Gerard Craughwell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I must first place on record my support for the Minister of State regarding the way in which he has accepted those amendments he has been in a position to accept. I must also indicate my support for Government amendment No. 7. When we begin to refer to international best practice, etc., we become involved in debates regarding what is best and what is not, who thinks what is best and so forth.

I wish to state that I am going to support the Bill as the Minister of State sees fit to amend it. In doing so, however, I wish to place on record the fact that we are at the end of a month-long process of debate and genuine engagement with the Minister of State and his Department. That debate has been characterised by significant and heartening cross-party support for a Bill that was long overdue. It has been a debate through which members of the transgender community and their supporters have sat week after week watching and listening while we make some critical and life-changing decisions on their behalf. Those people are present again today. However, what should be an occasion for great celebration feels like an opportunity lost. As Professor Michael O'Flaherty - to whom Senator Healy Eames just referred - said last week, it is an "avoidable shame that the Bill is being adopted without significant amendment". With the exception of one or two amendments, the Bill will leave the Seanad in much the same format as it arrived, despite the best efforts of Senators and brave and hardworking transgender citizens and their supporters who have outlined their case with clarity and pride.

In introducing any new legislation, the role of Government is to shape public policy, provide leadership, anticipate and be ahead of public demands, particularly in the area of citizenship and human rights. The role of Government is to provide a progressive legislative framework that will shape public policy decisions for decades to come. All of the these aspects are conspicuous by their absence from this Bill, which neither leads nor is progressive. In fact, it emulates what is at best conservative and at worst regressive in the legislation of other jurisdictions. The Bill shows scant regard for the Yogyakarta Principles, which are widely considered by governments, legal experts, international human rights bodies and many national courts as an authoritative legal statement. In drafting legislation such as this, politicians and civil servants are duty bound to expand rather than limit the possibilities of law. There is an onus on them to broaden rather than contract a full examination of a Bill's objectives and consequences. While the objectives of this Bill have been considered by those drafting it, the full consequences of it have not.

If the Bill is passed by both Houses - it is my hope that it will be - and enacted in its current form, it will build in further inequalities for trans persons because some of them will be legally entitled to apply for gender recognition certificates while others will not. Children will be obliged to wait until they are 16 and married persons will have to divorce before they can obtain certificates. It is a deception of the highest order and never have the words "the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law" been more apt. As one LGBT Noise activist put it, the Bill is "surface deep". Despite the fact that I am placing these criticisms on the record, I remain 100% behind the Minister of State in wanting the Bill to be passed today. I know how hard he has worked on it and I do not want him to take the criticisms I am making as a reflection on his work. I deeply appreciate what he has done and I will support him today, regardless of what happens, because he has taken great strides.