Mr Richard Younger-Ross (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Teignbridge, Liberal Democrat)

I promise that I shall be brief. I am concerned that one aspect of clause 16 has not been covered and that discrimination is being allowed to continue for a certain sector of society. I say that not because of any particular regard to protect the rights of the aristocracy, but from the belief that the aristocracy are considered, by some sections of society, as being above society, and that rules that apply to them are then applied below, although I do not accept that position of above and below. Clause 16 reads:

''The fact that a person's gender has become the acquired gender under this Act . . . does not affect the descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour''.

Therefore, could the Minister confirm that if a male who was in line of succession for a title transgendered to a female, that person would still assume the title? Similarly, if the first-born was female and became male, would they still not assume the title? It strikes me that there is a subtle exemption that runs counter to the purposes of the Bill. If the Bill is intended to allow for no discrimination, should the Government not tackle that?

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

I should perhaps begin by saying to the hon. Gentleman, well spotted. The matter was debated at length in another place and the answer to his question is yes. The clause mirrors the exception made in the Adoption and Children Act 2002. It recognises the unique nature of peerages, dignity and titles of honour in that they descend according to birth. The terms of descent cannot be changed and the expectations of the persons entitled by birth may be defeated if the acquired gender of a sibling were to count in the way that the hon. Gentleman outlined. He will understand that the community of people with peerages and dignities in this country is small, as is the transsexual community, so I do not expect that this exception, which he dislikes, will frequently occur.

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

Will the Minister clarify whether the fundamental problem is that of primogeniture? I do not want to go too far down that road but can he, as a Minister in the Department for Constitutional Affairs, clarify whether, among the range of matters considered by his Department, the proposal to scrap that rule will emanate at some point? That would solve the problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) drew attention.

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

The hon. Gentleman will know that the consultation on House of Lords reform began a short while ago, and his party has no doubt made its views

known. I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of potential legislation. The matter is technical but is important in another place. Therefore, clause 16 stands as it does.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 17 and 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.