THURSDAY March 6th 2003 5pm – 6-30pm

International Women’s Day debate
During the debate in the House on 6.3.3, on IWD, Ben Chapman MP raised transsexual people’s rights, the text of his contribution can be found by clicking here.

Police Guidelines on the employment of Trans-people
Essex Police and the Met are both doing positive work in this area.  This is ongoing and they will continue to feedback into the Forum as further progress is made.

LJ complained formally to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) in response to recent prejudiced press coverage about the work the Met are doing (18 February edition of the Daily Express, “Fury at Met Bid to Recruit Transsexuals; It’s Dixon of Frock Green”;18 February edition of the Sun, “Met’s New Agenda on Gender Benders”).  Note from LJ 15.05.03: Since the last Forum meeting I have received a reply from the PCC stating that the complaint was rejected because it was about a group rather than an individual.  I wrote back to suggest the PCC Code should be changed to include protection for groups who are vulnerable to discrimination and received a much more helpful reply from the new Chairman, Sir Christopher Meyer, stating that this is an issue he intends to address in the coming months and that the external affairs department “always has its eye out for initiatives which will improve the understanding and awareness among transsexuals, among others, of the Code and the role of the Commission”. 

W.Yorks Police lost their case but have overturned the settlement process that was in action and have further appealed to the House of Lords (for more information see legal cases summary at the end of this update).  Forum members agreed to work on lobbying to point out the prejudice inherent in the action being taken by W. Yorks Police.

A trans woman was going to join Greater Manchester Police but was told that as a trans-person she had a mental illness and was made to undergo a psychiatric assessment – this would mean making her medical records available, so she withdrew her application.  It was agreed that the question of medical checks is one of the most serious threats to privacy.  Lynne Jones has obtained information from the House of Commons Library on the ability of employers to demand medical records and this will be discussed by the Forum to see how the matter can be taken forward.  LJ also pointed out that under the Disability Discrimination Act it is illegal for employers to discriminate.

Campaigning on the ECHR Judgement
We are still waiting for the publication of the draft Bill.  Which is expected before the summer recess.  Forum members are liaising with the Lord Chancellor’s Department who are bringing more people in to the Department to work on the legislation.   It is important that the issue is kept on the boil via lobbying and Parliamentary pressure.  It was noted that 11 July will be a key milestone as it will be the anniversary of the ECHR decision.  Since the Forum meeting LJ tabled the following Parliamentary Question:

29 May 2003

Question: Lynne Jones MP (Birmingham, Selly Oak): To ask the Lord Chancellor, when he expects to publish the draft bill to bring UK legislation in line with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Goodwin and I v UK (Judgment of 11 July 2002), and if he will make a statement. (114875)

Answer: Ms Rosie Winterton: The Government’s policy on transsexual people remains unchanged from that set out in my statement to the House on 13 December 2002.  We are committed to legislating as soon as possible to give transsexual people their Convention rights.  Our aim is to publish a draft Bill later this session with substantive legislation following when Parliamentary time allows.

Good Practice: Forum Guidance for Health Authorities
Work is still progressing on the issue of the appropriate level of hormones to be prescribed and the first edition of the guidance is not likely to be complete until the end of the year.  One problem in gathering information necessary on the hormones issue is the lack of clinical longitudinal research, because huge amounts of that work is funded by drug companies who don’t even list their products as being used in the TS area.  The Forum will contact the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to address this matter.

It was agreed that consultation on a first draft of the Guidelines would be put out to consultation.  The Guidelines would have to be endorsed by the Forum to be accepted as Forum Guidelines for presentation to the Department of Health.

Legal Update
PFC produced a summary of current key court cases which is reproduced at the end of this update.

Date of Next Meeting
5 June 2003

Parliamentary Forum Report: Ongoing Legal Cases  4/3/03

A v West Yorkshire Police

In November 2002 the Ct of Appeal held that A (a mtf transsexual woman) was a woman for the purposes of employment. This followed the Goodwin & I v UK decision in July 2002.

Consequently, as it stands transsexual people (in line with P v S) are of their new gender in employment following transition. This overturns the recent EAT decision in Croft v Consignia where it was held that a pre-operative trans woman could be made to use a disabled toilet facility.

However, West Yorkshire have further appealed to the H of Lords, arguing that the Ct of Appeal was, in effect, retrospective law making, as at the time of their refusal to employ A the ECHR had not made the Goodwin decision.

B V NHS Pensions Trust

This went back to the Ct of Appeal last week, as Ct had written to ask whether it was necessary to continue with the case, in the ECJ, in the light of Goodwin and I. The applicant felt it was important to press on, whereas the government felt it was unecessary. The Ct of Appeal after sending runners to the LCD to see what the legislative timetable was. The LCD replied that they 'will be pushing to get it in the next session'. Brooke LJ then translated that into a lead time of 2-5 years minimum. Consequently the Ct held that the case was to continue. Wea re currently awaiting the ECJ decision which was referred in January 2003.

Bellinger v Bellinger

This was heard at the H of Lords in late January. We are awaiting a referred decision. Current feeling is that the Hof Lds will hold that Liz Bellinger is a woman, but that her 1981 marriage is not valid because of the issue of retrospectivity (see above in A v West Yorkshire). However, it would mean that marriages contracted between the decision and the legislation would be valid.

Grant v DWP

This is due for hearing at the Ct of Appeal. We have requested a stay in view of the likely decision in Bellinger as the issue of retrospectivity will also be relevant.

back to top