A copy of the draft report of the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction has been circulated to members of the committee. We discussed the report in private session last Wednesday, agreeing that we would meet again in public session this afternoon to make a decision. There are three options open to us as a committee. We can adopt the draft report, further investigate its findings by inviting interested parties and members of the public to make submissions to the joint committee, or adopt the report, as amended.
Draft Report of the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction: Discussion.
: My views are already known to most members of the committee, but I will give an overview of how I see this. The draft report of the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction was published early in 2005, but the commission was established by the former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, in 2000 to inform the Government on issues surrounding assisted human reproduction.
In July 2005, the commission's report was debated in the Joint Committee on Health and Children. At that time, I raised concerns about important constitutional issues regarding the status of the embryo in Irish law. I did not reach that conclusion because of my own expertise on the Constitution. It is obvious that members of the commission had such concerns but were unable to reach an agreed position on the matter. Officials from the Department of Health and Children at the time also agreed with me that important constitutional issues were apparent in the report.
Another major issue raised in the report was the lack of legislation and regulation on how IVF is managed in the Irish health service. That has become apparent today outside the House. It has been reported in the media that Fianna Fáil members of this committee want a new round of public consultations on these issues, and the Chairman has also alleged that Opposition members wish to refer this report back to the Cabinet to embarrass the Government. I look forward to finding out how those conclusions were reached.
As Fine Gael spokesperson on health and children, I wish to respond to those allegations. The lack of a regulatory body and supporting legislation on IVF places the lives of women using those services outside the protection that women expect from the Government. We have no primary legislation covering such high-risk procedures involving hundreds of Irish women. The success rate for babies born with the assistance of IVF each year is only 15%, and Fine Gael makes no apology for demanding that the Government stop dragging its heels on this issue and do the job properly to protect such women.
Only the Supreme Court or a constitutional amendment can decide the status of the embryo, and the Government can either introduce legislation that may be tested in the Supreme Court or let the Irish people decide in a referendum. This committee can debate legislation and make a positive contribution, but we cannot decide constitutional issues. It is now over a year since the report was published, and I have heard nothing that conflicts with the original opinion we expressed in that regard, namely, that it should be referred back to the Government immediately to speed up the passage of necessary legislation or whatever course of action is needed. I know members of the Fianna Fáil Party on this committee have made a fairly dramatic U-turn in recent weeks, but they should explain the background to their decision in that regard and how they intend protecting patients.
All the groups that would like to make a presentation must know by now that we cannot make decisions on constitutional issues. If any letters have been sent to such individuals or groups inviting them to make a presentation, they should be made aware that any recommendations or commitments made by this Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children fall when the Dáil is dissolved next year. Regardless of who is in power after the next general election, we cannot use the recommendations or any commitments made by the committee.
If the Government is genuinely committed to dealing with the issue, it must introduce legislation to be discussed at this committee. Anything else only reduces it to a talking shop and does absolutely nothing for the women or the children born using IVF or in regard to the constitutional issues raised.
I fully understand the recommendations of the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction are complex and cover very emotive issues. However, we must also deal with them urgently. Even a barrister dealing with the case currently before the High Court said it presented novel, difficult and momentous issues relating to the question of when human life begins. It seems ridiculous that, given something of this nature, which was flagged in this committee more than a year ago, we are still at the stage of talking about talks.
If the High Court decision highlights anything, it is the need to refer the report back to Government and also the need for the immediate introduction of legislation on IVF. The Government may decide whether to have a referendum or to send forward legislation to be tested in the Supreme Court. There is no point in having another round of talks. What justification is there for taking that course of action?
I commend the sub-committee on the work it has done. It has lived up to its obligations and it is time the Government did so. I am conscious that we are discussing this matter against the background of a significant court case. If it proceeds to completion, it will have major significance in respect of the issues the commission is examining. The commission engaged in a lengthy consultation process which lasted more than four years. It is now more than a year since its report was published. It is eight years since Senator Henry introduced her Bill in the Seanad. That was the first occasion on which somebody had the courage to forthrightly face the issues confronting many people who do not have legislative protection in the area of assisted human reproduction.
