UPDATE OF THE MEETING OF THE PARLIAMENTARY FORUM ON TRANSSEXUALISM

Thursday 23 May 2002

1. Matters arising from the minutes not covered elsewhere on the Agenda
   Death Certificates Update
   Lynne Jones received a letter from the Registrar General, Len Cook detailing the guidance that he had sent out to Registrars on the registration of the deaths of transsexual people. Some concerns were raised about the guidance containing unnecessary sections and a lack of clarity over the use of discretion. It was agreed that it should be based on the same simple principle that is used for passports. The Forum will write back to the Registrar General to highlight their concerns (and pointing out the impact of the recent ECHR judgement).
   
   Police Guidelines
   The TS policy for Essex Police was launched on the intranet but unfortunately lacked the details on searching prisoners, which was probably the most important paragraph. Work is ongoing on this issue.
   
   Concerns were raised anecdotally about what appear to be varying practices on the employment of TS people as police. Once the Essex guidelines are complete and ready for official dissemination, it may be appropriate to do a survey of the employment practices of police forces.
2. Academic Studies
   
   Responses from deans on medical schools’ teaching material
   A report on deans’ responses to a letter from Lynne Jones about their teaching material was discussed. The report highlighted both good and bad practice with suggestions for improvements. Discussion centred around the reliance on opportunistic learning and the use of out of date and inappropriate teaching materials and the concern that patients are likely to be disadvantaged as a result. Despite serious concerns the good news was that a number of centres welcomed the enquiry and some responded in a proactive way. The Forum will circulate the final version of the report to the deans who got the original letter from Lynne Jones.
   
   The Forum will assemble a comprehensive collection of existing documents and examples of good practice in the care of transsexual people. It was noted that there is already some excellent material of this kind that has been produced by individuals and groups, including Gender Identity Research and Education Society (GIRES). It was agreed that at the head of the document it should be stressed that this is a rapidly evolving area and that it is important to always be informed by how patients want to be treated (and also at the given time, as this may change and this should be respected). The Forum also agreed that it is crucial that the document has an adolescent section.
3. Good Practice
   
   Royal Society of Medicine Conference on 16 April – discussion of Royal College of Psychiatrists guidelines for Health Authorities
   
   A number of Forum members attended the conference. The Forum and Trans-people representative outlined that some surprising views were expressed. For example, a consultant psychiatrist in the audience suggested that exorcism or prayer could be used to cure transsexualism and another consultant psychiatrist, speaking from the platform, suggested that group therapy was always appropriate and gave examples of patients who had been in such therapy for twelve to eighteen years. The Forum agreed that it is a cause of concern that such unacceptable statements should be made at a professional conference of this level and go largely unchallenged. The Forum agreed that evidence-based medicine and clinical effectiveness should be at the heart of the NHS and noted the absence of any evidential basis on how the clients perceive the process of treatment from the conference. The lack of research data into Transsexualism and the diversity of approaches displayed by the speakers at the conference shows the need for both qualitative and quantitative research. It was agreed that patient satisfaction is a key starting point as interventions that work save the NHS money – the Forum to follow up by considering ways and means of carrying out a patient satisfaction survey and to return to the next Forum with suggestions for implementation.
   
   Forum Guidance to Health Authorities
   The Forum was informed that the likely timescale for Standards of Care being devised by the Royal College of Psychiatrists was around 2 years. It was therefore proposed that the Forum finish our guidelines independently.
4. Campaigning to take forward the Departmental Working Group
   
