Gender Recognition Bill: Issues at Lords Third Reading
A preview of the issues raised by amendments tabled in the House of Lords for the Third Reading of the Gender Recognition Bill
Tuesday 10th February 2004
A total of only four amendments have been tabled for the Third Reading of the Gender Recognition Bill. No further amendments were tabled yesterday.
The Third Reading debate will take place today, Feb 10th. The Lords business begins at 2.30pm, but the first item is questions, then the debate on the Justice (N. Ireland) bill. So the Gender Recognition Bill is unlikely to be debated before 4pm.
You can see the list of amendments elsewhere on this PFC website.
The most recent amendment is No. 3, from Baroness O’Cathain. This is a nasty proposal, which would allow transsexual people to be banned from church services and religious ceremonies. It was the subject of a briefing circulated yesterday to PFC-NEWS.
There are three other amendments.
Amendment No.s 1 and 2
Amendments No. 1 and 2 are from the bill Minister, Lord Filkin, and would amend Clause 3 of the bill, “Evidence”.
Both amendments are minor procedural issues which appear to be designed to resolve concerns previously raised by the Liberal Democrat peer, Lord Goodhart. They would increase the level of scrutiny required for the Secretary of State to use his powers to require further evidence from applicants, by requiring a formal order to be made.
These are good changes, which PFC supports.
Subsections 6 and 7 of Clause 3 currently reads:
- Any application under section 1(1) must include
- a statutory declaration as to whether or not the applicant is married,
- any other information or evidence required by the Secretary of State,
and - any other information or evidence which the Panel which is to determine the application may require,
- The Secretary of State may not impose a requirement under subsection (6)(b) without consulting the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland.
The amended subsections would read (with new words in bold text):
- Any application under section 1(1) must include
- a statutory declaration as to whether or not the applicant is married,
- any other information or evidence required by an order made by the Secretary of State,
and - any other information or evidence which the Panel which is to determine the application may require,
- The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (6)(b) without consulting the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland.
Amendment No. 4
Amendment No. 4, from Lord Marlesford, is a nasty one: it would remove Clause 22, on “Prohibition on disclosure of information”. (This was previously Clause 21; the clauses were renumbered after a new clause about sport was inserted at Report Stage)
Lord Marlesford raised this issue at Report Stage — and his proposal was robustly opposed by the govt minister, Baroness Hollis of Heigham.
Lord Marlesford then argued that the clause “goes absurdly wide”, and that it was “unnecessary, unenforceable and undesirable”. Bizarrely, he asked “How many will mind people knowing that they have changed gender?”
As ministers and other peers are well aware, privacy has probably been the single most important reason why we have sought legal recognition. Expect a heated debate on that point!