|
Meg Munn: I understand why the hon. Gentleman continues to raise the matter, and I should like to reassure him that the Government support the intention that underpins his amendment. Indeed, we have already started the work that is needed to extend protection against discrimination for transsexual people to areas beyond the employment field. The hon. Gentleman has proposed that we can achieve our shared objective of ending discrimination against transsexual people by simply extending part III of the Sex Discrimination Act to cover gender re-assignment. Before I explain the reasons why we do not support the new clause, it would be helpful to set out what its effect would be. Part III makes discrimination lawful in the fields of education and the provision of goods, facilities and services in the management and disposal of premises. Provisions in the Bill will also bring the functions of public authorities within part III.
Part III contains a number of exceptions. Those are narrowly drawn and refer specifically to situations where it is clearly sensible that the principle of equal treatment between women and men is not an absolute requirement—at least, that was what was considered to be the case when the Sex Discrimination Act
Column Number: 286
became law in 1975. We are committed to providing that protection and a key strand of our work in the discrimination law review is to make discrimination against transsexual people unlawful.
However, we must look at what that will mean in practice for transsexual people and all the parties to whom the law will extend. To do that, we need to consult on the issues faced by all who would be affected and hear views on our proposals. We are taking forward the necessary preparatory work for legal change through the discrimination law review. We will consult on our proposals in a Green Paper in the spring of 2006 and we want to hear the views of all interested parties on the proposals. We believe that this is the best way to ensure that transsexual people get legal protection against discrimination and that the law is clear and workable for those who will have responsibilities under it. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured.
Sandra Gidley: Given that the Minister seems keen to pursue the route of the Green Paper and consultation, what assurances can she give us that protection for transsexual people will be in place by the deadline of 21 December 2007? As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon has already outlined, the time scales for the Green Paper and a possible Bill in 2007—at the earliest—mean that there will be a gap in provision. It seems that we are unlikely to meet those deadlines.
Meg Munn: We are aware of the deadline. We are considering the range of options and our overall aim is to provide comprehensive protection. At this stage it is not possible for me to say anything more than that, other than that we want to ensure that we get the issue right and that we have covered it properly. That is why, as I have said many times, the Bill was never intended to deal with a whole range of equality issues. The discrimination law review is enormously important and is considering matters in a detailed way. That is the correct way to proceed and I trust that hon. Members will be reassured on that basis.
Dr. Harris: I see that the Minister was not keen to take an intervention before her last three words, but I hope that she might be able to give me an assurance. I wanted to ask her about something—it might be the fourth time I have mentioned this point. Will she assure us that she will implement protection for trans-people from discrimination in the provision of goods and services, in line with what the direction states—not just about goods and services—by the deadline of 21 December 2007? Is she able to give a categorical assurance that she will meet that deadline? It is a yes or no question. She is not rising to her feet. That is probably why she did not want to take my intervention, which shows that she is a consummate parliamentary performer, as we would expect.
The Minister has not given us the assurance that we required about the time scales. I want to put on record that I do not doubt her intention to provide this protection eventually. I am not seeking to take issue with that; the question is whether it can be done on time. The Bill is a vehicle that would enable us to guarantee doing that because it will be enacted before the deadline.
Column Number: 287
Although I shall withdraw the motion in a moment, in the light of what the Minister said we may have to return to the matter on Report and ask the Government to think again. In the absence of the Minister's assurance that she can meet the deadline required, they might have to use this Bill to do so after all. Until that time, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Meg Munn: I thank you, Mr. Gale, for your excellent chairing of the Committee, which enabled us to get through the Bill at a good pace, and on behalf of the Committee I thank your co-Chair, Mrs. Anderson.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for his assistance, as he took the Committee through a significant part of the Bill. I am also grateful to Committee members from all parties for their contributions. In particular, I thank the hon. Members for Epping Forest and for Romsey for their well-informed comments and questions. Support was given to them by the hon. Members for Beaconsfield and for Oxford, West and Abingdon.
I am also grateful to the Clerks, the attendants, the police and the Hansard staff, and I thank the staff of the Departments concerned for their work. I am pleased that we have been able to take forward our debates in such a constructive and positive way, and look forward to a similar tone of debate on Report. I hope that the Bill will be reported, as is appropriate.
Mrs. Laing: I echo the Minister's thanks to everyone involved in the background—that is, to the Clerks and the officials who worked on the Bill. I also thank you, Mr. Gale, and Mrs. Anderson for your incredible forbearance and patience in chairing this Committee. We did not discover consensus only yesterday; we have supported the general intention of the Bill since it was first debated in the previous Parliament, last April. Indeed, there have been no Divisions in this Committee, because we have managed to have proper discussion of a constructive nature on every single point that has come forward. Our proceedings have been constructive and pleasant, and I thank everyone in the Committee, particularly the hon. Member for Romsey, for that.
I pay particular homage to the Minister. This is her first Bill as a Minister, and she has taken us through it with courtesy and diligence. I am sure that every Committee member appreciates that. Nevertheless, despite the consensus and the fact that there were no Divisions, we reserve our position on the need to examine some of our concerns—particularly, of course, those about the use of taxpayers' money and there being too many regulations—on Report.
Sandra Gidley: I add my comments to those of the two previous speakers. I commend you, Mr. Gale, and your co-Chair for your vigorous chairing; I do not think I have ever heard so many recommendations that letters be written in a Committee. I would recommend that approach to other Chairs, because it seems on occasion to curtail unnecessary debate. I pay
Column Number: 288
tribute to the way in which our consideration of the Bill was arranged. It was particularly helpful that there were no knives, and we were able to have a fairly free-ranging discussion on every part of the Bill. I thank the Minister and the Whips for that.
I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Epping Forest. On the whole, the Committee has been good-natured. There have been points of disagreement, but generally they have been about the use of public funds, an issue on which the hon. Lady is diligent—as are we all, although we perhaps have different priorities for spending that money. I also thank the Clerks, the police and the Hansard staff.
Although our considerations have been consensual, I echo the thoughts of the hon. Lady: some points will be brought back again on Report, because although we had answers to our questions, opportunities are being missed under the Bill. It is a shame that some issues are being carried forward, always with good intent and, in some cases—but not in others—for the good reason that they are complex issues that need resolving. We will return to those points later.
Dr. Harris: Before my hon. Friend sits down I wanted to mention that I have been struck by the promptness with which letters that were promised were written. I am sure that my hon. Friend would, like me, want to thank the ministerial team who must have had a hand in writing the Ministers' letters for the speed with which they did that, so that we could consider them in our work on the Bill.
Sandra Gidley: I wholeheartedly associate myself with my hon. Friend's comments.
Finally, it has been a matter of particular note that the gender balance of the Committee, on the Government Benches in particular, has been somewhat unbalanced. I wonder if our male colleagues object to being left out, for once.
The Chairman: I must be going soft in my old age. Not only were the previous five minutes entirely out of order, but I allowed one hon. Member to raise a constituency matter in a wholly inappropriate context, and allowed the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon to intervene on a point of order, which is also completely out of order. While we are out of order, I thank the Committee for the courtesy and good humour with which it has conducted business. I know that Janet Anderson would want to express appreciation of the thanks that have been given, and to thank the Committee for the extremely amicable conduct of the business.
I thank the Officers of the House, also. We could not do the job that we are required to do, sometimes in difficult circumstances, without their assistance, and we are most grateful. It is slightly premature, but this will be my last chance to do it, so I wish all members of the Committee a happy Christmas and a highly politically consensual new year. [Interruption.] Don't go yet! We have not finished.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Committee rose at thirteen minutes to Three o'clock.
| 
