Certainly, the Minister should think again about enabling any kind of surrogacy arrangement, whether involving a transgender person or otherwise, that would intentionally foresee depriving a child of ever having a mother in his or her life. That is wrong.

I listened to every word that Senator Seery Kearney said. I always find her sincere and impressive. I think she is wrong on a number of things she said. She was allowed to speak, quite rightly, without any interruption from the Chair. I insist on the same treatment for myself and for Senator Keogan as well. During my equally long intervention, when I tried to address all the points that had come at me, I was interrupted several times by the Chair. I demand equal respect from the Chair for all sides in this House. I…

Senator Seery Kearney has raised a very fair and important question. She makes her point eloquently as always. While I disagree with her, we are getting to the important core of this. This was something about which I meant to speak in my response. The Senator said we assume every mother is perfect. She suggested there was an assumption in our amendments that every mother is perfect, etc. She then talked about circumstances in which no one is to blame. Sometimes, there very much is someone to blame when motherhood o…

We will not press it at this point.

As it was discussed, regarding amendment No. 21, the Minister-----

No, but the Minister spoke to it and I just want to say-----

I only want to say one thing, which is that it is incorrectly drafted and is in error, and it will be brought forward in a more correct form on Report Stage.

It is withdrawn.

Sorry, was it moved? May I ask the assistance of the secretariat, through the Chair? We may move, withdraw and then bring forward on Report Stage if we deem fit? Is that correct?

Yes.

I move amendment No. 2: In page 22, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following: “(4)Nothing within this Act or any regulation set in relation to this Act shall violate the Oviedo Convention.”.

I move amendment No. 4: In page 28, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “(ii) assisted human reproduction should only be provided where such treatment does not pose a disproportionate risk to the health of a child that may be born as a result of such treatment, (iii) an AHR treatment provider shall not provide AHR treatment to a relevant person unless the provider is satisfied, based on the information available to the provider, that the relevant person, and each other relevant person, does not presen…

I move amendment No. 5: In page 34, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following: “(a) any potential or relevant donor shall be required to sign a declaration demonstrating they understand the risks and effects of their decision. This shall include a legally binding commitment to care for a child in the event they are disabled or don’t possess certain characteristics. The declaration shall clearly outline that there is no power differentiation between the commissioning parents and the surrogate parent. The decl…

I thank the Minister for the reply. I will take a look again at the positioning of things. I will request to withdraw the amendments, by leave of the House, in a moment. I will make some quick points that are relevant here and I might ask the Minister a question. It is well worth our considering what the obligations of a donor should be where a person gives their own gametes for use in assisted human reproduction, including, but not confined to, surrogacy arrangements. As I have said already in this House, I believ…

I have not touched on the issue of disability. This is something I might ask the Minister to assist me with. In the event that a child is the subject of a surrogacy contract or agreement and, in the course of the pregnancy, it emerges that the child has a disability, sadly in the world we now live in it is considered acceptable to end the life of that child where they have a disability in many jurisdictions, including our own, where the disability has a certain level of severity, is it only the surrogate who may se…

It does, because we are talking about what happens to a child if he or she is disabled or does not possess certain characteristics. I am asking for assistance about what the Bill proposes. If the Minister prefers to give it to me at a later point, that is fine. If he wants to specify that point, that is fine. It is a reasonable question and it deserves a reasonable answer.

Does that mean that there is and can be no input from the intending parents who are engaging in a surrogacy agreement into any decision about whether a child who in utero has a disability lives or dies?

Is there a legal prohibition on there being any stipulation or any change in the agreement around moneys to be paid or conditions in the surrogacy agreement? Even if it is entirely the surrogate's decision in respect of the continuation of a pregnancy, is it the provision of the Bill that that decision will not and cannot interfere with any of the provisions of the surrogacy agreement and their operation?

If there are provisions in the surrogacy agreement, presumably it provides for the payment of reasonable expenses and so on. Are there other elements of the surrogacy agreement that might depend on whether the surrogate has the child or not? Could there be elements of the agreement that would depend on whether the surrogate has a child or not? I am trying to establish whether anything could operate to overbear the will of the surrogate mother in this situation.

I move amendment No. 6: In page 43, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following: “(2) Any potential or relevant donor shall be required to sign a declaration demonstrating they understand the risks and effects of their decision. This shall include a legally binding commitment to care for a child in the event they are disabled or don’t possess certain characteristics. The declaration shall clearly outline that there is no power differentiation between the commissioning parents and the surrogate parent. The decl…