I also raise concerns about these two amendments. AHR professionals have expressed serious concern about these two amendments and the removal of the term “progressive disorders” from the Bill. It is accepted that such conditions are rare. However, because of rapid advances in genetics and other fields, fertility preservation is possible. I have also been advised of several such cases in respect of adolescents who are living with various conditions such as Turner syndrome, galactosemia and what is known as BPES. AHR…

These amendments are too restrictive. Something that may be an irreversible condition now may not be irreversible in two years’ time.

If the Minister sets the word "irreversible" down in primary legislation, it will exclude people. A condition that is currently irreversible may not be so in even one month's time because, as the Minister says, the pace of scientific progress is such that these things can change quite quickly. On that basis, I think this is a mistake. I do not think any of us is medically qualified to give an opinion on this and we depend on advice from relevant sources. Has the Minister taken advice from professionals working in t…

Did the Minister consider doing it on a case-by-case basis?

I move amendment No. 23: In page 54, line 24, after “2007” to insert “or equivalent as approved by the AHRRA”. This amendment concerns the issue of relevant specialists, which we discussed on Committee Stage. AHR professionals have raised concerns about the fact there is a scarcity of relevant specialists in Ireland and, because of this, many patients access services in other jurisdictions, in particular the UK. Therefore, there is clearly a need to ensure such international specialists are appropriately qualified …

I do not think any of us want to go around the safeguards at all. We are addressing this because it could arise as a practical difficulty in the future, given the scarcity of appropriately qualified medical professionals. There must be thousands of people working in this country who are trained abroad, particularly in the UK. I am not aware that they have to go through registration here. Very often, specialists from the UK, including Northern Ireland, would be brought in to advise on different things, and we can th…

I do not want to go against what the Minister says is very strong advice. I do not know from whom the advice came but I think it is unnecessarily restrictive. The Minister has made the case himself in the points he has made, but it is just very hard to understand. I certainly hope there will not be issues that arise very soon in this regard and in regard to the availability of appropriately qualified staff. As I said, we do this in a whole lot of other areas and in respect of other schemes, and it is very hard to u…

I move amendment No. 32: In page 57, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following: “Best interests of the child 52. Where, in any proceedings before any court under this Part, the court, in determining whether to make an order, shall regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.”. This group of amendments concerns the issue of the best interests of the child. Neither the AHR Bill nor the Children and Family Relationships Act contains the paramountcy principle. That principle is that cou…

The fact that what the Minister is proposing in this legislation - which in the main, people agree with - has not been done in any other country means that we have to proceed with caution. The cautionary principle is that in any circumstances that involve a child, the best interests of that child have to be paramount. This does not mean that any of the other safeguards can be disregarded but it does mean that the best interests of the child have to be considered first and foremost. I think that is a good principle.…

The Minister is speaking as if all of the other safeguards can be disregarded. That is not the position. All those safeguards should remain in place but the primary consideration should be the best interests of the child. That is a long-established principle, recognised as one we should adhere to. The Minister is talking about a worst-case scenario where all the other safeguards are dispensed with and this is the only thing that matters. A court will decide on this but irrespective of the other circumstances, the m…

I move amendment No. 41: In page 67, to delete lines 18 to 26. Under the current process, as I understand it, a child born through surrogacy would reside with his or her intending parents with the consent of the surrogate. As I am sure the Minister will be aware, Dr. Claire O'Connell has repeatedly pointed out that this is not equivalent to legal custody and puts the child in a very precarious legal position. In theory, a surrogate could change her mind repeatedly but the intending parents would still have no legal…

The very fact that the Minister is saying he will look at it again in three years' time indicates uncertainty about what is being proposed. The two provisions I have referred to are very vague. If the surrogate mother consents to the child being cared for by the intending parents, who does she consent to and who oversees that? If she changes her mind, and she may do this a number of times, it puts the child in a very difficult and precarious situation legally. If that continues for some time, who actually then enfo…

I would be happier to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt on that if he had agreed to my earlier amendment that in all matters the best interests of the child should be considered. There can be conflicting interests and that is the danger in these circumstances. Who adjudicates on this when there are conflicting interests? For that reason, rather than having an ambiguous situation that could be quite problematic, it is better not to have made those provisions in the legislation. That is why it is important t…

What group are we on?

I note the Minister's amendments to these sections include the phrase, "lacks the capacity to make decision in that regard". I ask the Minister to consider further grounds for waiving consent. I strongly argue that the best interests of the child must be the paramount consideration. The Minister referred earlier to this already forming part of the legislation but it is in the legislation as one of a number of criteria. The whole point about the test relating to the best interests of the child is that it is paramoun…

Are we on first name terms? That is becoming a bit of a habit with Sinn Féin. Essentially, the Minister just stated that this is a play for time. I apologise, he did not use the term "play", but he wanted time to achieve a legally robust version of what is proposed in the amendment. The implication is that this is not legally robust. If you want to achieve a legally robust-----

However, the grounds I have given surely stand up to any kind of scrutiny. The Minister is rejecting them out of hand rather than accepting that there is a valid principle. He is saying that the wording I have put forward is not legally robust. Why is he not then seeking legally robust wording-----

-----to amend this legislation now-----

-----and not at some point in the future?

This is legislating in haste. The approach the Minister is taking is just not very satisfactory. It is about speed rather than provisions that are legally sound. I am disappointed with his response.