Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments:

No. 54, in

clause 5, page 3, line 32, leave out 'six months' and insert 'two years'.

No. 69, in

clause 5, page 3, line 34, leave out 'within that period'.

No. 67, in

clause 5, page 3, line 35, leave out from 'certificate' to '(3)' in line 36.

No. 66, in

clause 5, page 3, line 35, leave out from 'certificate' to end of line 39.

No. 52, in

clause 5, page 3, line 36, leave out from 'time' to end of line 39.

No. 61, in

clause 5, page 3, line 36, leave out

'within the period specified in subsection 3'.

No. 11, in

clause 5, page 3, line 38, leave out 'six months' and insert 'two years'.

No. 68, in

clause 5, page 3, line 38, leave out subsection (3).

Dr Evan Harris (Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

I welcome you back to the Chair, Mrs. Roe. I was just setting out the fact that three time periods are involved in the legislation relating to an interim certificate. The third is that between the ending of a marriage by the death of the person's spouse or by dissolution or annulment other than on the ground mentioned in subsection (1), which relates to the decree of nullity based on the interim gender recognition certificate having been issued, and the seeking of a full gender recognition certificate.

My amendments, along with amendments Nos. 69 and 52, on which I might offer support, although perhaps not to both, would ensure that there are no time limits in any event other than the first. No one is arguing that there should not be some time limit for granting the decree of nullity on the ground that an interim gender recognition certificate has been issued—otherwise, a sword of Damocles would hang over the marriage.

My amendments, however, support the argument that, thereafter, there is no reason why the person with the interim gender recognition certificate, even though none of the human rights of recognition go with it, should be under a time limit. Since there are no rights accorded, no damage would be done to the Government in extending the period for which someone could hold the certificate.

Dr Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak, Labour)

It is true that no specific rights are attached other than the right to have the marriage annulled before applying for a further certificate. However, recipients of such an interim certificate may regard it as having some value, perhaps as a document that at least says that the Government recognise that those recipients have a right to full recognition if their marriage is dissolved. I hope that the Government might consider that aspect. If, for understandable reasons, people do not wish to dissolve their marriage, having the interim gender recognition certificate may be some comfort to them while they remain married to their spouse.

Dr Evan Harris (Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

I endorse that fully. That is why the amendment, and the others in the group, recognise that someone may be happy to have that interim recognition certificate and go no further. That is why a time limit does not appear to me to be necessary.

The narrower point I was making was that the Government might argue that there should be a time limit because they want to limit some rights to six months. The six-month period would apply to dissolution other than by annulment on the basis of the interim recognition certificate, so there is some reason for that limit. Another six-month limit can also be involved, but I am arguing that there does not appear to be any reason for limits of six months and six months; there is no reason why they could not be longer.

The Government may argue that, 10 years later, the marriage may be dissolved or annulled through normal divorce or annulment proceedings, or by death. An application could be made some time after that for a full recognition certificate. The end of the marriage may happen earlier, but if my amendments were accepted there could be an application 10 years down the line. By then, the person may not intend to continue to live in the new gender. That may or may not be true in any given case, but the same argument might apply to consideration of a full recognition certificate. Unless the Government intend to build in an automatic review after a specific period, it seems illogical to say there must be a short time limit on the grant of an interim recognition certificate, assuming the same tests are applied, because of something that may happen down the line.

Mr Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling argument. As I understand it—I would be grateful if he confirmed that I am correct—he is simply stating that one diagnosis of gender dysphoria and re-assignation, confirmed by a gender recognition panel and the issuing of a certificate, whether full or interim, will continue

indefinitely because it is assumed that it will not normally be reversed, at least without returning to the panel.

Dr Evan Harris (Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

Indeed, that is a good summary of the situation. The argument for subsequent action should not apply because the decision will already have been made. Given what I said about discrimination issues this morning, although I do not want to stress this too much, one could argue that it would be unfair on someone who was married—who had to go through that extra stage—to include some additional test, unless it is in the Bill, thereby requiring more time for the panel to make a further judgment on conversion of the interim certificate to a full certificate.

It seems reasonable that there should be one test; otherwise, inequity will be created in the system. I do not feel that I need to say any more: the default situation should be no time limit other than for the purpose of annulling the marriage on the basis of the interim certificate. It is for the Minister to make the case for a time limit of six months, followed by a further six months, in the first instance.