Essentially, there are two aspects to the commission's report. The first of these relates to constitutional issues which neither the commission nor ourselves can determine. That is only part of it. Much of the commission's report and that of the sub-committee relate to practical legislation which is long overdue and which the Government should progress. Instead, there is a cynical attempt to divert the committee into a type of groundhog day situation and oblige it to go over ground that has already been covered by the commission and other fora. The committee is undergoing the completely sterile exercise of inviting people to come before it and put forward arguments in respect of which we cannot draw conclusions in order that the Government will not be obliged to deal with this political hot potato. The Labour Party will not co-operate with such silly nonsense. I intend no disrespect to the Chairman, for whom I have the highest regard, but if the committee proceeds on this route, it will do so without the co-operation of the Labour Party.
The Attorney General is party to the court case. One request we should make is that he should give us a cover of any submissions he is making or has made to the court and tell us whether those submissions are the result of a direction from or consultation with the Government or the Cabinet or whether they are purely independent in nature. That would be helpful. Many people are dependent on IVF. At present, there is no regulation. If somebody wanted to set up some type of bizarre service, as has happened in other countries, there would be nothing to stop them.
We are here to make law. It is not our job to waste taxpayers' money by conducting hearings that lead nowhere and that will take up much time and interfere with other aspects of our work, namely, dealing with the serious, critical problems in the health service. I do not intend to discuss frozen embryos ad nauseam — particularly when there is no end in sight regarding the committee’s work — when we are not dealing with the hospital accident and emergency crisis, the lack of accountability in the HSE, decisions being made without proper reference to people and without openness or the difficulties encountered by desperately sick people in accessing health care. We should be trying to address these problems. The Government should introduce legislation within the confines of the constitutional issues that are still unresolved.
I echo much of what has been said. It is particularly disappointing that this is being put off further. Since I was elected to the Seanad, I have been saying that IVF treatment here is very advanced. It is an important health issue. That is why I brought forward my Private Members' Bill eight years ago. The then Government, which was comprised of the same parties that form the current Administration, promised that there would be action on it immediately because it could see that there were difficulties in the area not being regulated. The first thing that is needed is regulation.
We cannot deal with the constitutional issues. In the current court case, the court has divided it into two parts, namely, the contractual and the constitutional areas. It is dealing first with the contractual area. There are at least nine clinics in Ireland involved in the provision of IVF treatment. We know that one of them did not co-operate with the commission. We do not know whether there are others about which the commission does not know. We are aware that there are people involved in artificial insemination and donor insemination. I do not know whether all of them have been brought before the commission. I do not believe so. We do not know how they are storing gametes. They do not even have to indicate from where the gametes come. There is a very serious health issue involved here. There are no statistics on the results of IVF. At least 1,000 children a year are born as a result of it. We do not know how many couples undergo the procedure. We do not know the success rates of the various clinics and we do not know what they charge. Some people spend enormous amounts of money, perhaps with very little hope of success, on in vitro fertilisation.
The Irish Fertility Society was established because those involved in the practice of in vitro fertilisation were extremely anxious about the lack of any effort to introduce regulation in this area. It is a very useful organisation. However, not everyone involved in in vitro fertilisation is involved with the Irish Fertility Society. It is important to point out that the Medical Council guidelines do not cover everyone involved in IVF. Embryologists, for example, are frequently not medical practitioners.
The general public will think we are letting down patients — they become patients when they attend these clinics — if we do not convince the Department of Health and Children to introduce legislation in areas where it can do so. There has been one death already. I am not suggesting that it was due to anything that went wrong, but it has been well publicised and the mother of the woman involved has given radio interviews and travelled to Brussels in respect of it. I have a letter from her, pages long, which is profoundly sad. I discovered that she was a patient of mine at the Rotunda Hospital in 1967. If there were another one or two deaths, what would the general public think if we had not made some effort to ensure that people knew the risks and gave proper consent to what was being done? All of these areas, which have nothing to do with the constitutional issue, must be covered. As matters stand, it appears that we are happy for the entire situation to be covered by the Sale of Goods Acts. That is a terrible thing to do to patients.
