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

There was an exchange of correspondence in regard to it but no amendments were brought to Cabinet, and amendments would need to have been brought to amend the Bill on this Stage. There was correspondence from the Tánaiste to the Minister. The engagement with the Irish College of General Practitioners, ICGP, was very good. It engaged positively with the Department in regard to certifying those aged over 18, which accounted for the majority of the engagement, but I understand that the ICGP did not envisage a role for GPs in regard to applications by 16 and 17 year olds or with the process for revoking gender recognition certificates. That is my understanding of the discussions that took place with our officials. The ICGP had an open and full discussion with the officials and that is what we would have taken from that engagement. In terms of amending the Bill on this Stage, we would have to have had a much wider engagement in regard to the 16 and 18 year olds and we would have had to go back to the Attorney General on that. A broad discussion would have been needed if such a change had been brought to Cabinet. The Minister, Deputy Reilly, did not bring an amendment to Cabinet for the Attorney General to examine or advise on. No amendment was brought to Cabinet.