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 |