I listened carefully to what has been said. I do not share the views that have been expressed. This is a very important and complex issue. We should not sacrifice accuracy for speed. Of what are we afraid in respect of further consultation? Have we obtained all the information? Do we have a monopoly of wisdom? I do not believe so. We must tease out the issues involved and listen to what has been said. This is best done by ensuring that every opinion is considered and we must allow this to happen.
A point was made to the effect that the recommendations will fall when there is a change of Government. People might as well dream here as in bed. The facts that are established will not disappear and they will be used for further consideration. Why are we afraid, therefore, of further consultation? How many people want their views to be heard? This has been going on for some time, but we must get it right. I am not obliged to discuss the past histrionics relating to this issue. It is imperative that every viewpoint is considered and when we have received the various submissions, we must get matters right.
I thank the three members of the sub-committee for the valuable work that they invested in compiling the report. We had a meeting last week at which we discussed the sub-committee's recommendations on the draft report. I was surprised to read about our deliberations in the national media shortly afterwards. The member who corresponded with the media should consider his or her actions and ask why we bother going through the charade of holding meetings in private when the proceedings relating to them are not private at all. In future, we should reassess whether such meetings should be held in private. I am delighted that this meeting is taking place in public session and that no one can run to the press behind our backs.
One of the matters that arose at last week's meeting is the complexity of the issues involved. Members of the sub-committee did not agree with some of the recommendations in the report. That indicates the complexity of the issues we are facing. There is another aspect that arises, namely, the ongoing High Court case in respect of the issue. It would be somewhat presumptuous to start making recommendations when some of the issues being dealt with by the High Court lie at its heart. I strongly suggest that we delay making recommendations on the report until the High Court case has reached its conclusion.
I also thank the sub-committee for a very good report. The members put much time and effort into its production. I am glad that this meeting is being held in public session. I feel very let down that the whole story was leaked by someone within minutes of the conclusion of last week's meeting. I listened carefully to what Deputy Twomey said. There has been no change of mind as far as I am concerned, although the Deputy used other words for it. The leak was an opportunistic move by those who wished to make a political football of the issue.
The Senator was the only person quoted.
I will respond when all the members have spoken. I want to get a flavour of the feeling first.
There are many areas in respect of which the sub-committee disagreed with the commission's recommendations, but it agreed with it in other areas. Substantial disagreements often relate to the constitutionality of the recommendations in the report. Different views are held on the matter. The last thing the committee should be doing is recommending a position that would give rise to an issue as divisive as the last abortion referendum.
Further work is required in respect of embryos and gametes before we can do anything about the report. AHR must be regulated, but we cannot treat it lightly. In addition, a case is currently before the High Court. The issue of regulation will have to be sorted out in this instance.
That means we will do nothing.
We are discussing the issue. I did not interrupt when others were speaking.
We will have as little division as possible.
It would be wrong to deal with the sub-committee's report in a piecemeal fashion, take action in respect of two or three areas to which I refer and leave the recommendations until a later date. That would segment the report and I do not think any good would come out it. The area of regulation — from freezing to unfreezing, storing to destroying embryos — will be dealt with in the report.
It will not be dealt with.
The Deputy should allow Senator Feeney to speak.
That is my reading of the issue, but I will not push it on anybody. However, I am a little annoyed that members of the Opposition have talked about not engaging. Last week, Deputy Twomey stated that we would not engage in this kind of nonsense. This morning, Deputy McManus stated that she would not engage in this silly nonsense. About what nonsense are they talking? I do not believe that there is any harm in open discussion on a matter as serious as this. Deputy McManus stated that the committee is charged with dealing with the serious problems in the health sector. I do not think there is a more serious issue than this.
I wish to make a point. I was under the impression that what a member says in private session is not supposed to be quoted in public.
It is very difficult to answer that. May we proceed?
The Government members are setting high standards.
Let us not spoil the proceedings.
The Government members are playing politics with this matter.
There is no point in discussing anything in private session. Some members will not abide by that principle and the whole thing is a charade. For that reason, I welcome the fact that everything is out in the open.
I think that is an excellent proposal by the Deputy and I second it.
I agree with the Deputy's proposal.
There is no reason that we should have sessions in private. People will always leak information and, in fact, the Chairman went public on it.
Only some people always leak information.