Dr Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak, Labour)

On Second Reading, I made the point that the draft Bill did not allow for any expiry time for the interim gender recognition certificate. Having studied the Bill in more detail, I now realise that it is necessary to provide a time limit for the special annulment arrangements that the interim gender recognition certificate provides for. If there is to be that special provision, it should not persist indefinitely because the other spouse would have a sword of Damocles hanging over their head indefinitely.

The specific annulment provision should be time-limited and I now support that proposal. However, I concur with the gist of the argument made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). My amendments Nos. 54, 69 and 52 differ from his specific proposal in that amendment No. 54 would extend the time limit of six months to two years for ending the marriage through the procedures available to anyone when, sadly, a marriage breaks down.

Amendment No. 54 is probing. I do not believe that it is necessary to have any such time limit, although it may be useful for the other partner. However, it should be greater than six months. The marriage can end at any time, but in most cases that we are concerned about—marriages that have subsisted for a long time—it is highly unlikely that the marriage would be dissolved other than to take up the rights given in this legislation, if the couple decided that that was of overriding importance rather than remaining married. That is obviously a difficult decision.

We have spent a lot of time dwelling on the difficulties—the very real difficulties—of those very few people. We started by discussing whether it should be necessary for their marriages to be dissolved at all. Then we discussed the question whether, if those marriages have to be dissolved, the people involved

should have some retained pension rights that recognise that they are being forced to dissolve the marriage against their will.

We have not managed to get the Government to move on those two issues, so we come to this proposal, which would be very helpful to such couples. It would mean that the person who had their gender dysphoria corrected and was living in their acquired—what they would regard as their correct—gender possessed at least some official recognition of their new civil status. However, if they chose to remain married, they would not be entitled to take up their full rights. None the less, such a document may have great significance for and be of great value to that individual.

Should, sadly, the marriage end because the non-transgendered spouse dies, there should be no time limit involved. If, for example, somebody was living with a partner who was terminally ill, but it was not clear when they were going to die, what dilemma would that person face in a time-limited situation? They would have to make a decision on whether to dissolve their marriage, which they do not want to do, lest their spouse survive beyond the six-month or the two-year period.

I ask the Government seriously to consider the amendments. Although I have suggested a period of two years, that is a compromise over ending marriages other than by the special annulment procedure. Having thought through the arguments, I cannot see any point in having any time limit on the interim certificate, other than in respect of the specific issue of the special annulment procedure. I hope that the Government respond positively to the ideas that have been put forward.

Mr Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

I have considerable sympathy with the points that have been made and I do not need to rehearse them.

This aspect was once described as putting a pistol to the head of people who already have a very difficult decision to make. I am sure that the Minister does not want to do that and that he wants people to have a reasonable time for consideration. It will be obvious to anyone who has studied the amendments carefully—not for the first time in the Committee I have misplaced my amendment paper, but I hope I have not mislaid my thoughts about them—that there should be reasonable thinking time for people to consider whether to take this dramatic step.

I will listen with interest to the Minister, but I take it that the argument for having a time limit at all is that he does not want such a situation to continue indefinitely. I echo the point that I have already made in an intervention, which is that the diagnosis is, in a sense, indelible, unquestionable and almost irreversible, except at the behest of an application by a party for further diagnosis or a reversal, as it were, which is not likely in my view. Therefore, in theory, there should be no bounds on the interim certificate. It is, in one sense, a useless document, unless and until it is used as the vehicle for obtaining an annulment.

I will make two points on the issue of the choice of time. My thinking is coincident with, if not expressed in the same way as, that of the hon. Member for

Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones). Two years is a reasonable waiting period. My thinking was simply drawn by analogy with the requirement for two years of living in the acquired gender before the issue of a certificate in normal circumstances. The Minister may want to ponder on that.

The second, supporting reason is that it is likely that we will know where we are with civil partnerships within the two-year period and it will make the transition less objectionable and difficult for those caught up in it.

