Dr. Tanya Ní Mhuirthile:

I will answer the legal questions and my colleague, Mr. Broden Giambrone, will answer the more general questions and sum up, if members agree to that.

The Bill was passed into law by the Argentinian Senate. In answer to Senator Bannon, the reason we look to Argentina is that it has the most progressive rights legislation worldwide. It has been heralded internationally and globally as the best legislative framework that exists. It represents best international practice and is better than anything in Europe.

In response to the question on whether a constitutional amendment is necessary to introduce this legislation, the answer is "no" because the Constitution does not define what it considers to be man or a woman. It would have no implications on the Constitution in that way.

In terms of whether the question has been put to the constitutional convention, it has not, so it is not being considered. However, if it were to be considered, the potential exists, perhaps under the consideration of marriage equality, to consider it as a secondary issue because of the marital implications of the scheme as currently proposed by the gender recognition advisory group. It is not stated explicitly as an issue to be considered.