Averil Power (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I formally second amendment No. 4. My preference is to take out the medical aspect altogether and the medicalisation of people, and instead accept a statutory declaration by the individual, as is now best practice in other countries that have legislated more recently. Some other countries are re-examining their laws in this respect. I would prefer if there was no medical involvement at all, as Senator Zappone said, but if there is to be, it would be appropriate to include the GP.

The letter that was read into the record today is quite persuasive. It states that the organisation representing GPs is also comfortable and that GPs would be anxious and happy to play that role. GPs have the most ongoing contact with their patients. We all get sick at some stage or, at least, have some interaction with a GP. Many people have had the same GP for years, some since they were children. The GP is someone with whom patients, including transgender people, have a trusting and positive relationship.

I would dispute the need to have a medical requirement in the Bill. Amendment No. 12 seeks to remove all medical involvement. However, if there is to be a medical requirement in the legislation, a GP is the most supportive and least threatening person to sign off on this process. It is therefore important to include GPs.

I welcome the fact that the medical evaluation aspect is being taken out of the Bill. Many of us, including Senator Moloney, had raised concerns about that on Committee Stage. We asked what exactly that involved and so I am glad that provision has been withdrawn. The Minister of State could move more in this respect, however. If his main concern about involving GPs was that they might not wish to play such a role, or be comfortable with it, that concern has been addressed by the letter Senator Zappone read out.

If the Minister of State is not willing to accept this issue, there will be plenty of time before the Bill goes to the Dáil to talk the matter through with the GPs' representative body. It appears from that letter, however, that they seem to be happy enough to play that role. The Minister of State therefore has no reason to be concerned and should amend the Bill on that basis.