Equality Bill [Lords]

I, too, signed the new clause moved so ably by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) and, on the basis of our past association during the passage of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, I want to say how much I admired both her constructive approach to those macro-debates and the clear way in which she proposed the new clause. On both, more often than not, I agreed with her—and, indeed, with other Members. This is not fundamentally a party political issue. That is why the Government should catch the tide and eliminate discrimination in one of the few remaining areas that is as yet inadequately covered by our legislative arrangements, and should do so in the way that the hon. Lady put so clearly to the House. She invites us to accept a new clause that is framed to give the maximum possible flexibility of detailed implementation, if there are detailed or technical issues that need further thought and ultimate resolution—as there usually are, in my experience. I am with her on that. I regret that owing to other duties, which we sometimes have, I have been a country member of the debates on the Equality Bill. That does not signify any lack of support for it; it merely means that I have not been able to participate in the Committee and listen to the detailed discussions that have taken place. One by-product of that is that coming to the new clause fresh, as it were, without having been a direct participant in the debates in Committee, it seems odd that nothing has been done in this area. I have three points to put to the House. First, I disagree slightly with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, who rightly said—I do not disagree about this—that there have been great advances in our approach to transgendered people. Nevertheless, my experience of people in such a situation is that there is still a real sensitivity and scope, to put it no less strongly, for wide misunderstanding among the general public of the position of transgendered people, not least because they are such a small minority. Frankly, I would have known little about it, and might have had less sympathy than I have if one of my constituents, who is very articulate, had not been able to brief me extensively during the passage of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. My constituent has gone through a marriage annulment and, I think, the first civil partnership in the country under the accelerated procedure. I was delighted to congratulate her on that relationship, which I hope will last. She is an excellent person who shows some measure of the quality of people who are transgendered and who are being disregarded and sometimes demeaned by society. There was some unpleasant press comment last week about somebody who had sought a reversal operation after an initial operation. That was the old Adam coming out, at least in the press, in people who are still unsympathetic to transgendered people. It seems offensive to have a situation in which the small number of transgendered people—probably a handful in each constituency—feel that they are being singled out at a time when other people’s inequalities are being addressed. Secondly, I should like the Minister to comment on another issue in her response. I remember well from our exchanges in Committee, when considering the 2004 Act, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak bringing forward some interesting legal opinion and comments—on which we did not have a wholly satisfactory answer from the Government—in the relation to The Hague convention on the operation of private international law. Increasingly, there will be situations—I notice the Minister looking a little quizzical—where persons who find themselves translated to the UK, either as temporary visitors or permanent residents, may have private rights attaching to them through their membership of other member states of the European Union. That creates a further anomaly that Ministers may need to consider, quite apart from non-compliance with the European directive in time, which I would have thought they would take seriously, but instead they seem to be taking a casual attitude. Thirdly, on discrimination, it seems daft that under the legislation shopkeepers, for example, will no longer be able to refuse services or the supply of goods on the grounds of people’s sexual orientation or their religion, or for any other reason, but that the one area where they could continue to refuse would be in relation to transgendered issues. That seems grossly unfair and sends exactly the kind of signal on persecution, or demeaning people, that we should not be sending. Having not participated in the debates in Committee, I thought for an awful moment that the Government might, in some strange way—perhaps as the index of the ignorance that is still widely attached to such sensitive issues—have thought to themselves that the provisions on sexual orientation that they were making would, in some sense, cover gender reassignation. Of course, the provisions will not do that because gender reassignation has nothing whatever to do with sexual practices or orientation, nor does it imply anything for them. In that sense, if we are to rake around in moral concerns, it is much less ““reprehensible””—I emphasise the inverted commas—to have undergone gender reassignment than to have a particular sexual orientation. I have no objection to the law dealing with those issues either, but I do not understand why the Government are so diffident about this issue. Finally, I shall emphasise a point that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak made so eloquently. Her new clause is an entirely facilitative new clause. It provides for an order-making power and not for a precise set of criteria. Therefore, if there is a problem it is possible for Governments to accommodate that. However, to accommodate it by doing nothing at this stage will facilitate the condoning and permission of discrimination in this very narrow area for an indefinite period of a year or two, when that has no justification or merit and should be stopped.