Gender Recognition Bill

House of Commons

The Bill is very important; it is important because it will dramatically affect the lives of several thousand people in this country and because it will create a climate that will enable people who have experienced the issue in some way to feel more comfortable and more equal in our society in the future. The Bill does not give anybody special rights or special privileges; what it is doing — like so many things on what might be described as the equality or fairness agenda — is giving transsexual people in this country the same rights that everybody else is, rightly, free to enjoy.

The Conservative party is to be congratulated on its decision to have a free vote on the measure, which is not something that we might realistically have imagined to be the case a few years ago. That decision genuinely represents a proper consideration of the need to address Britain as it is rather than the Britain that some people might wish it to be.

I rise partly as the Member of Parliament for a constituent who wrote to me only a few weeks ago asking for my support on the Bill, saying:

"I would like to point out that the likes of me 'just blend into the crowd'. I go to work, do my job, everybody likes me. I do not go around shouting for my rights on the radio and television, I just want to live a normal life which is in fact what I do on a daily basis."

That person wrote to me because they have actually experienced difficulties. The person says:

"I have worked for a major clearing bank for the last 38 years, and during that time they have supported me whole heartedly and covered for me when I had my operation, saying that I did not work for the bank when the press came after me, those days are now over, thankfully."

When the Bill was being described earlier, the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) referred to it as nonsense. Hand on heart, charitably, I can only feel that the hon. Gentleman has never met someone who has experienced such things. Had he done so, he could not describe the Bill as nonsense.

I say that on behalf of my constituent and also on behalf of my sister, formerly my brother. I mention my sister not because I believe that it is a good idea to bring one's private life into the Chamber, but because when, four years ago, I made a certain political decision, certain parts of the media felt it incumbent on them to draw my sister into the argument. She was not drawn into the argument as a way of adducing factual information; certain tabloid newspapers and one broadsheet — one of whose sketch writers was in the Gallery earlier — felt it incumbent on them to refer to the fact that my sister "used to be a fella". She found herself plastered over the front pages of various newspapers whose aim was to "get" me.

There is a real need to recognise that in this country, sadly, this legislation is still really important. It is about changing climates and attitudes, and recognising that we actually have an opportunity to do something right. The Bill is not, as the hon. Member for Blaby said, nonsense; it is sensible and very, very important.

Much work has gone into the Bill. As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I pay tribute to its officials and my colleagues on the Committee. I pay tremendous tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) who has done a huge amount. When my sister began to talk to me about the issue, she was extremely aware of the work of the hon. Lady and asked me particularly to pay tribute to her today.I am aware of the hard work and commitment of the officials in turning the draft Bill into the current Bill. However, the Government must look again at some issues, in our position as a revising Chamber for the other place.

In the course of my speech, I shall adduce the comments of some of the individuals who have written to me about the issue. I hope that that will convince the hon. Gentleman that the Bill is the right thing to do and that, rather than preserving our current inequalities, equality is always a step forward.

In relation to the Bill, I draw the Minister's attention to clause 22 on privacy. Will it do enough to protect individuals from the infringement of their right to a private life?

That protection is needed because I am worried that we might continue to see gratuitous press intrusion, along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), and, more specifically, the kind of thing that can easily happen unless people feel a duty to behave differently. I refer to my sister's experiences. She has received legal documents — for example, from a court — addressed to "Miss Lesley Woodward, formerly known as Mr. Leslie Woodward".

That might seem a minor thing to hon. Members but it is not to the individual concerned, and the Minister needs to be confident that those people are fully protected. Is he confident that there will be adequate protection in the future for people who have suffered that kind of thing? Will a duty of care be imposed on officials in such circumstances?

The second point I want to raise with the Minister relates to discrimination. The Select Committee considered whether the Government should go further in their protections against discrimination. The Committee's response was that it

"took the view that the most pressing need had been to amend the law in relation to employment and vocational training".

It did not consider

"that there was any evidence of a pressing need to protect transsexual people against discrimination in other fields".

Housing is an extremely important field and the Minister should think carefully about whether the law will provide adequate protection. When many young people go through the experience of being transsexual it is coupled with psychiatric problems. In the most appalling circumstances, that can mean that the individual is ejected from their home and loses their job. Sometimes, they are destitute. A hostel, or somewhere to live, is critical at that point. It is thus essential that such an individual is not subject to the kind of discrimination whereby, because they may be presenting themselves as a woman, the person in charge at the hostel says, "I'm sorry you can't come here because really you are a man", or the other way around.

I am slightly worried by the Government's explanation of why they do not need to move — they feel that the issue is too complex to sort out. I say to the Minister that that is not a good reason for not trying to address the matter, which it is still incumbent on the Department to re-examine. When the legislation is scrutinised in Committee, we must be confident that further injustices will not be done to the same people.

During the debate a lot has been said about the Church. It is important to put on record comments by groups such as the Metropolitan Community Church of Manchester that wrote to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It said how much it supports the Bill, which it does not regard as aberrant, wrong or nonsense. A particular member of that Christian community told the Committee:

"On behalf of the Metropolitan Community Church of Manchester I am writing to indicate our broad support for the bill. This reform is long overdue and will be warmly welcomed by our members . . . Many of our members are transgendered and we know how difficult the current legal situation is for people with gender dysphoria. The introduction of this bill by the Government helps to rectify injustice and is very good news and long overdue.

