Clause 4 - Discrimination
Gender Recognition Bill [Lords]
5:15 pm
Mr Hugh Bayley (City of York, Labour)
I am indeed encouraged by what the hon. Gentleman says and I hope I receive the support not just of Opposition Members but of Labour members of the Committee.
For the Committee's benefit, I want to explore the problem from the point of view of my constituents who, as I said, have been married for 35 years. For the past 33 years, since their first child was born, the wife has not worked full time and has not earned a pension in her own right. Like many women, she stayed at home to bring up the children and relied on her husband to make pension provision for their mutual old age. Their pension provides benefits to
''a legal spouse at the time of death or retirement''.
So if the proposal goes through and her partner wishes to exercise his human rights as defined by the European court to recognition in his acquired gender, they will have to divorce, and if they do so she will lose her right to a pension in retirement. Both partners are at the end of their working life; she does not have any opportunity to make alternative provision for her retirement, and yet if her husband applies for recognition in his new gender, she will lose her security in retirement.
What is so wrong with the Bill is that the invidious choice whether to put gender recognition or the marriage first rests solely with the transsexual person. It cannot be right to pass a measure that affects both partners of a marriage equally but gives one less legal protection for their human rights: it gives the non-transsexual less protection for his or her human rights than the other party in the marriage.
I want the Minister and the Committee to know what the spouse of the transsexual in my constituency said. I shall read from her letter, deleting only the name of her partner, because they both wish for anonymity and privacy. The wife said that she has no intention of leaving her partner and does not want to get divorced. She said that she had been married for 35 years and is happy to remain so, even when her partner has surgery. She said that it would be unfair to make them divorce as it would cost them money and they want to remain married. She is dependent upon her partner for her pension and she wants to know what provision the Government intend to make for her.
It is perfectly reasonable for my constituent to want privacy but, if the Bill is passed and her husband seeks a full gender recognition certificate, she will lose her
privacy because her family circumstances will be dragged through the courts. We know what the media are likely to make of that. The Bill does not protect her human rights. I tabled my amendments because I believe that her rights must be protected, and I ask the Government to support my proposal.
The amendments and new schedule would protect the financial interests of both partners in a marriage if they want to stay together to retain and honour their financial responsibilities to one another after their marriage is dissolved for the purpose of obtaining a full gender recognition certificate. New clause 3 would permit the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow a couple in such circumstances to retain the pension rights and benefits that either party had in a private pension scheme at the time the interim gender recognition certificate is issued. I do not envisage that that will impose any burden on the pension provider, as issue of a full gender recognition certificate will not change the life expectancy of either party or their responsibility for dependents.
An alternative way of achieving the aim would be to put a similar provision in the Bill. New clause 3 would allow the Minister to make regulations, but the alternative in new schedule 1 would make similar provision in the Bill itself. The new schedule would give rights to either partner to the marriage. I stress the word ''either''. The Bill gives one partner, the transsexual, the right to trigger a decision, but the
other party does not have such a right. New schedule 1 would give an equal right to either partner to apply to a court to retain their joint pension entitlement following dissolution of their marriage, provided that they satisfy the court that both parties intend to live together as partners. The new schedule defines what is meant by living together.
The new schedule also provides that the pension arrangements made under it would become void if a couple subsequently stopped living together. It provides for either party or the pension provider to apply to a court if the circumstances change.
These are serious amendments. They are not intended simply to probe the Government's view, which I know. I seek to remedy a serious injustice.