|
Column Number: 31
Standing Committee A
Tuesday 9 March 2004
(Afternoon)
[Mr. David Taylor in the Chair]
Schedule 1
Gender recognition panels
Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 40, in
schedule 1, page 14, leave out lines 11 and 12 and insert—
'(b) are registered medical practitioners recognised as currently practising in the field of gender dysphoria in the United Kingdom, and registered medical practitioners who have entries in the specialist register held by the General Medical Council which confers their eligibility to practise as consultant psychiatrists within the National Health Service (''medical members'').'.—[Andrew Selous.]
2.30 pm
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amdts:
No. 41, in
schedule 1, page 15, leave out line 7 and insert—
'(b) at least two medical members including—
(i) a registered medical practitoner recognised as currently practising in the field of gender dysphoria in the United Kingdom, and
(ii) a registered medical practitioner who has an entry in the specialist register held by the General Medical Council which confers their eligibility to practise as a consultant psychiatrist within the National Health Service.'.
No. 34, in
clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 16 to 21 and insert—
'(a) a report made by a registered medical practitioner recognised as currently practising in the field of gender dysphoria in the United Kingdom, and
(b) a report by a registered medical practitioner who has an entry in the specialist register held by the General Medical Council which confers their eligibility to practise as a consultant psychiatrist within the National Health Service.'.
No. 35, in
clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 24 to 27 and insert—
'(a) a registered medical practitioner recognised as currently practising in the field of gender dysphoria in the United Kingdom, and
(b) a registered medical practitioner who has an entry in the specialist register held by the General Medical Council which confers their eligibility to practise as a consultant psychiatrist within the National Health Service, includes details and justification of the diagnosis of the applicant's gender dysphoria.'.
No. 36, in
Column Number: 32
No. 37, in
I remind hon. Members to turn off mobile phones and that the use of electronic equipment in Committees is prohibited.
Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Taylor, as I am sure other members of the Committee will agree.
I wish to respond briefly to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), who said, if I remember correctly, that Dr. Reid was held in high regard in the transsexual community. I am well aware of that fact. Sadly, however, it appears that Dr. Reid may have been guilty of fast-tracking many transsexuals into gender reassignment surgery. Indeed, one individual who went to see him stated:
''Less than a month after I started living full-time as a woman, Dr. Reid recommended surgery.''
That balances the two sides of the matter and relates to my point about being absolutely sure that there is a proper process and proper medical advice. We may have to return to the matter on Report. However, in the light of what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry) (Con): I beg to move amendment No. 5, in
schedule 1, page 14, line 12, at end insert—
'(c) are lay persons with experience as magistrates or as members of a tribunal.'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amdts:
No. 6, in
No. 7, in
schedule 1, page 15, line 11, leave out from 'where' to 'either'.
No. 8, in
schedule 1, page 15, line 14, leave out from 'Panel' to 'may'.
Mr. Boswell: I am delighted that you are presiding over our affairs this afternoon, Mr. Taylor; I am sure that the sitting will be business-like. Not wholly by calculation, I seem to be taking the lead for the next five groups of amdts. I hope that we can motor on and get the necessary understanding and assurances from the Minister as to what will happen on gender recognition panels. Without exception, all the amendments are probing amendments to find out how the system will work.
I ought to begin with a declaration of interest or, perhaps, of experience that does not appear in the conventional manner on my CV. For a short period, I was a member of the agricultural land tribunal. I was
Column Number: 33
appointed by the then Lord Chancellor; indeed, after the events of yesterday, I could still be appointed by a Lord Chancellor. Therefore, I had some two years' experience of tribunal work. It was interesting, not least because the tribunal typically involved a legal Chairman and two representatives, one for farmers and one for landowners. I could never remember which side had nominated me, but that never made any difference to our deliberations, which is how it should be.
With that experience in mind and also for the avoidance of any doubt in the Committee, even though I have declared that interest, I could not possibly be feathering my own nest because the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 would kick in if I were nominated as a member of a gender recognition panel, even by the Lord Chancellor. I just want to tease out from the Minister some comments on how the panels will work. I do not believe that the matter has been mentioned elsewhere. If it was, I did not completely take it on board. The Minister may have noticed that my amendment is contrary to the previous group, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). If the Minister were mischievous, he would comment on that. My hon. Friend sought expert representation on the panel, and I now seek lay representation.
What I am after is a better understanding of how the gender recognition panel will operate. At the back of my mind is the concern that surfaced when we discussed the previous group of amendments about creating not only sufficient transparency of the panel but sufficient independence among its members to ensure that proper decisions are taken. The process should not be simply a matter of taking the word of an expert, however distinguished or authoritative, and nodding the decision through. I am sure that neither the Minister nor the transsexual community would wish that to happen; they want proper consideration of the matter. With that in mind, the first and primary purpose of amendment No. 5 and the related amendments is to suggest that there should be a lay element on panels. That has not been strongly advocated, as far as I know, by any significant group, although I did note at one stage that Press for Change was arguing that the decisions of gender recognition panels should not be over-medicalised—I think that that was the phrase that it used. I have some sympathy on that point. The issue is about the whole person and their relationship with society, and that is a proper way of looking at it.
What I had in mind was that the lay person might act as an intelligent outsider, who could say to the expert members of a tribunal, ''Come on, I don't believe that,'' or, ''Have you got enough evidence for that? Are you really sure?'' They would do the kind of things that non-executive directors do on company boards, or that members of a tribunal can do even when they do not have specific expertise.
Column Number: 34
Amendment No. 6, and its counterparts, suggest that a gender recognition panel should not consist of fewer than three people. The implication of the provisions relating to procedure, and in particular the opening line of paragraph 6, is that there could be a panel of one member. The reference is to:
''Where a Panel consists of more than one member''.
The Minister owes it to the Committee to explain roughly what he normally expects to happen, roughly what the number of members on the panel should be, and how it will work in practice. I realise that this is not a tribunal; it is a panel that will quite explicitly and properly meet in private. Partly because of that, I am anxious that there is at least some transparency in the decision-making process. I do not mean a public rehearsal. I am talking about a responsible person coming in from outside at least to ask questions.
The purpose of my lead amendment is to suggest that somebody who has some experience as a magistrate—we will not debate lay magistrates this afternoon—or as a tribunal member should be included on a panel. The words in the amendment are purely a legal device for defining suitable lay people. We are talking about somebody who has a bit of common sense and a knowledge of the procedure, but is not tied to the legal or medical professions.
There should normally be a reasonable number of people on a panel, and they should be able to take evidence from outside—later amendments deal with the ability of family members to make representations. The Minister may want to comment on the status of that evidence, the record keeping involved, and what will be required, even if things do take place in private. The purpose of the amendments is to make the process slightly broader based and better considered.
I do not feel strongly about the particular formulation that I have produced. I am not absolutely certain that we do need a lay involvement. However, I need the Minister to give me some assurances about the way in which things will work in practice, and how he, the Secretary of State, or the president of the gender recognition panel, will ensure that decisions are not skewed and that they are taken in a fully representative and proper way in order to meet the objectives that we share.
|
