| Gender Recognition Bill [Lords]
|
|
Dr. Harris: I have two points to add. I note the spirit in which the amendment has been tabled, which gives us the opportunity to raise points on the issue. My first point relates to gender change tourism. It seems to me that the word ''tourism'' is far too often added pejoratively at the end of a phrase in the media—I am not accusing the hon. Member for Daventry of that—to describe things that are anything but tourism. While recognising that such activities may be only a remote possibility, we ought to take note that people go abroad for treatment either because it is not available in this country, or because a particular specialism or specialist is available in another country. In the changing world of EU service provision, the NHS may increasingly commission such treatment in countries where there is experience that does not exist in this country. Given the expertise and critical mass required, it may have to do so, at least in the short term. People may seek recognition in states where there is not adequate supervision, but that is different from going abroad for entirely legitimate surgery. My second point relates to the recognition of marriages of transgendered people whose status has been acquired abroad. That is an issue that we shall discuss under clause 21. I hope to table an amendment that probes the Government on why marriages need to be dissolved, albeit very briefly, in order for a gender recognition certificate to be issued. In relation to amendment No. 2, I note the question of the ''approved country or territory'' in clause 2(4). Perhaps the Minister will find it convenient to clarify Column Number: 8 on what basis an approved country or territory is to be prescribed by order. Will there be a process for that? I am sure that it will not be arbitrary, but some detail should be provided to ensure that that is not the case. There may be implications for how we tackle the issue of marriage when we get to clause 21.Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): I realise that these lines of the clause are designed to create a process whereby a transsexual person who has had their correct gender recognised in another country may apply for recognition here as smoothly and with as little difficulty as possible. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Daventry has raised the issue so early in the debate, and I support the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) in the distinction that he draws concerning those who go abroad for treatment, because in the past treatment in other countries has been more advanced than that offered in this country. It is a legitimate idea that people might go to countries where the requirements for gender recognition are less complete than what the Government propose. However, I think that that is highly unlikely. Someone who has gone through the process of gender reassignment is likely to find the proposals in the Bill acceptable. We seem to have a list of countries the regulations of which will be seen as acceptable here, which means that the provisions of clause 21 will be invoked by what is almost a rubber-stamping exercise. Mr. Boswell: The hon. Lady has just referred to a rubber-stamping exercise. My understanding of clause 1 is that if there has been a change under the law it would be a rubber-stamping exercise to recognise that change. Lynne Jones: Yes, and I agree that if a person has recognition in a country where the standards are acceptable to us, the process should be as automatic as possible. Under clause 21, technically, if the person is married, their marriage is not recognised during the period when the rubber stamp is being applied. That is a problem, and I flag it up now because we need to return to it when we discuss clause 21. I would like a list of countries to be drawn up so that a transsexual person who has obtained recognition in a country that has acceptable procedures is automatically accepted in this country and need not apply for a gender recognition certificate. Mr. Lammy: I begin by saying how pleased I am to bring forward this work on the Gender Recognition Bill. I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Member for Daventry tabled his amendments and the way in which I think we shall conduct this debate this morning. I know that there are some serious issues that concern the faith communities in particular, and I hope that we can give them appropriate consideration. We had an incredibly well informed and sympathetic debate on the general principles of the Bill on Second Reading and there was a feeling throughout the House that we must act to provide rights for Column Number: 9 transsexual people, who make up a small but vulnerable group. I am pleased that we shall approach the detail of the Bill in that spirit.I should also express my thanks in advance to the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) who will deal with the pensions issues as they arise later in the Bill. I am grateful for her expertise on that. I pay due respect to members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights who considered the draft Gender Recognition Bill, which included three members of this Committee—my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) and for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. Turning to the amendments, I should explain why we have included provision for applicants who have already received recognition overseas. Many overseas citizens live and work in the UK, just as many UK citizens live and work overseas. We believe that there is no reason to deny non-UK citizens access to basic rights in their acquired gender in the UK if they already have recognition in the acquired gender overseas. It is reasonable to provide a simpler process for gaining recognition in the UK and I believe that there is broad agreement on that principle. Mr. Boswell: The Minister has not said it, but I suspect that there may be an undertone that if he were not to accord those rights to citizens of, for example, another European state, there might be a return to the European Court on the matter of mutual recognition and the rights under articles 8 or 12 of the convention on human rights, which have already caused difficulty for the Government. It is necessary to be on our feet legally. Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman is right. That may or may not be the case, and these are complex matters in both public and private international law and the different arrangements that countries come to. Similarly, UK citizens living and working abroad may have gained recognition in the acquired gender in the country in which they live, and they should have access to recognition in the UK because they have already satisfied the recognition criteria of another country. It is reasonable that they gain recognition in the UK by a simpler process. At the same time, however, we must ensure that the criteria set out in the Bill for recognition in the UK are not compromised. If we were not alive to that danger we would create the potential for forum shopping, to which the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon alluded. A person who did not expect to receive recognition in the UK might go overseas to a country with much softer criteria, and if by that virtue they also gained recognition in the UK, others might follow and the integrity of the system might be undermined. Gender recognition is not an area in which standard criteria are applied in the same way across the world; different countries apply different standards for recognition. Hence, we have sought to create a process Column Number: 10 that takes account of those variations and allows the UK to deal differently with applicants from countries that apply criteria that are at least as rigorous as our own.Angela Watkinson (Upminster) (Con): We are largely in the hands of medical professionals when making decisions about whether an individual is suitable to receive gender realignment. What would be the position of somebody who had sought and been refused treatment by medical professionals in this country, gone to another country where it was easier to obtain treatment and then returned to this country? Would they be recognised as being in their newly acquired gender? If the country where the treatment was received did not apply the same standards as this country, would they still be recognised in law by their birth gender? Mr. Lammy: The panel would need to be sure that the transsexual person met the standards set out in the Bill. Where the person has gone overseas, the panel would need to be sure that there was permanence, that the state had been lived in for two years and beyond, and it would need the evidential basis required in the Bill. The panel would also be aware of the applicant's first application. We are keen to ensure the same standards across the board. Mr. Boswell: The Minister has just said—I appreciate that this question may arise in a different context—that the panel will always be aware of the applicant's first application. Will that be a rule of general applicability? Will a gender recognition panel always have the application history of an individual available to it? If so, is it not arguable that that might influence the exercise of its discretion? I was not aware of that point, and I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify it. Mr. Lammy: It is important that the panel is able to make an assessment on the evidence before it. The hon. Gentleman knows that six months would have to elapse before someone could make another application. As is the way when such matters are configured, panels would usually be selected randomly to ensure that the same members do not consider the same individual's subsequent applications. The body itself would be aware that the individual had made an application, and that must be right when it would be considering very important issues and requiring evidence from a clinical psychologist or a psychiatrist.
10 am
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 9 March 2004 |