   Note from Lynne Jones: Since the Forum’s last discussion on this issue events have obviously moved on! The Interdepartmental Working Group is to be reconvened to give further consideration to issues affecting transsexual people – I was informed of this in a letter on 20 June 2002 from Rosie Winterton MP, the Minister responsible at the Lord Chancellor’s Department. Clearly the Government saw the Goodwin judgement coming and realised the necessity of a change in the law. I have asked Parliamentary Questions about how the Government intends to proceed. The Forum will do all it can to influence civil servants and Ministers and to bring about the necessary legislation as soon as possible. In the meantime, please see the attached note from Press for Change about where we go from here.
5. AOB
   Lynne Jones circulated a letter she received from Stephen Timms, Minister for Schools regarding identification for people applying for teacher training or student support. The response was not adequate as it stated that whilst a birth certificate was not necessary, a passport would be accepted "if the applicants circumstances warranted it" – this would require a trans-person to out themselves to explain their circumstances! Lynne Jones has written back to point this out, asking the Minister to provide guidance that a transsexual person could point to, without having to reveal their transsexual status, outlining that there is no legal requirement to provide a birth certificate and that acceptance of a passport is sufficient.
   Note from Lynne Jones: (Hopefully this problem will soon be rectified when we get the expected legislation).
6. Date of Next Meeting: Thursday November 14 2002

MESSAGE FROM PRESS FOR CHANGE

instructions after ECHR judgment

12.07.02

What to do following the ECHR decision:

============================

1. Write to

The General Register Office,

Corrections and Re-registration section

Room D209, Smedley Hydro,

Trafalgar Road, Birkdale,

Southport, PR8 2HH

Telephone: 44 (151) 471 4806

email: corrections.&.re-reg.section@ons.gov.uk

2. State your full new name, old name, date of birth and place of birth and

(if you have it) the number of your birth certificate (send a photocopy if

you can)

3. State what date you commenced living full time in your new gender

4. State you have undergone gender reassignment treatment (Please DO NOT

indicate your operative status or what surgery you have had, and that you

wish to apply for a change to your birth certificate in the light of the

ruling of the ECHR in Goodwin & I v UK Government.

5. Include your statutory declaration of name change and your doctors letter

indicating that the change has been PERMANENT

6. Copy all the correspondance to your Member of Parliament, at the House of

Commons, London WC1A 1AA

7. Include a cover note to your MP asking that they chase up this matter and

ensure it is expedited in view of the long time you have had to wait to date

for this

I think the Registrar General will write back saying they cannot do this

until english statutory law is changed - we might then have to have a class

action seeking judicial review of the refusal to do this. but in order to

get that we need as many of you as possible to apply NOW

MESSAGE FROM PRESS FOR CHANGE TO PARLIAMENTARY FORUM FOR INFORMATION

Dear Parliamentary Forum

I think even WE were taken aback by the unanimity and unequivocal nature of the findings, which (coming from a fairly conservative Grand Chamber) should leave nobody in any doubt about the seriousness with which the behaviour of successive UK administrations is now viewed.

The next challenge is to turn this judgement into practical reality though .. and in that respect we do not intend to sit around and wait like wallflowers at the college dance.

When the report of the Indepartmental Working Group was published in July 2000 we were perhaps a little naive and trusting that action would then follow words .. and I take a large slice of the blame for that, thinking it quite reasonable that officials and politicians would need time to study the report .. and then allowing that action would have to wait until the general election campaign was over. In fact it is now clear that that trust was cynically exploited. As exposed in the Bellinger appeal last October, the Government took the report, stuck it on a shelf and then proceeded to forget about it until obliged to take action three weeks ago when, like us, they saw this landmark judgement coming.

I would like to say at this point that our relationship with the officials we've dealt with during and after the original working group has always been excellent, and continues to be. I don't personally hold any anger towards them as individuals and in the last ten days we have bent over backwards to provide them with advice and guidance .. not to mention the best possible warning about what to expect on Thursday. We look forward to continuing the constructive and mutually respectful relationship which has enabled us to map out for the Government's advisors an entirely fair, comprehensive and workable solution which can be implemented as quickly as Ministers wish. Quite simply there ARE no problems or things to go away and think about now, because we have liased already to solve them.

However, we are not going to take a passive approach in the follow-up this time. Once bitten, twice shy.

By the time we woke up on Friday morning we found that trans people from across the country were already taking the ECHR judgement as their cue and starting to request changes to their details. In consequence of that, Press for Change has taken the initiative and issued specific instructions on how to do this in a way that is compatible with the application process we've mapped out. We have asked people to make their applications according to that set formula, to supply the necessary documetary evidence, to do it quickly and to copy what they have done to their own MP, requesting action on the MP's part to expedite the application. I resumed my own application on Friday, for instance, and wrote to Gerald Kaufman to progress this.

