|
Lynne Jones: My hon. Friend says that such individuals would be no worse off than other men. However, the point that I was trying to make with the amendment is that those individuals have suffered extensive discrimination throughout their lifetimes, which has prevented them from making the most of their employment or earning opportunities. Now that they have some chance of recognition and respect in their acquired gender, they have to choose between that and losing out financially. Other men have not had to face that difficult lifetime.
Maria Eagle: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, and I accept that for a small number of people that problem is thrown up by seeking a gender recognition certificate at that particular age. However, the principles of the Bill are such that it is not easy—and I would argue that it is not desirable—to make exceptions, even in difficult cases, for such a small group of people, despite the fact that there has been a difficult history of employment.
There is no doubt that the losses would be minimal. Most people would be able to get pension credit. If their employment history were such that they were quite poor, they would be entitled to pension credit and the possibility of a higher pension at age 65. The social security system provides for people who are likely to face severe financial hardship not to do so and helps to alleviate that. Those who are working, perhaps in low-paid jobs, would not be entitled to pension credit, but the working tax credit is available if there is an entitlement.
We do not believe that there would be extensive examples, or even a small number of examples, of people losing out financially in a way that would make it sensible for us to amend the Bill. I know that my hon. Friend feels very strongly about the matter and may not agree with that analysis. None the less, it is the Government's analysis, and I hope that she will understand—even if she does not accept—our reasons for believing that the amendment should not be accepted.
Lynne Jones: I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Minister has said. She will understand that her remarks are not entirely unexpected, and that I will raise the issue again later in our consideration of the Bill. For the moment, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 181 Schedule 6
Sex discrimination
Question proposed, That this schedule be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
Dr. Harris: I raise an issue that was debated briefly in the House of Lords. I, too, hope to be brief. The Joint Committee on Human Rights also discussed the issue in relation to discrimination law and the Bill's related provisions.
The Government's approach is extremely minimalist, and we should not allow the Bill to go through Committee without getting the Government to justify it. We should also ensure for the record that the Minister expresses his confidence, which I am sure he will be willing to do, that the Government will be able to see off any challenge under the Human Rights Act 1998, particularly in the light of the eight claims made under article 14, article 8, and article 2 of protocol 1 on the right to education.
I will briefly outline as best I can at this time of the morning the issues relating to discrimination. I will also talk about the Government's approach and why it is so unsatisfactory. There are two separate issues. The first is whether the transsexual person would be protected against discrimination on the ground of
Column Number: 182
their new sex or gender. The second is whether they would be protected from discrimination on the ground that they were transsexual. The Joint Committee report dealt with those issues very well. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) who has also worked hard on these issues.
We have discussed clause 9 and the provision that makes it clear that we mean ''sex'' where the Bill says ''gender''. It is therefore quite clear that under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 in which the term ''sex'' is used, transsexual people are protected from discrimination against their new gender or sex. What is more difficult is the question of discrimination on the ground that a person is transsexual.
Before we adjourn, it is worth considering the equal treatment directive and the impact that the case of P v. S and Cornwall county council had on our domestic law. The Sex Discrimination Act protects people from sex discrimination in employment, vocational training, education, housing and the supply of goods and services. Thanks to the Liberal Democrats, the equal treatment directive is one of the few areas of British law—
The following Members attended the Committee:
Taylor, Mr. David (Chairman)
Bayley, Hugh
Boswell, Mr.
Davies, Geraint
Eagle, Maria
Harris, Dr. Evan
Jones, Lynne
Lammy, Mr.
McDonagh, Siobhain
Prentice, Bridget
Selous, Andrew
Watkinson, Angela
Woodward, Mr.
Younger-Ross, Richard
|
