| Gender Recognition Bill [Lords]
|
|
Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman is probably right. It would be useful to have the Minister's reassurance. I seek only to ensure that we do not allow something through that we were not anticipating because the wording in the Bill is left unquestioned. Mr. Lammy: I endorse and confirm what has been helpfully said by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. I would add that the Government included the words ''or has had'' to cover the situation of a person who was diagnosed with gender dysphoria and has since continued through the process, as we expect people to do to live fully in their acquired gender. As the person is now living fully in the acquired gender, it may not be accurate to say that the person has gender dysphoria. The gender dysphoria has been dealt with. In order to ensure that such a person could apply for recognition, the words ''or has had'' were included. We had a debate this morning about the groups of people who may seek to apply for a gender recognition certificate. The hon. Member for Daventry will understand that a group of people who choose to go through the fast-track procedure will have moved Column Number: 42 beyond the gender dysphoria that they had to a new life in an acquired gender, which they have had for many years. People undergoing treatment will seek to make applications. The Bill is designed to address the different contexts in which the panel will need carefully to examine the evidence. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is able to withdraw the amendment.Mr. Boswell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mr. Boswell: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 38, in
'or members of the applicant's family'.
'( ) Subsection (2) will not affect the right of the applicant's family to offer evidence in accordance with section 3(6).'.
The essential point of the amendment is to take up a debate from the other place, where the Minister, Lord Filkin, gave some helpful assurances about the ability of the gender recognition panel to consider representations from other members of the family. I need to make two qualifying points on that, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire, whose amendment is technically rather better, will wish to make some comments as well. At this stage of discussing the Bill, I feel that the representations concern what one might call socio-medical factors rather than economic factors. It would be quite improper to imagine a circumstance in which the gender recognition panel would have to hear representations about how much money an individual thought they might or might not lose. I noticed some slightly overstated reservations that were published about the possibility that wills might be subverted by an application for gender recognition. Whether or not there could be—and a later provision in the Bill deals with this—the provisions concern members of the family being able to make their own representations. I wanted to make the point firmly that we are not considering the financial matters at this stage. The panel may want to ask the applicant if he or Column Number: 43 she has made such a provision, but fundamentally the process should be a medical determination that leads to a legal judgment on the issue of a certificate.The substantive point that I want to make, on which I think all Committee members agree, is that members of the family would normally know about such decisions. Indeed, they would have been a part of the decision over a period of time. However the amendment is drafted, I would not seek to make the panel officiously examine every last possibility that there might be somebody with an interest who has not been canvassed on the matter. One can imagine being unable to get hold of a child of the marriage who had gone away and been resident in a foreign country for a number of years. On the other hand, the drafting was designed to include somebody who might, for example, be a carer, conceivably even a business partner, though that is unlikely. The essential point is that, although it is about the applicant, this is not a decision for the applicant alone. It also has a close and intimate effect on their family and their relationships. The family may have a positive contribution to make in terms of their experience of the applicant living in a new gender. They may want to give supporting evidence. It would be unfortunate—I understand from the framework of assurances given in another place that this is not Ministers' intention—to exclude people close to the applicant who would be able to get the original birth certificate.
3.15 pmMr. Stephen Pound (Ealing, North) (Lab): Out of respect for the Minister perhaps I should not say this, but I will. Like many people in the Committee Room, I do not want to see lawyers become even wealthier. It seems that given the drafting of the amendment, an application could be contested by virtually anybody on the face of the earth. It seems that by including
Mr. Boswell: The important point, and the Minister may want to speak to this, is that the panel must satisfy itself and opportunities must be afforded to members of it. I think that we all understand the importance of not seeking officiously to find the long-lost member of the family in Buenos Aires or wherever. Mr. Pound: The Tichborne claimant. Mr. Boswell: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman has rightly muttered, ''The Tichborne claimant''. That is the last thing that we want, but we must not allow the fear of that situation to make it impossible for the gender recognition panel to make reasonable inquiries. Dr. Harris: I want to come back to a more fundamental problem with the hon. Gentleman's argument. He stated that we must accept that the matter is not just for the applicant but for his family as Column Number: 44 well. I cannot think—and I am trying to—of any personal right that one may seek to exercise under the Human Rights Act 1998 or the European convention on human rights that gives a right of veto, in the accessing of these rights, to a family member.Clearly there are sensitivities, but fundamentally the issue is about the autonomy of the individual. Regardless of whether other people may be hostile or supportive, it is fundamentally a matter for them and them alone to seek their rights under the Human Rights Act. Mr. Boswell: In a sense, the hon. Gentleman has exposed the dilemma. What he says is absolutely accurate. There is one applicant and one potential occasion for the issuing of a gender recognition certificate. That is personal to the applicant. That must be uncontentious. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman goes on to make the point, with perhaps greater certainty than I would be able to, that there is one fundamental issue of human rights that is specific to the applicant. What we seek to do is to make sure that no decisions are taken hastily or inappropriately and without some concern for the human rights of other family members to make representations. I am not proposing to say that they are necessarily overriding or could constitute a right of veto. However, I think that it is reasonable that people should be able to make representations. I sense that the hon. Member for Ogmore wishes to intervene. Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, for the positive approach in which he has approached many of the amendments and for the probing way in which he has put them forward. Perhaps I address the issue from a slightly different angle. If the amendment were to be accepted, in what circumstances does the hon. Gentleman envisage a representation from, let us say, a family member having a material effect on the application? By the time that the application has been made and the individual has made an autonomous choice to go forward, I fail to see what purpose any additional representation by interested parties would have to the application. Mr. Boswell: There might be two possible concerns: first, if the individual's will to proceed with the application was uncertain or was in the view of another member of the family—a spouse or a close relative, including a child—deemed to be uncertain; secondly and more plausibly, in circumstances in which the behaviour of the applicant was not regarded as consistent with their application. Even that might be quite difficult to establish, but it might refer to whether they had really been living in the acquired gender over the requisite period. Lynne Jones: What exactly does the amendment mean by
Column Number: 45 of a gender certificate, would ask, presumably in a standard format, ''Is there a spouse?'', which, as the Minister will tell the Committee, is a requirement. The panel would also ask, ''Are there children from the marriage, or previous children or other persons who might have an interest? Would you care to list them? Have they been told?''If the answer were no, the situation provided for in the amendment would not arise; but if the answer were yes, the panel could either accept the assurance of the applicant that family members had been consulted, or make separate and suitably conditioned inquiries of the persons there specified to ensure that they had had a chance to make representations. It means no more than that, and that is how I envisage it working. I fully understand the delicacies about the modalities, but I think that we are saying that there should not and, if the amendment were not passed, probably would not be a situation in which an applicant, acting in a solipsistic manner, simply makes an application that the panel considers almost unawares to other members of the family. As I have mentioned, the scenario is unlikely, but were it to happen it would be unfortunate and it would discredit the process in the minds of the public.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 9 March 2004 |