I would like to make two wider points now rather than speak on clause stand part. I am mindful of the constraints of the amendment. I sympathise again with the comments of the hon. Lady on the validity of certificates. At this point, or by ingenuity, at another point, the Minister may wish to say whether interim certificates have any validity other than as a vehicle for obtaining an annulment. If the diagnosis exists, the Committee may wish to consider issues related to discrimination legislation or other private rights.

If one likes legislation, one often walks along the Corridor thinking of things that one has not thought of before. In this case, polygamy is the final point that I throw out to the Minister on which I have no conclusion. [Interruption.] I see the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions responding to that point. That is because she and I had some interesting discussions about it on the State Pension Credit Bill.

The clause refers to the death of one spouse during the two-year period, and that is the typical western pattern. I do not seek to open a debate on the matter now, but the Minister knows from our exchanges on pension credits that we must acknowledge the facts about polygamy. The issue is about UK certificates and how they work, but I would appreciate the assurance of the Minister with responsibility for constitutional affairs that there will be no difficulty with them.

It has not been the practice of this Committee, but when one raises an issue such as polygamy, it is easy to caricature it and say that it is all games. Sadly, something that may seem notional or even fanciful can be the real experience of an individual. The last thing that we want to do is make life difficult for them. The purpose behind the amendments and the thinking that has informed members of all parties is that we do not want to put people in a position where they have to make agonising choices in a hurry. The agony may be prolonged if the process is open-ended, but we should give people a reasonable degree of thinking time before they have to come to such difficult decisions.

Mr David Lammy (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Tottenham, Labour)

I begin by welcoming you again to the Chair, Mrs. Roe, as we continue to consider complex, interesting and important issues. Since the amendments were tabled, we have considered further time limits on interim certificates, and I have spoken with Press for Change and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak.

I must set out why we have proposed such measures and why we would need some convincing reasons to change our position. With time limits there are two separate issues. What time limit should there be on using an interim certificate to annul an existing marriage? There should be a time limit, and the interim certificate creates a sort of uncertainty. It allows the marriage to be ended and it should not therefore retain that power indefinitely. That, in a sense, is the conundrum. For the transsexual in an existing marriage, there is an issue about when the discussions and decisions will go on in that family. The Government have had a long discussion about the result for that family if they are, ultimately, successful with the gender recognition panel in a same-sex marriage, and it is our view that it is most likely that that discussion will go on prior to the application to the gender recognition panel.

I would have thought that those people who have been in an existing relationship would all go through the fast-track procedure. Hon. Members will know that we amended the Bill in the House of Lords to extend the period in which fast-track applications can take place to two years. I have talked about civil partnerships, but that will cover any gap between the commencement of the Bill and the civil partnerships legislation. Those couples will go through the fast-track procedure. They will certainly have time to think about the implications. It is likely that, by the time that they get their interim certificate, they will be able to move forward, because they will presumably have accepted that they wish to annul their marriage and get the full gender recognition certificate. That was the Government's thinking.

There is some concern that we might leave people uncertain if we were to issue an interim certificate that was not time-limited. We believe that the maximum of six months allowed at present between the issue of an interim certificate and the commencement of proceedings for dissolution is reasonable. I reiterate that we accept that a couple who are faced with the prospect of ending their marriage may have to put a number of practical arrangements in place. However, picking up the point made by the hon. Member for Daventry, the only purpose of the interim certificate is to allow the marriage to be dissolved.

We expect that a couple who have been together for some time will have had those discussions a long time before they make that application, succeed in that application and get the interim certificate. If a couple need to take time to discuss the issues further or to make practical arrangements, they should probably take it before the initial application is made. As I have said, the Government have extended the fast-track application to two years to allow them to do that.

That is how the Government have sought to deal with the mischief that has, quite properly, been outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. We are sensitive to the point, but in considering whether to extend that time limit, we are concerned about the uncertainty factor.

Dr Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak, Labour)

I do not think that anybody in the Room disagrees with the point that my hon. Friend made. Indeed, those who have spoken to the amendments have all made exactly that point. The question is whether the purpose of the interim gender recognition certificate is purely to allow the annulment, or whether it could have a wider purpose that would not lead to any administrative or other consequential problems. It is that point that I think that all those who have spoken to the amendments wish the Government to address.

