| Gender Recognition Bill [Lords]
|
|
Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend puts the point extremely well and I entirely agree with her. Richard Younger-Ross: The question posed by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire expresses tabloid fears and must be hit firmly on the head. I cannot imagine a minister, from any church, allowing such a situation to proceed. Ministers talk to people prior to marriage. They would say to them, ''You need Column Number: 167 to speak to your partner. You need to explain your history. Until you do so, I will not allow the marriage to go forward.'' It is clear what the duties of the clergy would be. They would not have to break the law and could resolve the issue by other means.Mr. Lammy: Absolutely. As I said to the Committee, it may be the case—it certainly is the case with some faith communities—that there is an application form that the couple presents in order to get married. Some Churches ask for a baptism certificate. There are many ways in which clergy can seek to ensure that the bond between the partners is a sound one and that the integrity of the process and the beliefs of that faith community are upheld. The concern underlying new clause 5 is that the Bill will compromise the freedom of religious organisations. Our strongly held view is that it does not do so. Throughout the Bill we have tried to strike a balance between the legitimate concerns of Churches and the need to protect the rights of transsexual people. That is not an easy task. Churches do not speak with one voice on the issue. We must be clear and honest about that. I say to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire that the new clause seeks the right for religious bodies to regulate their procedures and practices according to their beliefs regarding the transsexual community. Clearly there are underlying concerns that the Bill will compromise the freedom of religious organisations to restrict the participation of transsexual people in religious activities or restrict their access to facilities. The question whether a religious organisation ought to exclude transsexual people from participation in religious activities must, at heart, be a moral one. I suspect that our views on it may differ. There might not be much scope for agreement. At the end of the day, that is a moral determination for the particular faith community. However, the Government can say clearly that the Bill does not extend anti-discrimination protection for transsexual people. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) suggested that in his helpful comments and that is the case. I state it again, because I think that there is far too much doubt in this area. The Bill does not extend anti-discrimination protection for transsexual people. We believe that we would be better placed to consider the case for extending that protection once the system of recognition is in place.
10.30 amAndrew Selous: I agree with the Minister that the vast majority of transsexual people will not want to cause problems. They will want to get on with the religious bodies that they join. We are talking about only a vexatious minority, as in the Diane Parry case. If what the Minister is saying is true—the legal advice that I have seen differs from that—will he give a guarantee that the Diane Parry case would still have been won by the Church in question if the Bill had been enacted? Column Number: 168 Mr. Lammy: No. That is because I do not believe that any Minister would do so; I could not possibly do so. We have had much debate over the past few weeks about the relationship between Ministers and our judiciary, and it is not one into which I shall enter in Committee. I will not predetermine the outcome of a particular case. However, I stand by the fact that the Bill does not extend the law in that area. Indeed, when the Joint Committee considered the issue, it was keen that the Bill should extend discrimination a little further. An hon. Member approached me in the Corridor and explained to me that in his constituency, a church had prescribed that a transsexual person could not enter the female toilets or attend women-only meetings. The church was concerned that the Bill might enable the transsexual person, who abides by the rules of her community, to take out an action against the church. I have made it clear to the hon. Member that that is not the case. There is currently special provision under English law for transsexuals in employment and vocational training. However, legislation does not currently go beyond that. For these purposes, discrimination—not on the basis of the transsexual's identity as a woman but as a transsexual—is allowed, for the reasons that we have discussed. Many hon. Members—certainly Government and possibly Liberal Democrat Members—are concerned about that. It is being discussed and debated in Europe, so may well change in future years. However, that is the current position, and the Bill does not go beyond that. Mr. Boswell: Is the Minister saying that under the Bill, to take one side of the equation, a man may become a woman for all legal purposes, go through the process and receive a gender recognition certificate, but would not then be able to avail herself of rights as a woman that she had not previously enjoyed as a man in relation to provision of goods, services or otherwise? The Minister has produced what I think is an artificial distinction—I hope it is not—between the rights of a transsexual person in relation to employment and vocational training, and their rights as a woman after receiving a gender recognition certificate. We must be clear about that. Mr. Lammy: I am in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. I thought that that was the point that I was making, but if there were a slight distinction, I agree with him. With the conscience clause relating to marriage, the Government have shown that we are committed to working with religious organisations on the issue. That is why I suggest that the amendment be withdrawn—it is unnecessary, given the existing law—and that the hon. Gentleman engages again with the issues in the context of any further discussion about extending anti-discrimination protection. On amendment No. 43, once a transsexual person's change of gender has been legally recognised, marriages contracted between a male and a female will be valid. In such circumstances, registration officers would have no legal ground on which to refuse to Column Number: 169 provide the service. It would be expected that the service would be provided to the same high standards as other services. That said, it is clearly a sign of a healthy, liberal society that people's views are tolerated. There are often practical solutions to these issues, and it is expected that marriage services for transsexual people will form a very small part of the overall service provided by the registrars-general. There would be sufficient registration officers available in a particular community to avoid an embarrassing situation for the transsexual person or a registration officer being placed in a position of personal difficulty. For those reasons I am unable to accept the amendment.Andrew Selous: I shall be brief. We have debated these issues at some length this morning as well as on Thursday afternoon and so I shall not repeat the arguments. I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks about amendment No. 43 and registrars. As he says, the issue will arise in only a small minority of cases. The fact that he envisages other registrars being able to undertake duties where some registrars may have personal difficulties is welcome. A number of outstanding issues have not been fully resolved and we will return to them on Report and on Third Reading. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That this schedule be the Fourth schedule to the Bill. Dr. Harris: I have one brief question. Sub-paragraph (8) of paragraph 2 states:
(b) the reference in paragraph (d) of that subsection to the relevant person's daughter's father is to the relevant person's daughter's mother if the relevant person is the daughter's father.''
Secondly, apropos the previous debate, will he identify again for me the part of schedule 4 that provides for the annulment of a marriage on the basis of someone not being aware of the transgender status of their spouse? I thought that it was paragraph 5, although it does not specifically state that there is any non-disclosure to the spouse. Could he explain in context how that works? Mr. Lammy: For these purposes it is probably best that I write to the hon. Gentleman on his question about paragraph 2 and the Marriage Act 1949. If I may, I will also write to him about his second point. Question put and agreed to Schedule 4 agreed to. Clauses 12 and 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Column Number: 170
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 16 March 2004 |