I was not at the meeting, so Deputy Devins can take it that I did not leak the information. People leak information because that is the nature of things. Let us hold all our sessions in public. It will not do any harm and the sky will not fall.
I take this issue so seriously that I believe we should make some progress on it. We should not be going around in circles, as Senator Feeney wishes.
Why did Deputy McManus refer to the issue as silly nonsense?
We are here to try to reach some conclusion. We will not get that far if we keep heckling each other. Some members have not yet spoken and the others may comment again later. This is not a fudge; I want an open debate.
I compliment the sub-committee on its work. The three members presented an excellent report in private session. There is a general recognition that something must be done in respect of IVF. Where we differ is how and when it should be done. I joined the committee midway through this debate. If we are to go forward, we need political consensus. The issue is far too serious to be politicised and there is a sense that this is happening. Assisted human reproduction needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. AHR has been available in this country for nine years. There are many couples that are desperate and they would not appreciate us squabbling or politicising issues.
We do not know the success rate in respect of IVF. We should know the percentages and how clinics are doing, but we do not know because there is no legislation in place and no obligation on the clinics to provide information. However, 1,000 babies is a large number. The legislation is not tight enough and more is required. We heard this morning about IVF, the issue of consent and the fact that there is no legislation relating to the withdrawal of consent. Our function is to legislate and we cannot shirk it.
Another issue that may be dealt with by the courts is the question of when human life begins. That issue will eventually have to be determined by the Supreme Court. We must try to take the issue out of the political arena to some extent and move forward. There are many desperate people who would not appreciate what we are doing at present.
The commission's report was published in March 2005 but we are no closer to a decision in July 2006. The commission sat for five years. It held two conferences — one of which was attended by over 250 people — issued public advertisements, made telephone polls and carried out a survey of users and another in respect of service providers. Hence, there was much consultation with the commission.
More is needed.
What will we achieve by bringing in more people? It is clear that this is a complex area and that we will never achieve unanimity. It is our responsibility, as legislators, to get on with the job. The commission produced 40 recommendations, the first of which is that a regulatory body should be established by an Act of the Oireachtas to regulate AHR services in Ireland. Senator Feeney is of the opinion that the courts should be doing so. In the recent case involving Mr. A, the courts said one thing and it was up to us to heed the courts and take the appropriate action. I imagine the same principle is involved in this instance.
Many people are marrying later in life and that has implications for couples because they may have difficulty conceiving. We have a responsibility to attempt to do our work as legislators. Senator Brian Hayes proposed a free vote on the issue in order to remove politics from the arena. That proposal received cross-party support in the Seanad, but I am not too sure what will happen in the Dáil. It is an issue of conscience and nobody has the answer. People have very serious views and we have no intention of playing politics with it.
There are 40 recommendations in the report. It is clear that some of them can be implemented immediately. Some will require legislation and others will require constitutional amendment. Both Houses will have an opportunity to debate the recommendations that require legislation, so it is not a done deal. It is not a question of taking all 40 recommendations and leaving it at that. There will be ample opportunity to debate them further and amend, improve, accept or reject them.
The reaction to this issue from young people on "The Ray D'Arcy Show" shows that there is much interest in it. The questions posed show that we must get on with the job. We should not be afraid to take on a difficult issue. The public accepts that it is very complex and I am not sure if votes are to be won or lost on it. We are failing in our duty by not taking it on.
Did the Chairman have discussions with the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste on this issue? I get the impression that an edict has been issued from on high to stonewall in respect of it. Has any instruction been issued to the Chairman?
What is the Senator's view?
I do not know the answer. I want to find out. Have any instructions been given by the Taoiseach on this issue? An election is approaching and it is time we got on with the job. Nobody knows the answers to everything, but we can get most of the work done.
I will take the last question first because it is the most interesting. The answer is no.
Informally or formally?
I want to be serious. I thank the people who recognised the input of the sub-committee. Nobody was telling us what to do on the sub-committee. That brings me back to Deputy Twomey's point about me going on a particular newspaper to accuse the Opposition of trying to embarrass the Government. It was in response to whoever leaked reports to the newspaper. The journalist involved asked me my response to the allegation.
The leak might have come from the Government side.
I do not know if it did.
The Chairman is attacking the Opposition.
Can anyone indicate who was responsible?
