---

John Bercow: My hon. Friend rightly refers to the fact that we are debating provision for an order-making power. As part of a belt-and-braces approach for the Government, does he agree that if Ministers are anxious in some way that pressing ahead now risks error or a lack of satisfaction, the order-making power can be designed in such a way as to minimise that threat? Ministers can say that they will issue draft regulations that will be subject to wide-ranging consultation and that they will then subject the regulations to the affirmative procedure of the House.

Mr. Boswell: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's comments. Ministers have the maximum flexibility and the lowest level of commitment, but the House should not turn its back on the interests of transgendered people by rejecting the clause and saying that they alone should not be able to avail themselves of the equality agenda of which the Government are so proud and on which, as matter of record, I have supported them.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Meg Munn): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) for raising the issue and I pay tribute to the long-standing work that she has done. Like the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), I, too, have two constituents who have come to me with issues surrounding transsexuality and transgender. One of them mentioned on many occasions the work that my hon. Friend had done, and for which we are all very grateful.

As I said in Committee, I want to stress that the Government support the intention underpinning the   new clause, and to make it absolutely clear that we are committed to ensuring that transsexual people are protected against discrimination in the areas of goods, facilities and services. Work is already under way, within the context of the discrimination law review, to ensure that transsexual people gain the legal protection that we all agree should be available. That builds on the rights that the Government have already ensured for transsexual people through the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which several hon. Members have already mentioned.

It has been argued that because the Bill contains an order-making power to extend protection against discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation, we should bring forward regulations to protect transsexual people. Indeed, as my hon. Friend said, her new clause mirrors the provisions in clause 81. We are not persuaded, however, that legislating now to bring in a power to introduce the regulations that my hon. Friend is seeking is the right approach. The circumstances are far from identical. In many cases, discrimination issues facing transsexual people are not the same as those facing gay men and lesbians. We need to understand them properly before we legislate.

I was very pleased to hear today—as I always am—the commitment of many Members to issues of equality, but I must reiterate to them, as I did on Second Reading, that the Bill was never designed to cover all equality issues. I fully understand the frustration felt by hon. Members because it takes time to achieve what we are setting out to do, but the discrimination law review is the mechanism that we have put in place to ensure that we
 
16 Jan 2006 : Column 575
 
have a proper approach. That will lead to a single equality Bill in the lifetime of this Parliament, which is our manifesto commitment.

Kali Mountford (Colne Valley) (Lab): I am trying to gather some understanding of my hon. Friend's position, especially as she says that we must learn about the experience of such discrimination and the way in which that is qualitatively different from other people's experience of discrimination, because I do not understand precisely what she is trying to get at. There is also a question of time. We are constrained not only by expectations—not least those of the community—but by the strictures on us due to the need to comply quickly with European legislation. Will she indicate how quickly she might reach that position of understanding?

Meg Munn: If my hon. Friend will bear with me on the question of timing, I shall come to it shortly. I will respond specifically to the matter because it was raised in Committee.

Mr. Boswell rose—

Meg Munn: Will the hon. Gentleman contain himself until I have responded to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford)?

On the experiences of transsexual people, there are specific difficult questions that we must resolve. I am not saying that there are not answers to those questions—I   fully expect that there will be—but we must examine the provision of single-sex hospital wards and the situation in prisons. We must consider services that are provided to people that are based on their gender. I fully expect that we will find ways through that, but we must have a proper look at the matter. We also need to consider terminology and the way in which we define terms that are used in different ways, such as transsexual and transgender.

Mr. Boswell: The hon. Lady is deploying arguments that, as far as I know, are precisely those that were advanced by Ministers in the other place against the inclusion of sexual orientation as a criterion—the   position was reversed as a result of the wisdom of the other place. Why is she persisting in making those arguments, and what is the difference between the two criteria?

Meg Munn: The hon. Gentleman wishes to establish why such an order-making power has not been added to the Bill. It is interesting to note that the Government are often criticised for making order-making powers, precisely because it is difficult to amend regulations after they are drafted, although the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) rightly pointed out that the affirmative procedure would be used. I am not 100 per cent. sure about this, but the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) might well have made that point before—he is smiling, so I think that I might be right. We would want to go down that route rarely.

Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD) rose—

Meg Munn: I will make some progress because hon. Members might find that I refer to the points that they
 
16 Jan 2006 : Column 576
 
wish to raise. I am happy to ensure that I give way before the end of my speech if I have not answered their questions.

Let me explain why and how we will move forward to provide protection for transsexual people. The work that we are already doing in the discrimination law review has highlighted the importance of making sure that the law takes proper account of the specific issues that transpeople face. We need to consult fully with them and the organisations that represent them, as well as those who will have responsibilities under law to ensure that we achieve well-focused and workable law. We will publish a consultation paper before the summer that will include our initial proposals and options for extending, beyond employment protection, protection against discrimination for transsexual people.

The purpose of the discrimination law review is to produce proposals for a single equality Act, which we are committed to bringing forward in the life of this Parliament. It is precisely because there are differences between protection for different groups and anomalies in the existing framework that we have made the commitment to overhaul and simplify the statutory equality framework.

The work to develop proposals on extending protection for transsexual people is being taken forward in the context of the discrimination law review for two reasons. First, we want to ensure that the new legal framework that will be set out in a single equality Bill can take account of the issues that transsexual people face. Working within the review means that can take a broad view of the protection from discrimination afforded to transsexual people. Secondly, we want the provisions that cover transsexual people—

4.15 pm

Dr. Evan Harris: Will the Minister give way?

Meg Munn: I said to the hon. Gentleman that I wanted to proceed with my speech and that he might find that he did not need to intervene. If he still wishes to intervene, I shall happily give way before I sit down.

Secondly, we want the provisions that cover transsexual people to benefit from the development, simplification and harmonisation that will be the outcome of the review.

As hon. Members pointed out, the Government made sure that the EU gender directive on goods and services covered gender reassignment. That directive is due to be implemented by December 2007, and we have the option to use existing powers under the European Communities Act 1972 to make regulations to do so. We therefore already have two legislative vehicles to extend protection against discrimination to transsexual people, so further regulation-making powers are unnecessary.

---