Mr David Lammy (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Tottenham, Labour)

We return to the point that the Government's intention was that the interim certificate would have a functionary purpose for someone who would have their marriage annulled and move on to full gender recognition. My hon. Friend will know because we have talked about this—I know the position of Press for Change—that there is the question of whether the interim certificate could have some other purpose beyond that. The Government would have to consider carefully what that other purpose would be.

There are three contexts in relation to those with existing marriages. There are those who will have been together for some time—we talked about this on Tuesday—who will look into the future, look at what the Government propose in relation to civil partnerships and consider the implications for their finances and other things, which we have discussed at length. They might have been together for 30 or 40 years. They might say, ''Actually, this isn't for me.'' We have to allow for that. That is perfectly reasonable. There will also be those who say, ''This is very much for me. We have talked about it. We have looked at the issues. We will go on to get our interim certificate to annul our marriage and move on to the situation in which the acquired gender is recognised.'' That is why we are introducing the legislation. We hope that couples will feel able to do that. The third option will involve couples going their separate ways.

Mr Shaun Woodward (St Helens South, Labour)

It is important to correct an assumption that might be creeping in. I know that the Minister does not remotely intend this. The idea that a couple will consider the certificate and say, ''Well, this is for me,'' or ''This isn't for me'', is nonsense. We are talking about people who are being forced into a terrible choice, and we are putting it on them to have to make that choice. They are choosing between their civil and human rights and their marriage.

We must be extremely careful about going down the road of thinking in a certain way, and that is what worries me a little about why the Government are in the position in which they find themselves. I challenge the Minister to get his officials to find someone who is transgendered who would fit the image that he describes and would say, ''This isn't for me,'' or ''This is for me.'' I do not think that such a person exists.

Mr David Lammy (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Tottenham, Labour)

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if my language is not as clear as it could be. I simply put the argument as I did because of the discussions that we have had both here and in the House of Lords

about same-sex relationships and the fact of the dissolution of a marriage. Very difficult, real choices will be involved and there will be couples who decide that the arrangement is not for them. If my language is not as clear or diplomatic as it could be, I ask my hon. Friend, with his great experience in this area, to forgive me.

Dr Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak, Labour)

I urge my hon. Friend to consider the position of some of these people. I have an e-mail from Judy Aldridge, who was the ''I'' in the case of Goodwin and ''I'', which went to Strasbourg. She says:

''Did you know but on the 11th of next month it will be fifteen years since I started my journey to Strasbourg?''

She has been involved in campaigning for the rights of transsexual people for 30 years. People who have fought for many years to get their rights recognised may have to face the decision, having won their case, of whether to say, ''No, this isn't for me'', because the Government are asking them to choose between their right to retain their partnership and their right to achieve their civil status. Notwithstanding the six months for the annulment, I ask my hon. Friend seriously to consider whether the interim certificate could be given greater status. I remind him of my point about a situation in which one partner in a marriage is terminally ill, and the dilemma that that could pose if the time limit were imposed.

Mr David Lammy (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Tottenham, Labour)

My hon. Friend gives an example and she makes her points well, but she will understand that when considering the legislation and the few people involved, the Government have to be clear about the overall benefit and purpose of the legislation. We have had discussions here and in the House of Lords about these hard choices, but the Government's position is clear. We shall continue to think carefully about these issues but, as I said earlier, the arguments and concern about uncertainty mean that that is as much of an indication as I wish to give today.

Dr Evan Harris (Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

Before the Minister finishes—I had the impression that he was moving towards the end—could he explain the justification, not for the first time limit of six months, which none of us opposes, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said, but for the time limit thereafter of six months for taking action to convert the interim certificate into a full gender recognition certificate. Why six months? Why not three months, two years or no limit? The Minister has not addressed the key question that the amendments are designed to probe.

Mr David Lammy (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Tottenham, Labour)

As I have said, the Government have to settle on a position. We do not want uncertainty around the decision to annul the marriage to go on for longer than six months. That is why we took that position.

Dr Evan Harris (Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

I think that there has been a misunderstanding. There are at least two six-month periods in the Bill. Six months is, in effect, provided for in subsection (1). Once someone gets the interim

certificate, they have six months in which to make use of it to get a decree of nullity. However, I draw the Minister's attention to subsection (2), which states:

''If an interim gender recognition certificate has been issued to a person'',

there is a period of six months in which time the marriage can be annulled for another reason, or six months for the person's spouse to die, if I may put it like that. Then there is another six months in subsection (3) after the date that the marriage is dissolved in which to apply for a full gender recognition certificate. It is those periods that we are questioning. We understand the Government's position on the initial six months in subsection (1).