I was responding to a question.
The Chairman is a member of a party that is riven with dissent.
I would not believe everything I read in the newspaper.
Since I introduced my Bill eight years ago, at least 10,000 children have been born in this country from IVF. That represents 10,000 women who gave birth using this method. At least 30,000 women underwent treatment, a huge number in respect of an unregulated area. Despite the latter, members are suggesting that we should allow the current position to obtain until after the general election or longer. I will not see patients allowed to remain in such a situation any longer without expressing my horror that nobody seems to realise that this is a serious medical issue. We cannot ask people about areas which are constitutional in nature. It will take two years to get anything done. We were obliged to wait 20 years for the Department of Health and Children to draw up the Medical Practitioners Act. This is a serious matter that involves patients.
I have not had the opportunity to respond. I take what the Senator is saying with sincerity and I know she has a track record in the area. However, that is not the issue with which we are dealing. I will deal with her concerns in a moment. I wish to deal first with a few side issues.
There is no influence on how I operate in this committee. I did not mean to attack the Opposition. I am not in that mode today and I am just trying to resolve this matter. Deputy Twomey made the point that I made an accusation in the newspapers that the Opposition was trying to embarrass the Government. I was responding to questions put to me and no more than that. To save time, we decided that the sub-committee would go through the recommendations in the report only in private session. There was nothing hidden about it and we were always going to have a full meeting today, so there is no time lost.
The reality is that three members of this committee volunteered to sit on the sub-committee. I am not making a heavy play of the fact, but members should not suggest that we were trying to drag our feet. There were three or four other reports published at the same time, yet we had to find time for this report. We are introducing this report in order to discuss the recommendations. It is my view that we are being accused of trying to run for cover. Senator Browne asked whether we were in the business of losing or winning votes. That is not an issue for me and I do not think it is an issue for anyone else either.
Nor should it be.
It should not, but it is important to respond.
Then why did the Senator bother to raise it?
It is important to respond to that. Since the debate began, I have received at least five letters from pro-life groups, none of which I have answered. I took the position that I would listen to the entire debate. I did not go behind anybody's back and make telephone calls to pro-life groups. Usually, I send a note to those who write to me but I did not do so on this occasion. I have sat through the meetings and can understand the concerns expressed. That there is no regulation is a great problem. There is also no counselling provided. I take the point about the financial implications. The committee never expressed support on the issue of surrogacy, yet I saw a report which suggested we had.
I take Senator Henry's point that we have a problem which me must try to resolve. I do not want to park it but, given that it took the commission three years to come to a conclusion——
Four years.
That is even worse. When we were told we would receive a report, I said there would be public consultation.
To what end?
When we met the commission, I concluded that there would be no need to hold further hearings. However, I then changed my mind. People can accuse me if they want to but I do not think the sub-committee or this committee can adopt all of the recommendations made because I have not heard from the groups which met the commission. Being selective is not a problem. It will only take a few months and will not waste time.
To what end?
To hear the response to the commission's report which was not unanimously adopted.
It was a minority report in regard to a constitutional issue. We are not in a position to do anything about that but what are the——
To ensure — I do not want to use the cliche "the democratic process " — we hear from those who have reservations. We can then make a report.
We cannot judge the constitutional issues. The commission could not do so; neither can we. Therefore, the Chairman is wasting the committee's time.
No, we are not.
If that is the purpose——
I do not want to argue.
The Chairman did not interrupt any member.
Too much of this democratic process is wrong because women's lives are being put at risk.
I will not take that accusation. I want to ensure women's lives are protected.
We are sitting on an issue, the debate on which has been ongoing for the past ten years. It is time to move forward.
I will not accept that allegation. We are not sitting here and taking no interest in women's lives. We are doing the opposite. We are trying to ensure this can be put right.
We should urgently request that something——
Members, please.
The Supreme Court will again decide.
The commission was established in March 2000 by the then Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, to prepare a report on the possible approaches that could be adopted to the regulation of all aspects of assisted human reproduction and the social, ethical and legal factors to be taken into account in determining public policy. I assume public policy formation comes within our remit. What will be achieved by bringing groups back in? We will not achieve unanimity on the issue. The commission drew up recommendations which we must take into account in drawing up public policy but we do not have to accept them fully. It is our job to debate the issue in both Houses.
