Clause 2 - Determination of applications
Gender Recognition Bill [Lords]
3:00 pm
Mr Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 3, in
clause 2, page 1, line 21, leave out 'or has had'.
This is a different sort of amendment. It deals not with administrative matters but, if anything, medical matters. It is designed as a probing amendment. As such, I realise that it could be subject to misinterpretation. It is not an attempt to alter the underlying concept of the Bill, let alone to intrude on the position of individuals. Its purpose is to get clarification from the Minister.
I suppose that much depends on how the Minister, the Committee and, ultimately, the courts interpret the condition of gender dysphoria. We need not unpick the aetiology of the condition. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak circulated some interesting and rather convincing material on the subject, which is a matter of considerable complexity. The condition can develop in utero, or shortly afterwards, and can take a long time to resolve. The Bill implies—this is where the amendment raises a query—that the applicant either
''has or has had gender dysphoria''.
The evidence presented with the condition is fairly simple to assess. Assessing a past condition is a little more difficult.
Things could go one of two ways. I think that I know the way that the Minister has in mind, but I need to clarify that. It could be that the condition involved a feeling that the individual had that has gone away and is no longer relevant, in which case I suppose that it would be reasonable to say, ''But why are they then turning round and making an application to the
gender recognition panel?'' I understand that. I presume that there would be no legal merit—to use a legalistic term—in that sort of application. Equally, it would be a case in which the applicant ''has had'', or could be argued to have had, gender dysphoria.
The other situation seems much more plausible. This is what I want the Minister to clarify, in particular. The applicant could have had gender dysphoria at some time. They could have sought treatment for it and had a surgical change, and could be living in the acquired gender for all purposes. That is the sort of person who, as the Minister rightly said, may come forward under the fast-track procedure that we will discuss later. In a sense, they did have gender dysphoria, and that may have been resolved. Equally—this is where I pause, because I want the matter to be clarified—as it is the general, if not universal, practice that individuals in that situation are required medically, or advised medically, to support their change with hormone treatment more or less indefinitely, I am not clear whether they still have gender dysphoria or have had it. If everybody still has gender dysphoria because they still require some form of treatment, why is it necessary to prescribe circumstances in which applicants may have had it, but no longer do so? This is not a serious issue of substance, but it is important that the Minister explains and clarifies the various circumstances and why the Bill is drafted as it is.