Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Deputy O'Dea's proposal in respect of people over 16 years of age but under the age set down in this particular Bill is very reasonable. During the debate on the heads of this Bill and on Committee Stage, we debated the various onuses this Bill accords at different ages. I acknowledge the significant progress that has been made in the past number of years in terms of the approach of the State to this issue, as reflected in the Bill. However, I do not believe the legislation goes far enough. We now have an opportunity to be a world trendsetter in this area, such that other countries would look to us as an example of best practice in this area, just as in the past we have looked to other countries such as Argentina. Denmark was the first European country to allow a legal change of gender without medical statement. We have learned from that change made by Denmark two years ago. We are close to being one of the first countries to address this issue, although much has changed since this process first commenced. It would be a pity if we did not recognise that people usually know from a very young age, in many cases without medical practitioners or their parents knowing, what gender they are. People are often assigned a gender by society which does not really take account of who they are.

In refusing to accept these amendments proposed by Deputy O'Dea, the Government is forcing 16 and 17 year olds, at a time that can be very traumatic in the life of any teenager, to wait a further two years to transition. While having to wait another two years might not be a burden for those of us who are into the second half of a century, for young people it is a burden. This could lead to further problems for them in school, in society or even at home. The amendments do not go as far I would go but they are a half-way measure. It would be appropriate for the Minister of State to make some changes at this stage rather than wait a number of years until this legislation is reviewed to do so. In my opinion, given the major changes being introduced in this Bill, and the fact that we cannot anticipate how it will work in practice, we will have to revisit it in the future. We had all hoped we would have the opportunity to celebrate the victory of the marriage equality referendum in the context of its implications for this Bill but we have not been able to do so. It is hoped we will have an opportunity to do so when the marriage equality legislation has been published. It is possible that various provisions of that Bill will impact on this legislation, thus requiring us to revisit this Bill sooner than originally intended. Perhaps, during debate on the marriage equality legislation and the outcome of the referendum, the opportunity will be taken to review whether some of the proposals we have put forward in the amendments before the House today can be taken on board.

Many groups have worked tirelessly on this issue, in particular Transgender Equality Network Ireland, TENI, which advocates on behalf of people who have been wrongly assigned a gender by the State or were wrongly diagnosed at a young age by medical professionals to be of a certain gender. As far as I am aware, TENI is happy with the progress we have made but, like me, it believes we could have gone a lot further. I recently reviewed the observations of the Equality Authority on the revised general scheme of the Gender Recognition Bill 2014.

Some of the points we are making today were set out in that document, which shows how long the issues are being teased out not only by Members of this House, but also by concerned organisations. Those organisations are urging us to get the legislation right, just in case we never come back to it or it is years before we do so.

I acknowledge the commitment by the Government to review the provision in two years. That is a saving grace in some ways, but I am mindful that I have heard many such commitments in this House. We should perhaps note that there is emergency legislation from the Second World War still on our Statute Book, namely, the Offences Against the State Act 1939. Just because there is an undertaking to review this Bill in two years time, there is no guarantee it will actually happen. Who can know whether the Minister of State or any other Member will be here then? The problems identified by Deputies on all sides of the House might not be addressed by the next Government, in which case it will fall to the groups that have lobbied us on the matter to continue lobbying. There will be a challenge for us all in seeking to address the issues that remain to be addressed when the review finally does happen.

See this speech in context