"I hope you are aware that many Christians will be supportive of this bill. Some Christian organisations, like the Evangelical Alliance" —

which was mentioned earlier —

"and the Christian Institute, are very good at promulgating their views but they only represent one stream of Christian opinion. There are many churches and groups of Christians who are supportive of any and all moves towards justice and greater social inclusion and cohesion."

The Church argument that tends to be adduced in relation to this matter concerns marriage. It must be said at the outset that marriages go wrong. Things sometimes happen through no fault of the individuals concerned — equally, things sometimes happen that are the fault of individuals — that make it right to dissolve a marriage. The particular point about which I am concerned does not involve a marriage having gone wrong. As a consequence of the Bill and not because their marriage has gone wrong, several hundred people will be faced with what can only be described as a terrible choice.

I say to those hon. Members who perhaps think otherwise that it was not a matter of choice for my sister to take the gender that she felt herself to be. It was about putting something right that had gone wrong very early on; it was not a matter of choice. The Minister must consider whether it is appropriate to force people to dissolve marriages that may have lasted for 30 years or more to fulfil a legal obligation.

It is interesting to consider the evidence submitted to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. One couple said:

"For any marriage to survive, it takes a huge investment of emotion, energy and money, and a great deal of love. This bill, if passed as proposed, would ignore the realities of people like us in the cruellest possible way. We would be put in the invidious position of having to choose between a female birth certificate"

for one partner

"and our marriage. We cannot believe that someone has actually suggested that we should have to trade one set of rights for another."

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) who has done a great deal of work with a couple who also came to see me — she took them to see the Minister concerned and presented their case. The couple, Joy and Christine, were written about sympathetically in The Daily Telegraph and have been married for 36 years. As one of them said:

One of us is going to feel disappointed"

if they make this choice and one of them will feel absolutely wrecked. The couple do not want to divorce, they have children and they married in church.

Their priest has written to them, and his comments are worth considering given the arguments adduced, He said that he had been thinking about this issue for some time, and that the character of their marriage vows — a lifelong and exclusive partnership for better or for worse — seemed uncompromised by their wish to remain together. He said:

"It seems to me that the intention at your marriage was for you to be together and explore the nature of love. Your marriage has survived (as you put it) and I don't think that voidance" —

the word used in the Bill —

"can be anything other than 'putting asunder', which is exactly what the state can't do . . . the state can sanction divorce where the 'love' has broken down; or 'annul' where there was not intention of lifelong commitment . . . But here these characteristics of marriage remain. I don't think that the state"

should

"sanction either a divorce, or an annulment or a 'void' whilesoever you continue to maintain the 'character' of marriage."

It is interesting to reflect on what the couple's priest says that the Bill may unintentionally force them to do. The state is forcing them to wreck their marriage, which has nothing to do with their wishes, and break their commitment to each other and their love. They feel that the situation will damage their children. Sometimes it is right for marriages to be broken, but neither Labour nor Conservative Members are saying that that is the right thing to do in this case, and the couple do not want to do it. However, the Bill would force them to destroy their marriage. Some people may genuinely feel that it is still appropriate to break that marriage because the matter is too near to the question of same-sex marriage, which everybody is frightened to discuss, and it would be better not to frighten the horses. In some cases, we may be doing more than forcing a terrible choice.

One couple wrote to me to say that about 15 years ago one of them came to accept that they were transgendered. They went on to say that the adopted policy was to put family first and gender considerations second and that this repression led to depression, resulting in failure to gain promotion and eventually in 1995 retirement on the grounds of ill health. The letter said that since then there had been a continued decline in the physical and mental health of one of them and that it became a choice between full gender reassignment or a very short life expectancy. They said that the problems seemed immense: their commitment to their children has meant that there has only ever been one income earner, and both of them now suffer health problems. Again, we are saying to such people, "Choose between your marriage and your certificate."

Perhaps the choice is not that simple. It is sometimes incumbent on us to be a little less judgmental and a little more understanding.

For those who may have experienced only one person coming to talk to them about the issue, I simply say that thousands of people have experienced it, and perhaps we need to listen to them before we listen to our own prejudices.

My final point relates to pensions, which have been mentioned by several other hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). The Bill raises a serious issue that the Government need to think through, for two reasons. The first is the general point of principle and the second is the timing of the civil partnership Bill and the consequences if it is delayed for people adversely affected by this Bill. A case history may illustrate the problem.

Let us take two people we will call Claire and Barbara. Claire was a committed police constable who loved her job but was forced to leave when she told her boss that she was transsexual and was transitioning. She would not have left her job if she had not been asked to go. She had a 10-year police service record and was entitled to a pension. Let us suppose that something should tragically happen to Claire. Where would that leave her partner, Barbara? The problem is that for Barbara to qualify for the survivor's pension under the Police and Firemen's Pensions Act 1997 — this is just one example — the couple must have been married both at the point of Claire's retirement from the police and at the time of her death. So if they had to divorce as a consequence of the Bill, the partner would lose the rights to the pension.

We need to look carefully at the issue in Committee. We do not need to delay the Bill, because it is important for everybody affected by the issue. However, the Government must recognise the problem and the need to review it. It may be necessary to appoint individuals in the Department as points of contact for members of the public who may be affected by the Bill. Those individuals might also discover serious problems caused by the Bill and we would then be able to rectify the matter at the first possible opportunity. It would be tragic if, for the best of reasons — and I believe that the Government have the best of reasons at heart — the Bill adversely affected the lives of people caught up in circumstances through no fault of their own and who suffered as a result. The Government clearly do not intend that anyone should suffer by the Bill: indeed, they want to make life fairer and more equal for everybody in our country.