David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

First, I appeal to the Minister of State to listen to what has been said and, as he did with amendment No. 1, to reflect on the powerful contribution made by Senator van Turnhout and others on this issue. I hope he was moved by the contribution because it pertains to the reason I am not in a position to give the Bill an enthusiastic welcome. Even though the Minister of State has labelled it as being groundbreaking, I perceive it to be a step forward. The reason I am unable to call it groundbreaking or to give it an enthusiastic welcome is because it excludes explicitly children under the age of 16. This is one core concern both I and many others in the Chamber have. This goes right to the heart of Members' concerns because this State has come through a children's referendum that was to establish children's rights. I supported the referendum and Sinn Féin supported the Government position at the time. We did so with reservations because many people were telling our members that this again was merely aspirational and did not go far enough. Again, while Sinn Féin considered that constitutional amendment to be a step forward, this is a Bill about gender recognition that explicitly excludes children. The account given by Senator van Turnhout about the six year old boy brought Members right to the heart of that young child and other young children who will be placed in a similar position, in which they will not have their gender recognised with all the trauma both Members and the Minister of State are aware this will bring to them. On hearing the account given of that child who is a boy but who will be forced to go to a girls' school and to wear girls' uniforms, it is absolutely appalling that this would happen in present-day Ireland.

The point being made by Senator van Turnhout was that even if the parent consents or both parents consent, it still would not be enough. As there is no good reason for this, I would be interested to hear what is the Government's defence of this omission. I cannot understand how anyone could stand over not including children under 16. I accept the Minister of State has created a pathway for 16 and 17 year olds, about which I have concerns in respect of parental consent and the pathologising and medicalising of the process. Perhaps this sort of model should have been considered for children under 16, albeit with improvements to deal with some of the issues I have just raised. As did all Members, I have met many of the trans groups and by and large, parents are the chief advocates for their children. They are hugely supportive of their children and want the best for them. Moreover, a child knows his or her own gender. As the Minister of State and I have our gender recognised, why should it be the case that the gender of a young boy or girl is not being recognised? How can any government or state stand over that? This is what these amendments seek to do. Amendment No. 22 proposes the deletion of lines five to 11 on page 12 and their substitution with text I will not read out. Its purpose is to ensure that under circumstances in which there is a child applicant and a parent who will not consent to the process, the court may dispense with his or her consent if he or she refuses to give it, when proceeding with that process would be in the best interests of the child. I also support this amendment, which is important.

A number of amendments have been grouped together. I will leave it at that because other Senators wish to contribute, because Members have heard a lengthy but moving and heartfelt contribution from Senator van Turnhout to which I do not believe any Member could add and because all the amendments seek to do the same thing, namely, to remove the age requirement in respect of those aged 16 to 18 and to ensure that everybody, including children, will have their gender recognised. The point Members made earlier was that they will be obliged to deal with this issue again. Whatever the configuration of the next Government may be, if the Minister of State is not in a position to accept these amendments today or to come back on Report Stage with his own amendments and if the Minister of State proceeds with what is a flawed Bill and a denial of the human and civil rights of many children in the State, Members would then be obliged to return to this issue. My party would be absolutely committed to amending any future legislation or bringing forward amending legislation to vindicate the rights of all of those children who would not be supported, to put it mildly, were the Bill in its current form to be passed.