Kevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Before dealing with this group of amendments, I take the opportunity to compliment Deputies Willie O'Dea, Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Joan Collins on their contributions on Committee Stage of the Bill. I acknowledge that these amendments were put forward in a spirit of co-operation. Our engagement with groups like TENI and BeLonG To and the opportunity we had to meet with young people and parents and hear their stories have helped to shape this Bill into one of the most progressive legislative measures ever to come before the House.

Deputy O'Dea expressed concern that we might never return to the legislation. In fact, there is an absolutely solid commitment that it will be reviewed. My intention, if I return to the House, is that it be reviewed, at a minimum, within the two years. It will, moreover, be a comprehensive review. All of us who have participated in the debate, at pre-legislative scrutiny stage and on Committee Stage, know how quickly its provisions have changed and how much we have learned in the course of our discussions. I have no doubt there will be changes to the legislation in future as more research is done and a greater understanding is gained of the issues.

The age issue to which Deputy Joan Collins referred is more appropriate to discuss in the context of amendments Nos. 16 to 22, inclusive, and No. 26. I will deal with it, therefore, when we come to discuss those proposals. To answer her straightforward question, I am not aware that the Minister for Children and Youth submitted recommendations or amendments to Cabinet in this regard.

I do not propose to accept this group of amendments. The Bill provides for a model of self-declaration for persons aged over 18. Crucially, there will be no requirement to have any medical input in the application process for a gender recognition certificate. That is a major step forward, as has been recognised outside the House, and makes us one of the most progressive countries in the world on this issue. However, statements from medical practitioners will need to be provided during a court process where a person aged 16 or 17 is applying for gender recognition. The amendments that were passed on Committee Stage provided that within the court process, supporting statements from the applicant's primary treating medical practitioner, who will be either an endocrinologist or a psychiatrist, must confirm that the child has transitioned or is transitioning into his or her preferred gender. It is important to emphasise that the medical element of the process will remain strictly within the boundaries of the court. Where a child receives a court exemption, he or she will not be required to provide any further medical evidence to the Department in respect of his or her application. It is for this purpose alone that the definition referred to in amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, and No. 5 must remain as part of the Bill. I cannot, therefore, accept the proposals, although I acknowledge the intent behind them.

I do not propose to accept amendments Nos. 14 and 32, which provide for non-disclosure by an applicant in respect of surgical procedures. There was never any question of making gender recognition dependent on a person having to provide medical evidence of reassignment surgery or treatment.

These amendments are entirely unnecessary, and I am concerned that they would have unintended consequences. There was never any question of making gender recognition contingent on a person providing medical evidence of reassignment or any other treatment.

See this speech in context