Mr David Lammy (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Tottenham, Labour)

Forgive me. There is a second issue to which the hon. Gentleman rightly refers; that is, the possibility of using the interim certificate to proceed to a full certificate when the marriage ends by some means other than annulment on the basis of the interim certificate itself. At present, the Bill provides that a person who has an interim certificate may proceed to apply for a full certificate only if the marriage ends within six months of the issue of the interim certificate. Again, we considered the matter further but were convinced that, balancing all the issues, the time limit is appropriate. Once the marriage has ended, the interim certificate is a ground for issue of the full certificate; that is, recognition in the acquired gender. It is the issue of the full certificate, not the interim certificate, which provides recognition in the acquired gender. If a person has a valid interim certificate, and is able to demonstrate that their existing marriage has ended, the panel has no discretion over the issue of a full certificate. We believe that placing a time limit on the interim certificate is a reasonable safeguard and that it protects the integrity of the panel's decision.

Mr Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

Will the Minister consider the position of a person who had an interim certificate, but because of some family disagreement or because they were unable to make up their mind, did not make use of it in the time period? It would be open to them to apply for another certificate. Presumably, they could tender exactly the same evidence to the gender recognition panel as they had done before. The panel would decide either to grant a full certificate—if the marriage had come to an end, which is hardly relevant in this case—or to issue a further interim certificate. Will he confirm that that would happen? That might be a clumsy and expensive procedure, but it would presumably be a way out if a person were unable to make a decision beforehand.

Mr David Lammy (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Tottenham, Labour)

Yes, I think that that probably would happen on the current arrangements. As I have said, we hear the arguments, but, if we are to make a change, we must be sure that we get it right.

Dr Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak, Labour)

There is an exception to the point made by the hon. Member for Daventry. That is that those who are eligible for the fast-track procedure would have to go through the whole process again and submit a greater volume of evidence. That might be

difficult, because many of those people will have had their surgery or gone through the medical process many years previously and may not have the necessary documentation.

I am pleased that the Government extended the fast-track procedure to two years by amendment in the House of Lords; none the less the Minister has not explained why the six-month time limit is necessary in the case of the ending of the marriage through procedures that are available to anybody—other than the special annulment process or death. I still cannot see any reason why the interim certificate should not be valid for such cases.

Mr David Lammy (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Tottenham, Labour)

I think that I said to my hon. Friend that in considering the issue, perhaps the Government looked at the number of people involved and the few existing marriages. Therefore, one gets into hypothetical scenarios about the issue. My hon. Friend can come back to us if she believes that there are live examples that we have not considered.

Dr Evan Harris (Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

I have two points, but will make only one in this intervention. I will seek to catch the Minister's eye to make a further intervention before he finishes.

In the text that he read, which, I accept, starts to address the point of the amendments, he referred to six months being, in the Government's opinion, ''a reasonable safeguard''. Those are his words. Will he say what it is a reasonable safeguard against?

Mr David Lammy (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Tottenham, Labour)

I have said as much as I can to the hon. Gentleman. I talked about the period that we think is reasonable and about uncertainty. The Government came to a decision, but have been concerned to listen to the arguments. That is why I met Press for Change last week. I do not think that I can say much more on the issue, except that, of course, we will continue to consider it.

Dr Evan Harris (Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

Let me give the Minister a specific example.

A person seeks to use the fast-track procedure in the confidence that the Civil Partnerships Bill will deliver satisfactory arrangements on financial security and status. That must be done in two years. The Civil Partnerships Bill does not emerge in two years from enactment, or its powers are not clear, or it becomes clear that the Civil Partnerships Bill will not give the couple the financial status and preservation that they want. They might want to continue with the interim recognition certificate, since have it, and not proceed to divorce on any grounds. Why should they not be able to do so in those circumstances?

