Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and I commend Senator Warfield on initiating this important Bill. On behalf of Labour Party Senators, I am delighted to co-sponsor it with him. I welcome those in the Gallery who will hopefully observe the passage of the Bill through Second Stage.

The Minister of State commented on the internal system and I am glad the Government will not oppose the legislation. I recognise that she has raised issues about the vagueness of wording in respect of the criminal offence. Senator Warfield and I have had long chats about the wording and the need to be precise and specific in language when creating criminal offences while being particularly mindful of the provisions of Article 38.1 of the Constitution and the extensive case law that exists.All of us would be delighted to work with the Government and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel on strengthening the Bill and ensuring that the provisions relating to the criminal offence can be tightened in that regard. There would be no difficulty with that.

All of us are happy to support the Bill in principle, and immense cross-party support has been offered for it already. There is huge goodwill towards it. Senator Norris referred to the Private Members' Bill on female genital mutilation which was initiated in this House by me and passed some years ago. It is a useful parallel to make. There was unanimous support for that Bill, as there is for this one. The Minister for Health accepted the Bill and we steered it through the House, with Government amendments. Similarly, it created extra-territorial effect for various criminal offences. It has been an important Bill not just in terms of the practical impact, and there have been Garda investigations under it where the dreadful practice of FGM has come to light in Ireland, but also in that it has provided an important tool for advocacy to the many women's and other groups campaigning to end the practice of female genital mutilation. I see this Bill in the same light. It also sends an important symbolic message as to the type of society we wish to live in, quite apart from the practical impact.

In terms of what amendments might be made, we might consider changing the Title. I listened to my colleagues' contributions and they are quite right to point to the fact that the use of the term "therapy" in the Bill is misleading. Of course, the sort of practice we seek to prohibit in the Bill is not therapy in any sense. As Senator Norris powerfully said, it is more a brainwashing or manipulation technique. Senator Conway-Walsh spoke of it as conversion torture rather than conversion therapy. We may well have to consider the Bill's Title on future Stages.

I am grateful to the many people who emailed. Other Senators have referred to the many emails we have received in support of the Bill. I also wish to thank, in particular, Aengus Carroll for giving me a briefing on the Bill and for his great work with the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, ILGA. I commend to colleagues the report produced by the ILGA in 2017 on state-sponsored homophobia. It provides a very useful comparative framework to examine legislative models around the world. When we examine the provisions in the Bill in more detail on Committee and Report Stages we might have regard to that report. To make a few general points in the comparative context, if this Bill were passed, subject to the amendments we have discussed, Ireland would have the most comprehensive legislation in the world in terms of prohibiting the practice of so-called conversion therapy or brainwashing techniques.

We already led the world on LGBTI rights when, in 2015, this was the first country to pass a law on marriage equality by popular vote by way of referendum. We are all very proud of leading on that. As Senator Buttimer so eloquently said, we should be seen to take a lead again on this issue. Indeed, we also took a lead in the gender recognition legislation. We learned from best practice in other countries when we debated that Bill, and many amendments were made in the Seanad and the Dáil to strengthen the legislation. We can learn from other jurisdictions. We might consider Malta which already has fairly extensive legislation. The Title of its legislation is the Affirmation of Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Gender Expression Act. It is perhaps a more positive name when we come to considering the Title of this Bill.

I am also grateful to Aengus Carroll for pointing me to recent news from California, where this type of so-called therapy or brainwashing is being prohibited as part of a legal framework dealing with fraud. It is an interesting model because at the core of this issue is a misrepresentation of what is being offered. The Civil Code of California is to be amended to read that anybody who engages in advertising offering to engage in, or engaging in, sexual orientation change efforts with an individual is seen as taking part in this type of fraudulent activity. There are useful models we can examine.

I look forward to Ireland, through the adoption of this legislation, becoming a world leader in prohibiting this reprehensible practice of so-called conversion therapy. I look forward to working with Senator Warfield, whom I commend again, and other colleagues on a cross-party basis as well as the Minister and her officials on strengthening and improving the Bill and moving it forward swiftly through both Houses so it can become law before too long.