If you recall the scale of the response to the DfEE consultation on the SDA in 1998 (about 350 individual submissions in 3-4 weeks) then you will know the minimum level of activity we expect. As this is the thing which every trans person in the country has been waiting up to 32 years to be able to do, however, I confidently expect a far larger response.

At the same time I have explained to the LCD just how much they can do straight away in response to these applications, without the need for Primary Legislation or even Parliamentary debate :

1. The Registrar General has the discretion to take the ECHR judgement as new evidence of the kind he has always demanded, and use that as the basis by which to simply issue corrected Birth Certificates on receipt of the documentary support which we've recommended, by annotating the central register. This will not address the core issue of legal status, which DOES require a formal mechanism and an enabling instrument of some kind. However the simple physical reissue of corrected birth certificates would be a major demonstration of good faith from a Government which no longer has any further excuse to prevaricate. The action of simply altering the paperwork is analagous to the process already followed by the Passport Agency and DVLA to correct passports and driving licenses. It is also the process that has been proposed for altering trans people's details in the recently published consultation upon the Entitlement Card scheme. Our recommendation therefore produces an immediate short term result of huge symbolic and practical importance for trans people, demonstrates good faith, and buys a little time to draft a proper bill and schedule Parliamentary time for action which must now occur. Conversely, if these multiple applications are declined then the result is likely to be a class action style Judicial Review, which would import the ECHR judgement into UK law and serve an order upon the Registrar General to comply. Action would still then have to be taken to define the process of application.

 

2. A similar argument applies to the DSS. Again no Parliamentary action is required to eliminate the problem presented at the core of Christine Goodwin's case. As the statement of facts in the judgement indicates (para 39-41), the decision in the past NOT to alter trans people's records and allow a gender-appropriate retirement age has always been at the discretion of the Department, and the current policy was made internally and then simply approved by the Social Security Commissioner. There is therefore absolutely nothing to prevent the DSS and Commissioner therefore making a new policy. Indeed this is what has already happened recently in the case of a trans woman with a corrected New Zealand birth certificate. This change to policy can therefore be made in a matter of days, if not hours. The immediate result is that the Benefits Agency can then proceed to correct the information recorded in individual NI records, confirm the new retirement age for those individuals, and then remove the "Nationally Sensitive" flag which draws suspicion upon every trans person who ever comes into contact with the benefits system.

 

3. As regards marriage, we know that there is nothing other than the law of perjury to prevent trans people obtaining a license and marrying already, and PFC's advice to those making their plans on Friday was to go ahead. The worst that can happen is that the parties may stand accused of making a false statement. However, in the light of the ECHR's verdict no court is Britain is going to convict them. Parliamentary action is still needed to make the marriage legally secure (that or a House of Lords decision on the Bellinger case, informed by the ECHR ruling on article 12). Once again, therefore, it is simply in the Government's interest to legislate quickly, so that an application process can be put around the gender change process to confirm the legality of such marriages.

These observations therefore provide a clear and simple path for the Government to follow :

FIRST the Registrar General and Benefits Agency can take the short term actions recommended, allowing the Government to demonstrate that it has taken immediate action upon the ruling regarding article 8, and buying a reasonable amount of time to schedule Parliamentary time for a short bill whose contents have already been extensively workshopped.

 

SECOND the debate and passage of that bill will then fulfil the Government's obligations under the article 12 ruling, secure the legal certainty for full compliance with article 8, and provide a process to be followed in future. I have to stress however that this second step can't be left too long, otherwise there are likely to be a succession of domestic cases on points of ambiguity for individuals.

I hope that is helpful and provides a constructive way forward. Above all I believe that these recommendations provide an immediate show of good faith to trans people, will start eliminating difficulties for trans people straight away, and will help eliminate further embarassment for the Government whilst it gets its act together properly. Please would the MPs like to take this up and encourage others to follow suit.

back to top