Mr David Lammy (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Tottenham, Labour)

That goes back to my initial point, which is that the Government hope to introduce civil partnerships legislation shortly, so the hon. Gentleman is at least pre-judging its outcome. Given the context, people will be able to consider what is available to them, consider their personal circumstances, and make a decision on that basis. Even though I see that the hon. Gentleman is not entirely satisfied with what I have to say, there is no more to add at this stage.

Dr Evan Harris (Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

In a sense, this debate has been a little disappointing because although I was not privy to the conversations that the Minister had with Press for Change, there were rumours that the Government were considering making concessions. I hope that it is not too late, and in that spirit I will respond to the issues that have been raised. I invite the hon. Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak and for Daventry to intervene if they do not agree with my position, but I think there has been a commonality of view.

All three of us recognise the purpose of having an initial six-month period because of the sword of Damocles effect. We do not disagree with the first stretch of the Minister's contribution. The issues relate to the other two time periods, and I will deal with them in reverse order. The Minister said that if a marriage had ended for another reason, by death or by the annulment implied in subsection (1), and the interim certificate were granted to enable its conversion into a full certificate after the marriage end, six months would be reasonable as well, given the similar Sword of Damocles effect. The purpose of the certificate is to allow immediate conversion at the point of the marriage.

I accept that there might be a reason for the six-month period. However, the Minister has not addressed the period mentioned in subsection (2)(a), which states a period of six months for a dissolution or annulment by other means once an interim gender recognition certificate has been issued. There does not seem to be the same Sword of Damocles effect, because if the person does not intend to use the certificate—the Bill does not force them—to annul the marriage through the decree of annulment based on the certificate having been issued, there is no pressure on the relationship.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak gave a good example of a circumstance in which someone is very ill or terminally ill but the illness does not result in death within six months. What do they do?

The Minister and the Government have not addressed the middle time period. I hope that the Minister has an open mind. He said that he intends to use the interim recognition certificate to allow only annulment because that is its point. We all agree that that is its original usage, but some people in a very difficult position who have had sympathy but no change out of the Government might find more comfort with a different usage. Therefore, the Government need to justify why they are sticking with the original intention to issue the interim certificate only for rapid dissolution of the marriage and a switch to a full recognition certificate.

A considerable number of the 150 to 200 married couples are not happy about having to end their marriages. The only reason that they do not apply for a full recognition certificate is that marriage issue. If they feel that the interim certificate gives them some form of status—even if it does not have any legality attached to it, which is a separate issue—why not allow them to have one? Those people's problems have had little acknowledgement from the Government.

The Minister said that he thought that a six-month period—that is, the later six-month period, not the one that we all agree on—was a reasonable safeguard, but not what it was a reasonable safeguard against. The Government should consider allowing people to hold the interim certificate for a longer or, indeed, an indefinite period. They have not provided any reason why that is not be possible.

Mr Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

In the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's interventions this morning, does he not agree that, given the genesis of the whole business, pre-existing marriages should be considered as special cases? The same issues will probably not recur in subsequent marriages. Unlike my arguments this morning, I have sympathy with him in this prudential case. At the risk of complicating matters by introducing a fourth loop into the qualifications or the algorithm, will Ministers consider whether, in the case of pre-existing marriages, that arrangement could continue, if not indefinitely, then at least for longer than is anticipated?

Dr Evan Harris (Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

That would at least be something. We are talking about people who are married as of now. It is hard to envisage the same problem arising in future. I would be happy for a concession to be limited to those people. That would not be a legislative difficulty because we could state that the marriage must have taken place before the enactment of the Bill. Indeed, it could be timed to correspond with European judgments and so on.

In respect of the second period of six months for the dissolution or annulment of marriage on other grounds, the default is that people need not be rushed into that, even though they hold an interim certificate. The Government have to show reason—that is, explain what the reasonable safeguard is against—before not allowing that to happen. Those people are not getting a good deal.

There is broad agreement between the hon. Members for Daventry and for Birmingham, Selly Oak and myself: the matter should be pursued. I hope that the Minister will allow us to do that at a later date, although we are running out of stages in which we can attempt that. At the very least, we must ask him to write to us, setting out why the request that we have made should not pertain, and what he thinks the current wording is a reasonable safeguard against. I hope he will do that. A quick letter might be enough to advise us how much comfort we can take when we discuss the matter on Report. That said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.