Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am sorry I had to leave to attend a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, but I listened carefully to the debate before and after I left. Some substantive and eloquent points were made, as the Minister has acknowledged, and moving experiences recounted. This is an area that is moving. I re-read the joint committee report, the pre-legislative stage, which was just in January of last year. It recommended measures to address the concerns of transgender persons under 16 and looked at guidelines supporting inclusion of transgender young people in schools. It did not go beyond that in terms of the age of 16, but I know there had been a movement before that because originally the minimum age was 18, so I very much welcome that we did move below that to 16.

I read the report of the Ombudsman for Children of October 2013, which again recommended going below 18, and I am glad we followed that. It also recommended that 16 or 17 year olds should be able to apply without parental consent, but as far as I am aware it did not go below that. We need to examine the measures in section 11 to see if the procedures for 16 and 17 year olds are unduly cumbersome.

There are some positive moves. Subsection (6) requires the court to consider the best interests of the child. I agree with Senator van Turnhout that it is important that this be spelled out, and it is in section 11. Nor does section 11 require parental consent as an absolute, because there is a mechanism for a child who is 16 or 17 to go to the court to get an order dispensing with consent, but we need to consider whether it is still unduly cumbersome for the 16 or 17 year old. If we leave 16 as a minimum age, what measures are being put in place for those below the age of 16 if we are not going to allow for an exemption application to court? Are there other ways to support young people, particularly in the sort of examples we have spoken about in schools and so on? Should there be a legislative provision requiring schools to take account of a child's preferred gender even where there is no formal gender recognition? That is the kind of issue the debate has moved forward on, having come a distance already, which should be acknowledged.

I am glad the Minister will reflect on these issues. Today's debate, and even the contributions this afternoon, have raised a number of considerations for all of us.