Gender Recognition Bill [Lords]
9:30 am
Mr Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)
I begin by echoing the Minister's welcome to you, Mrs. Roe. The Committee will discuss a hugely important Bill, and we will benefit from your wise and experienced chairmanship on the complex matters in it. I welcome the Minister and look forward to a constructive dialogue with him and, indirectly through him, with his officials. I equally welcome all members of the Committee.
We should not indulge in self-praise, but there was a general feeling that the debate on Second Reading was constructive. The Minister is nodding. That is the right approach to such matters, and I very much hope that it will continue. As far as the programme motion is concerned, so far, so good. It shows a good understanding of the issue, in that we will not be interrupted by intrusive knives and will have a reasonable period for debate; I certainly hope that that will be the case. I do not believe that anyone wants to go on at length, show off or resort to unnecessary delaying tactics; I certainly do not. In any case, Mrs. Roe, you would call us to order if we tried to do so.
It may be useful, as I am speaking in this Committee on behalf of the official Opposition, if I put my own position on the record. The Minister will know that I supported the Government's legislation in my party's free vote on Second Reading. I was pleased to do that. Other members of my party took a different view on the matter, and it was their privilege to do so. In such circumstances, I feel a particular duty of care to those members of my party who take a different view—if not to agree with them on the principle of the legislation at least to ensure that their prudential and practical concerns are properly aired and debated. If I were to fall down on that, as I may, my admirable colleagues on the Conservative Benches will be able to present those concerns.
I have already made it clear to people who are members or supporters of the transgender community that, if the legislation is to be successful, it is important that we try to iron out all the potential difficulties, to ensure that there will be no unanticipated repercussions and to avoid destroying some other principle in seeking to enunciate one on which I find myself in agreement with the Minister. I hope that by beginning on that basis, we shall be able to maintain the tone and nature of the debate on Second Reading.
For the avoidance of doubt, let me say something about the amendments. Having had first bite of the cherry on amendments, I tabled several fairly early on with the intention that the Minister and his officials would be able to consider them. They fall like Gaul into three categories. There are those with which the Minister will be familiar—certain people who are less familiar with our procedures may not be familiar with them—which are probing amendments. For example, amendment No. 1, which I shall move later, is intended not to destroy the possibility in the legislation of an overseas gender recognition certificate but to enable a debate on the conditions under which such a certificate would be accepted in the United Kingdom. We will have that debate at the appropriate time. There are many amendments of that type, and the Minister understands that they were tabled to promote dialogue among members of the Committee.
There are also important amendments that have been tabled on behalf of transgender people in order to obtain further safeguards. I am pleased to have the moral support of Government Back Benchers in raising some of those issues. I shall listen with great care to what they have to say. We may be in the rather rare position of serving on a Committee that genuinely attempts to thrash things out and raise the issues properly and sensibly.
Equally, the Minister will be aware that there are some concerns—perhaps they are concentrated among Opposition Members, although they have been expressed by people in a number of different areas, particularly by those with Christian and other faith interests—about how the Bill will operate in practice. It is in the common interest that we talk those concerns through, see whether we can obtain further assurances on them and produce a piece of what I hope will be thoroughly workmanlike legislation.
The Minister knows that legislating on this matter is complex and raises difficult issues. Not to legislate would also raise difficult issues. With those few scene-setting remarks, I am content, as soon as the programme motion is agreed, for the debate to begin.