Clause 23 - Power to modify statutory provisions
Gender Recognition Bill [Lords]
4:15 pm

Mr Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

When I see a clause headed ''Power to modify statutory provisions'', I feel a degree of sensitivity. That is not a power that we should give to any Government or Minister lightly, because we are here to decide what legislation we want, and not what kind of legislation Ministers might want or that we might have had if we had thought of it.

I understand the genesis of the clause. The helpful explanatory notes from the Department state:

''Legislation has made distinctions on the basis of gender for centuries, and the use of gender-specific terms, though it has reduced, nevertheless continues in some contexts.''

It goes on to spill the beans on why the clause has been included:

''Though a thorough analysis has been conducted of areas in which the facility to change gender may cause difficulties or complexities, this clause acknowledges the possibility that other instances may come to light in the future.''

In other words, it is designed to cover situations that might happen, but which the Department has not noticed yet.

I could nod to the general wish, but I want to make one point. Legislation now is non-gender specific, generally. That is welcome and I hope that that will not change. I agree that there may be some draftsperson in the future who nods and lets something through, perhaps because of the habits of a lifetime, but I hope that the clause is primarily targeted towards clearing up any difficulties in old legislation, rather than in new legislation.

The Minister may like to consider that that there may also be circumstances in which the use of gender-specific legislation bears on private law and the relationship between parties—issues that may not have been adequately covered under the saving clause, clause 18. In that case, he may wish to deploy the provision in relation to a private inequity.

Perhaps the Minister can briefly comment on the points that I have raised. We should not allow general enabling powers to pass without some mention.

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

We had an interesting debate about the various uses of ''female'', ''male'', ''sex'' and ''gender'' in legislation in this country. I indicated that the use of the words ''sex'' and ''male'', in particular, was much higher than the use of the words ''female'' and ''gender''. That has much to do with current practice, which has developed since the '70s, since when people have tried to use less gender-specific terminology. I support the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. In that sense, this provision could be used to remedy a situation.

I should put it on the record that if the Bill is enacted, Parliament clearly will have agreed the basic principle that a person is to have all the rights and responsibilities appropriate to the acquired gender. The power to modify statutory provisions will be used only to ensure that that principle has full effect. That is an important qualification to make when discussing an enabling provision. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's observation in relation to clause 18 and I will study that carefully.

Mr Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 24 and 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.