Nobody wants to see this Bill falling, but the Minister has had quite a bit of time on it, and I would expect that he addresses the uncertainties there at the moment. It is regrettable that he has not done that. I have to say it is not great practice from the point of view of legislation that is so important. It is a pity we are not getting it right first time round.

I move amendment No. 51: In page 85, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following: “(c) the giving, by a medical practitioner or medical practitioners (SJ), of medical advice in relation to any agreement or other arrangement.”. This amendment arises out of Committee Stage, and I had a similar amendment down. AHR professionals raised concerns with me. They are seeking similar protection to that which is afforded to legal practitioners and consular service staff in the Bill. On Committee Stage, we discussed this …

There certainly seems to be an inconsistency here insofar as other professionals are not treated in the same way. Legal advice and consular advice are permitted but, arguably, medical advice is much more important. I just do not understand the reason for precluding it. I think it is an omission from the Bill and I will be pressing the amendment.

Sorry, Chair, is this in order? We are speaking to amendments.

This is complete abuse.

I think this prohibition is perfectly understandable in a case before anything happens, but after the event, a medical practitioner is required to provide medical care where he or she is asked for that.

They will not be allowed, therefore, to provide any medical advice at all.

Beforehand, however, if they are entering into an agreement that may not be a legal agreement-----

Will the Minister give an assurance that if a person is intending to proceed with something that is not in keeping with the legislation, there are no circumstances under which that person could be prosecuted, for example?

Where they knowingly-----

Okay. Thank you.

I move amendment No. 61: In page 94, to delete lines 14 to 22.

I move amendment No. 64: In page 96, lines 2 to 5, to delete all words from and including “child” in line 2 down to and including line 5 and substitute the following: “international surrogacy agreement was a permitted international surrogacy agreement if it is satisfied that the best interests of the child justify such a waiver.”.

I move amendment No. 72: In page 156, to delete line 19. I have had contact from a couple of different groups, including the LGBT+ Parenting Alliance, which has particularly drawn my attention to this. The Department has said the reason the High Court has been given jurisdiction is because it believes a transfer of motherhood can only take place there. We discussed this issue in considerable detail but it was not satisfactorily resolved. Much of the Bill is built on the premise that the Supreme Court upheld the max…

Does the Minister not accept the point I have made that there is now a splitting of motherhood or the concept of motherhood? For other purposes, it was assumed that the birth mother was the genetic and gestational mother. That is no longer the case in a situation of surrogacy. There is a distinction between the genetic mother and the gestational mother. The constitutional provision to which the Minister referred no longer applies and it is no longer necessary for such cases to be taken to the High Court. They can b…

I am withdrawing the amendment. This is another gun to the head situation, it seems.

I move amendment No. 77: In page 164, to delete line 17.

I move amendment No. 80: In page 168, lines 13 to 16, to delete all words from and including “that” in line 13 down to and including “waiver” in line 16 and substitute “if it is satisfied that the best interests of the child justify such a waiver”.

I move amendment No. 84: In page 181, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following: “Insertion of section 4A into Act of 2015 232. The Act of 2015 is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 4: “Best interests of the child 4A. 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.”.”.

I move amendment No. 86: In page 181, line 12, to delete “section” and substitute “paragraph”. This amendment would ensure that all non-clinical conceptions up to this paragraph coming into operation would be covered by the legislation, as opposed to just those up to 4 May 2020, the date on which the section of the Child and Family Relationships Act was commenced. We discussed this on Committee Stage and the Minister said that a very clear framework was put in place since May 2020 and that people must comply with i…