WEDNESDAY September 17th
Campaigning to take forward the Departmental Working Group Report/Goodwin & I Judgement
- update – PFC/LJ
PFC have produced an analysis of the Draft Bill which is on their website: www.pfc.org.uk The Draft Bill now has to go before the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The issue of pre-existing marriages is still outstanding - this will probably be the only major problem with the Bill. We should try to amend it but it is not worth sacrificing the whole Bill.
Due to the small number of trans-people the costs of providing legal recognition per person are too high. LJ: we need to fight the principle that there is full cost recovery as otherwise this will be prohibitive for many trans-people who already face crippling costs relating to their treatment. The question was raised as to whether people will need a lawyer. The Forum’s legal expert considered that a Lawyer will not be necessary, there will just be forms to fill in and a panel to decide. The cost of the panel, who will be made up of civil service lawyers and medical practitioners, is the main cost but it will essentially be an administrative job. It was pointed out that people will be concerned about having to give justification for their treatment. It was agreed that people need to be informed that diagnosis will be sufficient and therefore it’s an administrative procedure, not a clinical assessment. These issues were raised by PFC in their submission to the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR). The purpose of the JCHR is to iron out problems before the passage of the Bill.
Opposition to the Bill, which is expected to be in the Queen’s Speech on 26 November, is likely to be minimal. PFC reported that they are very impressed by all the people they’ve met at all levels of Government in this process and also noted that the quality of consultation has improved. The Forum will look at the results of the JCHR deliberations and then consider what lobbying is needed.
Forum members had met several trans-people who knew nothing of the impending changes. The Forum will ask Government what action they will be taking to advertise the new law.
Police Guidelines on the employment of Trans-people
As reported at last meeting, Essex Police guidelines are up and running as a ‘living document’ and comments are welcome. Essex Police are happy to work with other forces via the force intranet. It was suggested the policy be put on the web to help other public sector bodies. Essex are planning a national meeting involving forces at a senior level regarding the employment of trans-people. At the moment 4/5 forces are involved, including West Midlands.
Some progress has been made with West Yorks Police Authority, whose Asst. Chief Constable has written to say they are working on preparing a policy and that they will liaise with the Forum over this. In A v WYorks Police the appellant is going to the House of Lords but they will lose.
During the transition period people will have a two year wait where they won’t be covered by the legislation (referred to above) – there must be a policy to cover people pre-legal change. Legally, this will be a grey area. Therefore there needs to be the right to continue employment in any Police policy. This illustrates the need to spread good practice.
Press Complaints Commission: Presentation by Tim Toulmin (TT)
Following on from the last meeting, TT agreed to come to give a presentation after correspondence between Sir Christopher Meyer, the Chairman of the PCC and LJ. A Forum representative, will also be going to the PCC to give a reciprocal presentation.
TT: Self regulation is more complex than it first appears. The Code is written by editors – but the PCC as an independent body is charged with interpreting it and giving advice to the public. The PCC are there to pull the editors up sharp and it does work and is effective. Three key areas affect trans-people:
1. accuracy – the resolution must suit the gravity of the original error.
2. privacy/harassment – journalists must desist when asked to – “no comment” doesn’t work, you much ask them to desist. You should find out who the journalists are and contact the PCC. With regard to personal and family life personal details cannot be leaked.
3. discrimination – the code does not relate to groups of people. The issue has been looked at in relation to race and sex and many other groups. People have a right to be offensive.
The Code Committee will be looking at this next week, but a change to include groups is not likely. Please get in touch if you come across inappropriate coverage.
Forum: What punishment is there for continuing to flout the rules?
TT: compliance with the Code is written into editor’s contract of employment so ultimate sanction could be to push for a breach of the editor’s contract.
Forum: would it be possible for the PCC to issue a set of guidelines to editors?
TT: a similar thing has been done in relation to asylum seekers.
It was agreed that the Forum could help to produce some guidelines and this will be on the agenda at the next meeting.
Forum: The PCC has a credibility problem. It was agreed that networking to inform people about what the PCC can do for them was important and that the Forum should let the PCC know about groups and networks to which they could disseminate information. There is a lot of information on the PCC website, including an easily accessible version of the code.
LJ: raised the issue of the PCC being reactive rather than proactively responding to breaches of the code
TT: this not within the PCC remit, but the PCC can do behind the scenes letters to editors and is willing to undertake monitoring exercises. A ‘big slap’ can be a useful way of laying down what is acceptable eg the PCC came down hard on Time Out over a breach relating to discrimination over mental ill health. TT encouraged Forum members to forward him examples of coverage which causes them concern and explained that the Christopher Meyer is keen on getting editors to have PCC contact information in every paper.
LJ: there has been some improvement in some newspapers
Forum: the Times’ coverage in relation to trans-people is good but the Guardian’s is disappointing. Trans-people have a right to privacy regarding their medical condition, if a GP breached this privacy, they would be sent to the GMC.
TT: reiterated the offer for the Forum to pass on examples of prejudiced press coverage.
Legal cases update
Re Liz Bellinger’s case (a battle to have her marriage, entered into in 1981 after she had transitioned, declared legal) the Court have said that society has changed but that it must be for Parliament to make the change necessary that would allow her marriage to be legally recognised.
Good Practice
- Draft guidance to Health Organisations
Work still ongoing but it is hoped that the Forum Guidelines will be compatible with those being worked on by the Royal Colleges, who have recently set up a working group to produce some guidance.
- Prison Guidelines
A letter to Lynne Jones from Paul Goggins MP, the Minister responsible at the Home Office stated that the (long awaited) Prison Guidelines are expected in March 2004.
Next Meeting - December 2003
Update Archive
back to transsexualism main page
|
