I move amendment No. 1: In page 14, line 9, to delete “ 228 ,” and substitute “ 228 ”. This group of 16 amendments is purely technical in nature and its acceptance would not have any policy implication for the Bill. The amendments variously seek to refine terminology, correct minor typographical and punctuation errors and update referencing.

I move amendment No. 2: In page 17, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: “ “medical specialist” means a registered medical practitioner whose name is entered in the Specialist Division of the register of medical practitioners maintained by the Medical Council under section 43(2)(b) of the Act of 2007;”. This group of four amendments relates to the introduction of a new definition of "medical specialist" alongside the definition of "registered medical practitioner" and "relevant specialist" already in t…

I move amendment No. 3: In page 22, to delete lines 20 and 21. This group of nine amendments relates to issues arising from the death of an intending parent in a surrogacy agreement. Amendment No. 3 deletes a cross-reference to provisions later in the Bill in section 53(3) which relate to a surviving intending parent in a surrogacy agreement applying for a parental order as a single intending parent when the other intending parent dies after the relevant embryo transfer takes place. Amendment No. 33 replaces sectio…

That is right, if the embryo transfer has taken place. If the embryo transfer has not taken place they have to reapply essentially.

I move amendment No. 4: In page 22, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: “(7) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prejudice the generality of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015.”. Amendment No. 4 introduces a catch-all provision to confirm that nothing in the Bill should be construed to prejudice the generality of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015. This amendment ensures coherence and consistency across all the relevant provisions in this Bill which refer to capacity-…

I move amendment No. 5: In page 25, to delete lines 15 to 17 and substitute the following: “(a) the current state of medical evidence as to— (i) the increase in the number, or the severity, or both, of risks (whether bodily or otherwise), and (ii) the likelihood of a successful outcome, associated with providing the relevant treatment to persons by reference to increases in age;”. The Bill as amended by the Select Committee on Health provides in section 12 for the Minister to specify the upper age limits for being …

I move amendment No. 6: In page 28, line 20, after “satisfied” to insert “, based on the information available to the provider,”. Section 16(2) states that AHR treatment should not be provided to a person unless the clinic is satisfied that the person and their partner do not represent a potential significant risk of harm or neglect to a child. Amendments put forward on Committee Stage by Deputies Cullinane and Shortall would mean that a clinic would have to refuse to provide AHR treatment if it became aware of suc…

I move amendment No. 7: In page 32, line 13, to delete “subject to the provisions of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015,”.

I move amendment No. 8: In page 37, to delete lines 22 and 23.

I move amendment No. 9: In page 42, line 2, to delete “Subject to subsection (2) , an” and substitute “An”. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 will result in the deletion of subsection (2) of section 34. This is being deleted on the basis of expert advice from the HSE that there are no genetic family members in respect of whom the provision of AHR treatment should be refused on purely genetic relationship grounds other than those genetic family members listed in subsection (3). Therefore that list in subsection (3) should be…

I move amendment No. 10: In page 42, to delete lines 7 to 14.

I move amendment No. 11: In page 43, line 11, after “expenses” to insert “, and any net loss of income,”. On foot of amendments submitted by Deputies Shortall, Cullinane and Kenny on Committee Stage, I am introducing this amendment to speak to the issues they raised. Essentially this will bring in an allowance for net loss of income to be included as part of the permitted reasonable expenses incurred by a donor. This provision, which is brought in through amendment No. 11 to allow donors to be paid for a net loss o…

I move amendment No. 12: In page 44, to delete lines 30 to 34 and substitute the following: (a) an appropriate medical specialist has stated in the specified form that such child is due to undergo medical treatment which, in the opinion of the specialist— (i) is likely to cause a significant and irreversible impairment to the child’s fertility, and (ii) such storage is in the child’s best interests, including, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, in respect of having objectively, and in all the cir…

I thank the Deputies. To be honest, I do not have a policy view on this. This is an expert view from the HSE. As I understand it, the HSE is essentially saying that rather than linking the decision-making on this to a disease, we should link it to the treatment for the child. A disease may or may not cause fertility issues, some of which may be permanent and some of which may be temporary. It is the treatment of the disease or the treatment the child is getting that can have a big impact on fertility. I refer, for …

I thank both Deputies. It is specialist advice. The concept of the word “irreversible” is in favour of the patient. Let us take one child as an example. If, based on current medicine, the treatment to be provided to the child would cause irreversible infertility, that would give the child access. Hopefully, that would become reversible through science in the future but if that were the case, it would mean the child would not have access. Therefore, the fact that it is now irreversible is actually in favour of the p…

Essentially, this is looking at doing it on a case-by-case basis. It is saying that we should not just categorise any child who has a progressive disease. It is saying we should characterise this based on the treatment we will apply to this child. As such, it does move it to a case-by-case basis.

I move amendment No. 13: In page 45, lines 18 to 20, to delete all words from and including “or” in line 18 down to and including “be” in line 20.

I move amendment No. 14: In page 47, line 27, to delete “three” and substitute “12”. This group of amendments, amendments Nos. 14 to 16, inclusive, increases the minimum time period from three to 12 months between the time at which a clinic sends notification of non-payment for storage and that clinic being able to dispose of such stored materials, whether gametes, embryos or tissue. The change follows a good discussion that took place with Deputies on an amendment tabled on Committee Stage by Deputy Shortall. This…

I move amendment No. 15: In page 50, line 1, to delete “three” and substitute “12”.

I move amendment No. 16: In page 52, line 10, to delete “three” and substitute “12”.