-based debate we had in this Chamber last week and that we are having now. I respectfully suggest that it looks to people that what Senator Keogan is trying to do in making an emotive, powerful statement like that is suggest that somehow we are suggesting that because we are not agreeing with her amendment, we think people who are guilty of child sexual abuse could ever avail of surrogacy. That is what it looks like, and I ask Senators to consider that if they make those kind of statements after today's session in the Seanad. I am telling them now, as I told them last week, categorically, nobody guilty of child sexual offences will ever be considered suitable for a surrogacy. There is not a single case in which that could ever happen.

Senator Mullen asked why we would not accept the amendment anyway as an additional safeguard because there is no downside. However, I put it to him that there is a downside. I referenced this last week. Imagine someone who is guilty of rape, possession and dissemination of child pornography or a long history of domestic abuse or violent assault but is not guilty of child sexual abuse. Imagine someone like that, who clearly could pose a danger to a child, applies and says to the regulatory authority and judge that only one offence has been referenced in this legislation and they are not guilty of that offence. Because the person is not guilty of that offence, which is the only offence referenced, clearly that is the only offence that is an absolute bar. I guarantee that people would apply and put that argument to the courts and the regulatory authority. What of people guilty of murder? What of people guilty of rape and sexual assault? What of people guilty of possession and dissemination of child pornography? They will never get through a surrogacy application. The reason is that we have given the regulatory authority very broad powers and specified that the Minister of the day, in specifying the regulations and the information required, cannot just decide it will be X, Y or Z and none of the important stuff.

Section 54(2)(c)(i) states that in determining the information to be specified – this is the Minister – the paramount consideration is the safety of the child. The Minister is legally obliged to set the criteria in accordance with this, and additional safeguards as well. I said it before but based on the conversation we just had, I want to say it again, and categorically. Nobody who would be covered under the Senator’s proposed amendment would ever get through the door of the regulatory authority. The reason we are not adding in a list, either the Senator’s list or others that we could add as well, is that we need to keep the ability available to the regulatory authority to decide it does not care whether it is X, Y or Z, the regulatory authority is not satisfied that a child will necessarily be safe and will not pass the assessment. It could be for a broad range of reasons. It is to ensure the best possible protection for the safety of the child.

The Senator will do whatever she wants to do. It is disappointing to hear that she made that public statement afterwards. I do not believe that characterises the position and it is entirely contrary to the explanation I gave her, and am giving to her again. I ask her to reflect on whether that is a helpful characterisation. I certainly disagree with it for all of the legal reasons I put forward. There is not an ethical piece here; this is a matter of law.

Due diligence is part of the Bill. That was asked.Much of what is in this Bill is based on adoption law and regulations and the background checks in adoption.

There was a question on refusal to comply with the information. Refusal to comply with the information constitutes a barrier to completing a safety assessment of the child. If the regulatory authority cannot complete a safety assessment of the child, it cannot and would not grant an order.