|
Lynne Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Daventry for raising the issue. As he rightly says, the new clause relates to an extremely rare, but possible, case. Whether or not the Government are minded to accept new clause as worded, I urge them to take steps to ensure that such a married couple would not have to end their marriage and remarry simply to have their correct genders recognised.
Mr. Lammy: I am grateful to the Committee for raising the issue. The Bill will put couples in which both parties seek recognition in their acquired gender to the trouble of first having to end their marriage and then re-form it after gaining recognition. The practical implications are less serious than if one party seeks recognition in the acquired gender. If the couple remain an opposite-sex couple after recognition, they will be able to remarry and regain all their previous rights and responsibilities. We would not expect them—
Mr. Boswell: The Minister may be coming to this point, but is he telling the Committee that the discontinuity in their marriage, albeit for as little as 24 hours, would not constitute a disqualification for any benefit entitlements either in the public or private sector? If he is, that would meet at least part of the difficulty that the new clause identifies.
Mr. Lammy: That is indeed my understanding.
Column Number: 214
We would not expect such couples to seek orders for financial provision on the dissolution of the first marriage, as their financial responsibilities to each other would shortly be reinstated. We have considered the new clause carefully but, on reflection, we are not minded to make special provision for such couples. That is partly because of the numbers involved: our information suggests that there are only about four couples in that category.
Aligned to that is the fact that we would require the equivalent of schedule 3 to issue new marriage certificates. The new clause refers to the issue of a modified certificate of marriage, but we do not believe that it is appropriate to change that historical record. The Committee will note that the Bill does not modify the original birth certificate—it stands as an historical fact, and the new birth certificate sits alongside it. The original birth certificate remains in existence and a mechanism is created for a new birth certificate. The Committee will realise that that requires detailed provisions under schedule 3. Given the small number of couples involved, we believe that it would not be proportionate to replicate schedule 3 for marriage certificates, either in terms of the legislative provision or administrative arrangements. For those reasons, the Government oppose the new clause.
Mr. Boswell: I am bound to say that I am a little disappointed by what the Minister has said. The issue has fallen into the ''too difficult'' category, but if Ministers were prepared to get to grips with it, they could resolve that difficulty. Making provision might require alterations in the marriage certificate, or some other mechanism, but I am sure that it is not beyond the power of the draftspersons to produce a schedule—even one running to pages—that would enable that to happen.
4.45 pm
The argument that only very few people are involved is not in itself compelling. However, I do not want to end what has been a positive Committee on an unnecessarily heated note, so, rather than press the matter now, I shall withdraw my new clause and reconsider it in the light of what the Minister said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Criminal Records Bureau checks
'A certified copy of an entry in the Gender Recognition Register must be made available by the person to whom a gender recognition certificate has been issued to those employers and voluntary organisations whose work with children enforces obligations under the Protection of Children Act 1999 and the Court Services Act 2000 to permit searches against all previous identities of prospective employees and volunteers in order to conform with the requirements of the Criminal Records Bureau; and such persons as are furnished with such a copy shall be bound by section 22 of this Act.'.—[Mr. Boswell.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Boswell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Column Number: 215
The Committee had a full and useful debate on clause 22 and disclosure of information. The new clause relates to a particular problem that may or may not arise in consideration of an individual and searches to be made by the Criminal Records Bureau. The overriding point was shown up by the recent case of Huntley, who changed his identity. Tragically, that change was not sequenced through and he was not identified as a person with a question mark or a history of complaints against him. That, sadly, led to the conclusion that it did. We need not go on about that; there may be other cases of equivalent or lesser importance. The principle is that it should be possible, despite a change of gender, to identify people with their history.
The issue raised by clause 22, as drafted, is who should handle that information and whether it should be in the hands of the people who carry out the checks or should go directly to the bureau from the registrar or person who issues the gender recognition certificate in the first place. We want to ensure that, whatever means are secured—perhaps the Minister can explain the mechanism he has in mind—someone who has changed gender, as well as someone who has changed identity, will be traceable through the system so that anyone who needs to know will know and anyone who needs to disclose that information to another person will be protected from any suit under clause 22.
