I move amendment No. 34: In page 59, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following: “(8) In the case of two intending parents, should a surrogacy agreement be approved under this section but an intending parent dies before the embryo transfer concerned has been effected, such approval shall, by virtue of this subsection, be treated as revoked from and including the date of death, and the other provisions of this Act shall be construed accordingly.”.

I move amendment No. 35: In page 59, line 25, after “satisfied” to insert “, based on the information available to the AHRRA,”.

I move amendment No. 36: In page 61, lines 8 and 9, to delete “a registered medical practitioner” and substitute “an appropriate medical specialist”.

I move amendment No. 37: In page 61, line 12, to delete “pregnancy” and substitute “clinical pregnancy”. This grouping of four amendments relates to the addition of a definition of "clinical pregnancy" in the context of eligibility requirements of a perspective surrogate mother. The change is proposed on foot of Committee Stage amendments from Deputies Shortall and Kenny. We had a good discussion on this and we all broadly agreed that this definition would be helpful. The definition agreed with expert advisers is t…

I move amendment No. 38: In page 61, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following: “(b) In paragraph (a) - “clinical pregnancy” means a pregnancy not less than six weeks in gestation and in respect of which there is evidence of a gestational sac having been identified through an ultrasound scan;”.

I move amendment No. 39: In page 61, line 13, to delete “(b) In paragraph (a ),”.

I move amendment No. 40: In page 63, line 31, after “any” to insert “net”.

The two amendments seek to remove the provision in the current text of the Bill that would allow for a surrogate mother to consent to a child born as a result of surrogacy to live with the intending parents. We had a long debate about this on Committee Stage and we have given it serious consideration. However, the provision in the Bill is an important one, taken in conjunction with the amendment of the Guardianship of Infants Act. That was already agreed by the select committee and that provides for a clear process…

Thinking that it may be something that should be looked at in three years is simply to keep an open mind in the same way that we have numerous amendments on Report Stage that came out of amendments tabled by Deputies Cullinane, Shortall and others on the Committee Stage debate. I am trying to do this in a collaborative approach. That is the only reason I am referencing that any of these issues could be looked at. I also want to acknowledge that there is no perfectly right answer to any of this so we need to be open…

I move amendment No. 42: In page 67, line 28, to delete “ (8) ” and substitute “ (7) ”.

I move amendment No. 43: In page 67, line 36, after “parents” to insert “or one of them”.

I move amendment No. 44: In page 68, line 26, to delete “ (2) and (5) ” and substitute “ (2) to (5) ”.

I move amendment No. 45: In page 69, to delete lines 1 to 4 and substitute the following: “(2) (a) The court may waive a requirement under subsection (1) for consent from an intending parent, in the case of two intending parents, if he or she— (i) is deceased, (ii) cannot be located after reasonable efforts have been made to find him or her, or (iii) lacks the capacity to make a decision in that regard. (b) The court may waive a requirement under subsection (1) for consent from the surrogate mother if she— (i) is d…

We are debating two different things. One is best interests, which we debated in one of the previous amendments in terms of its primacy. I accept the ombudsman's hazard position. I just hold a different position for the reasons we have set out. The specific amendments are about the grounds on which a judge can grant a parental order, even if a biological parent, a surrogate or both are saying they do not want this. There may be reasonable grounds for that, but there may be unreasonable grounds and those are the one…

I stated that the Deputy's amendments are not legally robust. I was not referring to my amendments, which are legally robust.

I am.

Time.

Time.

To be clear, I am stating that we need a legally robust version of what the Deputy is attempting to do. The limited exemptions we are putting in place are legally robust because they are limited. Let us play it out. We could do it the Deputy's way. We could say we will take some time and bring this into the Seanad on Committee Stage. We will give it a few weeks. That is what it will require, but the Bill will not be passed before the recess. We do not know what is going to happen between September and February. We …

They will have numerous conflicting pressures, and this could take a long time. I am stating clearly that I am not willing to take that risk. I commit to having this Bill passed for the children and parents who are desperately waiting for it. If that means also having amending legislation going in parallel immediately after we come back in September, that is absolutely what I am proposing. Is it perfect? It is not, but we are in the art of the possible here. I am not willing to risk this Bill falling. That is where…