Clause 5 - Subsequent issue of full certificates
Gender Recognition Bill [Lords]
3:00 pm
Dr Evan Harris (Oxford West and 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.