The issue is important and it is essential that the Minister gives a clear assurance that the system will work, that no one will be put under unreasonable pressure and, in particular, that the voluntary bodies to which we referred earlier will be able to make use of the information if they need it, or pass it on to others.
Mr. Lammy: Clause 22 sets out the limited circumstances in which disclosure is permissible—for example, for the prevention or investigation of a crime. The suggestion in the new clause might be that there is potential for abuse of the gender recognition system in order to avoid detection by a number of official agencies. I begin by reiterating that acquiring a new gender under the criteria in the Bill is a long, difficult and painful experience that can often result in the loss of friends, family and even employment. The panels will require medical evidence of gender identity, disorder and a legal commitment to living permanently in the acquired gender. It is bizarre to suggest that a person who is not transsexual should put themselves through all that to avoid detection of some sort. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he spoke to the new clause, but it is important to put those matters on the record. Similarly, it is unfair to assume that transsexual people pose any more risk to children or the vulnerable than others. If the procedures for checking criminal records are suitable for other people, they are suitable for transsexual people.
I should clarify that before any person, not just a transsexual person, is cleared to work with children, the applicant is asked to complete a disclosure application form by the employer, voluntary organisation or registered body. The form asks for the surname at birth and for any other names used by the
Column Number: 216
applicant. The form is then forwarded to the Criminal Records Bureau, which triggers its usual background checks. I must stress that nothing in the Bill prevents the bureau from doing that.
In addition, information linking the previous identity and the new one will be held as a matter of course by both the Registrar General's offices and the gender recognition panel. That information will ordinarily be confidential, and will not be disclosed to anyone at all. As I said before, the Bill does not prohibit disclosure if it is for the purpose of preventing or investigating crime.
The Government do not, therefore, take the view that there is a need for a further clause in the Bill. Safeguards in existing provisions already provide the assurances sought by the hon. Member for Daventry. With that, I hope that he is able to withdraw the motion.
Mr. Boswell rose—
Mr. Lammy: I would just like to say, because we are now into the last few minutes of the sitting and I cannot be sure whether I shall have another opportunity, thank you, Mrs. Roe, for the manner in which you have conducted the Committee. I would also like to thank Mr. Taylor in his absence.
We have had an interesting debate. We have discussed some extremely difficult and complex issues, which are important to the constituents of us all throughout the country. We have had to balance the interests of faith communities and others who have taken an interest in what we are doing. As Minister, I have had to get to grips with some important pieces of legislation, and I am grateful for the work of my noble Friend Lord Filkin as the lead Minister in this policy area and as the Minister in another place. I am grateful for the opportunity to put that on the record.
Mr. Boswell: Mrs. Roe, I think that we are still formally speaking to my new clause, but I do not think that I need add anything of substance to that at the moment. Before I withdraw the motion—other Committee members may wish to make a brief contribution to the debate—I should like to respond to what the Minister has said by reiterating our thanks to you and Mr. Taylor for your chairmanship of the Committee. I also thank the Clerks, who are invaluable in their assistance of Opposition Members, and all the people who have taken our notes, written down our jokes, comments and our abstruse references, and generally regulated our affairs.
I would like to add my personal thanks to the Minister. We happen to be in an unusual position in interpersonally agreeing about the merits of the Bill. However, it has been right to test some of the provisions, and he has been able to satisfy us on some of the points. Metaphorically throwing down the gauntlet, there may be one or two other matters to re-examine on Report that are important. Through the Minister, I thank his officials.
I thank all Committee members. Our proceedings have been a considerable joint effort. My hon. Friends and Government Back Benchers have had differences
Column Number: 217
of emphasis—notably, if I may without invidiousness single them out, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, and on the Opposition Benches, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. We have had some good debates; I am sure that we all feel that we have learned something from them. We may not always share exactly the same perspectives, but we unite in our wish to do a good job and produce legislation that is workable. In that respect, I would like to add my thanks to all those who have briefed us in this place. They have had different perceptions, but they have done their best to express their ideas sensitively and to contribute to what in my view—one cannot always say this—has been a very constructive Committee.
|