Why do we not just go and have lunch? A decision has been made. Women are being let down badly. Why do we not just leave it at that?
We do not want to walk away from the issue.
What else is happening?
There are 15 of us on this committee and we are trying to make a good decision.
There is a Government majority and that is the end of it. The Chairman is prevaricating and refusing to deal with important legislation.
We have only been here for 45 minutes.
It is a joke. Frankly, I will not hang around.
Deputy McManus and Senator Henry left the meeting.
The remaining members will be obliged to complete the business to be conducted.
When the commission was appointed, were its members made aware that its report would be redone or undone by the Joint Committee on Health and Children?
What were its terms of reference?
I am not sure if the commission was aware that it would come before this committee.
In view of the fact that the case is ongoing, it would be premature to make a decision today. When a conclusion has been reached, we can decide whether we should adopt the report.
I do not know if there has just been a walk-out. I would like to know how many groups will appear before the committee, as well as the timescale involved.
Like Deputy Connolly, I am wondering what is happening. It is sad that members have walked out because nothing has been agreed. Many have spoken and I agreed with much of what was said. I thought further discussion was needed, especially on the issue of regulation. Last Thursday Senator Henry said we should await the outcome of the case in the High Court. In the meantime, there is no harm in talking to interested groups.
What will that achieve?
Why do we not wait until the professors in the Law Library have sorted what is on their table? From a legal point of view they are much better equipped than any member of this committee. We can be guided by their judgment before we are too hasty.
I am sorry members have walked out. Today we have been accused of pulling back and having no interest in the matter. There are two Government members on the sub-committee and one Independent member. We are here today to discuss a report into which much work was put. I was part of the sub-committee and found the issues so complex that it was difficult to follow through on them. Three members of the committee were charged with the responsibility of coming back. The sub-committee of three did not attract enough interest among this committee of 15 members, yet the three members are expected to give our view and plan our path for the future in one sitting. It is nonsense to suggest that because it took place at a committee, the process was flawed. We are following on from what happened at a meeting that took place less than one week ago when we went through the recommendations of the commission. The implications of the case before the courts will not totally colour the findings, but most of the case relates to embryo ownership. This is a very serious issue and I think it goes over the top to stage a walkout. The Opposition does have ownership of the care of women, we all care about the issues that affect women. I have many friends who have undergone IVF treatment. That the procedure is not regulated or controlled by legislation gives rise for concern. In my printed brief is a proposal to deal with this issue in October, with one month set aside to hear from representatives of all of the groupings. In the past number of months I have had correspondence questioning the authority of the three members of this group to make decisions on something so complex.
When it was first mentioned that we would deal with this report, I suggested that we should have numerous hearings. Having met the professor and her committee and studied the submissions, interviews, open session and other contact, I came to the conclusion that it had been adequately served. Having sat on the committee for the past four to five months, I have returned to my original conclusion and I have no difficulty when accused of having no position on it. The more I realise how little we know about the issue, the greater our need for further information. I do not see that as a ruse to prolong this debate until the next general election. If the members had remained, we could all work towards that date.
The Chairman stated we will return to this issue in October. However, I do not know where those who left the meeting have gone, because I believe much more discussion is required before decisions are made. May I suggest we suspend the sitting and return at 2.30 p.m. or 3 p.m.?
The Chairman set out his timescale and it is proposed to consider this issue in October 2006. By way of compromise, I suggest we look at it during the month of July. No committees sit during the month of August. I believe we have an opportunity to examine this issue.
The atmosphere is highly charged politically this morning. The walkout is regrettable. Should we, as Senator Feeney suggested, suspend the sitting to cool off a little? We would then be in a better position to know the number of groups with proposals and have a better idea of how to deal with the issue during the month of July. We must get to grips with the issue. Will the Chairman examine the possibility of sitting during July?
In walking out, it is very clear the members have walked away from their obligations. Imagine what would be said if we did not allow the groups offering to come in and put their case.
What would be said?
