| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Geraint Davies, Siobhan McDonagh, Laura Moffatt, Ms Dari Taylor, Mr. Alan Campbell, Andy Burnham, Julie Morgan, Mr. Alan Meale, Syd Rapson, Mrs. Betty Williams, Donald Anderson and Mr. Andrew Love.
Geraint Davies accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about the regulation of hormone disrupting chemicals; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 July, and to be printed [Bill 114].
25 May 2004 : Column 1443
25 May 2004 : Column 1445
Orders of the Day
Gender Recognition Bill [Lords]
As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
[Relevant documents: The Nineteenth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights of Session 2002–03 on the Draft Gender Recognition Bill, HC 1276-I and II, and the Fourth Report (HC 303) and Twelfth Report (HC 603) from the Committee of Session 2003–04, on its continuing scrutiny of bills.]
New Clause 1
'(1) If a court's determination of any question arising under this Act might affect the exercise by a religious organisation (itself or its members collectively) of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, it must have particular regard to the importance of that right.
(2) In this section "court" includes a tribunal.'.—[Mr. Leigh.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
12.38 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Speaker : With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 1, in page 9, line 37, at end insert—
'(ha) the disclosure is made between officials of a voluntary organisation which is also a religious organisation, in connection with its functions, and is necessary to,
(a) comply with the doctrines of the religion, or
(b) avoid offending the religious susceptibilities of a significant number of the religion's followers.'.
Mr. Leigh: I rise to speak to these two proposals, which stand in my name. I am delighted to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who is the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, has put his name to them, as have five Labour Members, including the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) and the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton), several of my Conservative colleagues, a Liberal Democrat Member—the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed)—and an Ulster Unionist Member, the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth).
That breadth of support shows that they are genuinely cross-party amendments because this is not a party political issue, but a question of religious freedom. Religion is not the preserve of any one party and it is appropriate that concern for freedom of religion should be shared by politicians from all parties.
The amendments tackle the two main issues that were raised in a legal opinion, dated 23 March, which James Dingemans QC prepared. Hon. Members may remember that he was counsel to the Hutton inquiry. First, he states that the Bill contains scope for "divisive and costly litigation" against churches. Churches are bodies of limited means and one can imagine that the prospect of any sort of litigation concerns them gravely.
The Bill creates scope for transsexual people to take legal action against a church that refuses to recognise them in their acquired gender. Clause 9 declares that a
25 May 2004 : Column 1446
man who persuades a gender recognition panel to grant him legal status as a woman becomes a woman "for all purposes". If a church refuses to recognise that, he may sue that church.
Some ridiculous legal cases have already been brought against churches. We are not inventing a worry about something that does not exist. The most well-known case is probably that of a transsexual man called Bill Parry, who sued a Baptist church in south Wales because it would not let him attend the ladies' prayer meeting. In paragraph 30 of his opinion, Dingemans states:
"It appears from the reports of the debates that the Government view is that such challenges should fail. Although . . . it seems to me that that should be the result—
I emphasise the words "should be the result"—
"the cases are likely to occupy considerable time and divert the resources of the Churches into litigation."
The new clause seeks only to address the problem and to make matters crystal clear.
Secondly, Dingemans says that the criminal offence against disclosure in clause 22 breaches freedom of religion. Clause 22 makes it an offence for an officer of a voluntary organisation to disclose the birth sex of a person who has a gender recognition certificate. A place of worship constitutes a voluntary organisation. In paragraph 21 of his opinion, Dingemans refers to the example of a Roman Catholic priest who would break the law if he disclosed to his bishop that a male candidate for ordination was a female-to-male transsexual. Such information would obviously be of interest to the bishop.
Another example is that of a curate who discovers that a marriage candidate is a transsexual and knows that his vicar, who disagrees with transsexualism, is unaware of the matter and is about to perform the marriage. The curate would commit a criminal offence if he said anything to the vicar. A private conversation between the curate and the vicar or between the priest and his bishop could be a criminal offence under the Bill.
We have held such debates previously and the Government said, "Don't worry—the curate just has to ask permission." However, the transsexual lobby called for the offence. They and the Government say that privacy is paramount and one understands some of the reasons for that. What if the transsexual refuses to give consent? The Government put the clergy at the mercy of the transsexual person who may sue. The Government's assurance works only if they can guarantee that 100 per cent. of transsexuals will give consent. Even if 99 per cent. do consent, what about the 1 per cent. who may not? What is the curate to do in those circumstances? He could place himself in contempt of the Bill.
Dingemans says that, to protect religious rights, the Bill must
"permit disclosures necessary to allow the religious organisations to regulate themselves in accordance with their religious beliefs."
That is all that we seek to do. I am not trying to impose ideas on anybody outside the church groups. I simply want to allow the religious groups to regulate themselves. That is all that amendment No. 1 would achieve.
25 May 2004 : Column 1447
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps the most inalienable human right is the right to act according to one's conscience and not to be called to act against it? However far one might wish to go to protect the rights of individuals who face difficult and challenging circumstances, doing that at the expense of the conscience of others is unacceptable.
Mr. Leigh: That is all that we are trying to achieve. We are not attempting to impose any religious views on anybody else. Surely it is axiomatic in a free society that religious groups should be allowed to conduct their affairs in the way that they wish. People have fought and argued for that for generations. We may not agree with their views, and some people might hold those views in contempt or find them extreme, but those religious groups must have the right, in a free society, to conduct their own groups according to their own beliefs, albeit without imposing their views on anyone else.
12.45 pm
Mr. David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): I am genuinely concerned about this issue. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge the disagreement in the 12th report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights with the learned QC's general opinion, along with the success of the hon. Gentleman's argument on the narrower point about an exemption for people wishing to pass on information to the clergy, who can then have the benefit of the conscience clause in refusing to perform a marriage ceremony? Would the hon. Gentleman regard it as a satisfactory outcome if the Government were to grant that lesser exemption?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |