I guess it depends on one's definition. I have rarely met anyone who is anti-life. Surrogacy creates more children, children who otherwise would not exist. It creates more mums and dads and creates more wonderful families - that is what it does. While I have taken great exception to the Senator’s characterisation of the pro-life debate, I respect everyone's view on termination of pregnancy across the spectrum. I disagree strongly with the Senator on his characterisation of it but I fully respect everybody's positio…

I did not.

I did not sneer. To be clear, I am not sneering, not at all.

No, I am fine.

I thank the Senators for submitting these amendments. However, all three amendments appear to relate to surrogacy whereas the relevant sections each proposes to amend are not primarily or at all concerned with surrogacy. Maybe the intention was to insert them in a different part of the Bill. Amendment No. 5 seeks to amend section 20, which is concerned with the consent of donors of gametes for use by others in any donor-assisted human reproduction procedure, not just a surrogacy agreement. Amendment No. 6 seeks to …

The question has nothing whatsoever to do with the amendments. Should we proceed?

As previously stated, the surrogate will have exactly the same rights as any other woman who is pregnant.

The surrogate will have exactly the same rights as any woman who is pregnant. In the same way that no person can interfere with any pregnant woman in terms of the choices she makes, the same situation will apply to the surrogate.

Does the Senator wish to give us an example? It is quite a theoretical question.

The Senator might be able to give an example. All I can say is that the surrogate mother has exactly the same rights as any pregnant woman. The only part of the surrogacy agreement which is enforceable is in respect of reasonable expenses.

I want to start by acknowledging the Labour Party's support for this Bill. It is very welcome. However, I think descending into name-calling is unfortunate and personalising it in that way is deeply unfortunate. I disagree entirely with how the Senator has just characterised the discussion she and I are having. I know that when I was in opposition, for years and years I tried to convince sitting Ministers to amend legislation in ways that were important to me. It very rarely happened. I could count on one hand the …

I would say to Senator Sherlock that it is typically not possible to turn around a Government amendment that quickly. I spent many years in opposition, and I have tabled God knows how many amendments. As we all know, the Opposition amendments do not have to go through the same legal rigour. There is a process in place whereby we must have drafters and we must take legal advice in the Department. It also has to go through the Office of the Attorney General. Given that this is a clinical issue, we would have needed t…

I will address this one more time. What Senator Sherlock stated is simply false. The Senator stated that some of the people she has referenced - and I have not used any names in here - were not consulted. I can tell the Senator categorically there was extensive consultation with at least one of the people she referenced. It was an extensive consultation. Unfortunately, it is not true that there was no consultation with the experts in the private sector. There was extensive technical ongoing consultation on a great …

I can imagine that there will be quite a bit of debate on section 51. Before starting it, could we take a short break?

I thank the Senators for submitting the first four amendments in this grouping. With regard to amendment No. 9, which proposes to increase the length of time that a prospective surrogate mother in a domestic arrangement has to have been resident in the State from two years to five years, the residency requirement of two years was included to act as a safeguard against trafficking and to allow the demonstration of some form of lasting connection with the country. I consider that we have struck the correct balance in…

I thank the Senator. As stated, AHR treatment is generally available at 18. The age limit for surrogacy was set at 21 to reflect the additional complexities and issues that can arise. We were also cognisant of the need to allow enough time for intending parents to be able to demonstrate that they require surrogacy to start a family. The proposal is to move the age to 25. I do not believe that is necessary. While the Senator references the very significant decision people take to start a family, people obviously mak…

I will speak to Senator Seery Kearney's amendments Nos. 49 and 53. I reiterate the position laid out on Second Stage in this Chamber last week, which is that the current policy intent of the Bill is that a court and a judge will have the discretion to waive the residency requirement for retrospective applications. For future applications that will not be the case for the pre-order that has to be established. It is specifically for retrospective cases. One could ask why we should have it at all. Why put it in when w…

I do not see any reason that we would.

I wish to say three things. First, the Cathaoirleach and I were elected to Dáil Éireann on the same day in 2011. I have sat through and participated in many debates in the Dáil and in the Seanad, as has he. Some of those debates have been very difficult and some have been very divisive. Never until now have I seen a Member of Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann openly mock people in the Gallery. I am not referring to his initial outrageous comments but to his allusion to this not being the Stella Cinema and to people no…

I want to say directly to Senator Mullen that in 13 years I have never seen visitors to Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann mocked by a Member of the Oireachtas. I put it to him that he is an absolute disgrace for doing that today.