It would be asserted that we were trying to railroad through a decision when clearly we are trying to have the broadest possible consultation to ensure a consensus and a correct conclusion can be reached. We on this side of the House are not trying to politicise the issue. The action of walking out was purely political. I want to hear what other people have to say about this issue of major public concern. It is important to get it right as far as we can. We are seeking to achieve consensus and consultation. We would be failing in our jobs if we did not allow the consultation. I fail to understand the brouhaha about allowing groups to appear before this committee.
I suggest we suspend the sitting until 3 p.m. I do not think the members have staged a walkout. I do not think anyone is walking away from his or her obligations. Every member is fulfilling that obligation by being here. Every member of the committee has the same interest in the lives and health of those mothers of the 1,000 babies. I take offence when I am told I do not have their interests at heart. Of course, I have their interests at heart. Nothing has been agreed as we have not agreed to anything. Could we return at 3 p.m. to discuss the area of regulation rather than getting tied up in discussion on the constitution? We will never be able to make recommendations on that line.
I agree with Senator Feeney and Deputy Connolly that it is a highly complex issue and unfortunately the atmosphere has become highly politicised. I keep coming back to the fact that a case is being heard in the Four Courts, and we have the report from the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction. We set up a sub-committee to deal with it. The sub-committee made its recommendations, some of which did not agree with the commission's report. We need time to discuss this complex issue and I support Senator Feeney's suggestion that we return in the afternoon and perhaps spend July, August, September and October discussing it. We need to get a resolution on it and the sooner the better. It would be foolhardy to rush into making a decision today when we have not all the facts in front of us.
Deputy Twomey told me as convenor that he had to leave the meeting early. I am not sure if he was part of the walkout. My point is that it is not as if we were accepting all 40 recommendations as being set in stone. Some of them will require legislation, which will go to both Houses and there will be ample opportunity to debate them during all Stages. The constitutional amendments will be debated by the general public who will then vote on it in a referendum. I am not sure why we are boxing ourselves into a corner. The sub-committee did an excellent job on very difficult issues. Their job was to look at the recommendations of the commission's report. It is clear we will never reach a consensus.
That is an assumption.
It is blatantly clear to me that will not happen. The question I keep asking, and I have not got an answer, is what will we achieve by bringing in groups. I have asked who will come before the committee, but I have had no answer.
We will talk up to 3 p.m.
I propose we adjourn until Thursday morning.
May I suggest — I know Deputy Connolly suggested we meet in July — we get a breakdown of what is required in terms of the legislation, constitutional amendments and what can be done without either? That could be given to members and we would have some idea of the breakdown.
We already did much of that work. It is in the sub-committee's report.
Yes, but we need to test the waters to ascertain exactly what is involved and how soon legislation can be brought forward.
That is what I cannot figure out. We are asked to rush a decision yet the more I hear, the more I realise Senator Browne has not even read the report.
I formally second the proposal.
I resent the Chairman's comment.
I am sorry but if Senator Browne had read the report, he would not have said what he did.
Our line is clear. We see no purpose in bringing before the committee outside groups which have already had an opportunity to——
Why does the Senator not see a purpose in that?
We do not see what it will achieve.
I would see-——
This is disgraceful nonsense.
Chairman——
I call Senator Browne.
If we bring a group to the committee which, for example, disagrees with one or two recommendations in the commission's report, what will we do then? Will we overturn the commission's report or accept its view?
I propose we adjourn.
We will adjourn shortly. We will return on Thursday and, if necessary, we will meet in July and August. We will try to show the Senator that while there is a doubt that some Senators are not as concerned about the issues before us, that is not the case. I assure him we are concerned. However, I find his objections difficult to understand. We could not attract members onto the sub-committee. I now realise that members have not even read the report of the sub-committee yet we are being accused of trying to prolong this debate. There is a rush to adopt this and I am not sure why this is so.
This is eight years later. There were members on other sub-committees.
Can we adjourn the matter until Thursday?
I was one of the three members on the sub-committee.
I know that.
Rather than lose the importance of the issue, I volunteered to go on the sub-committee even though I was chairing two other reports.
We will adjourn until Thursday in the hope that we can spend the intervening period trying to resolve the difficulties before us. We will deal with ordinary business on Thursday before dealing with the sub-committee report.
The joint committee adjourned at 1.35 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 6 July 2006.