Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill — House of Lords, 2021-02-22
Topic: Civil Rights
David Brownrigg Craig (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I am not the only Member of this House to have been lobbied about the wording of this Bill. I entirely approve of its practical purpose, but I too question the use of the word "person", when "lady", "woman" or "mother" would be normal usage in relation to maternity issues or pregnancy and childbirth. I understand the desire to avoid any insensitive use in legislation of gender-specific words, but that convention is not inviolate. We do not stop using the word "Lords" to include all who are Members of your Lordships’ House. The Government’s justification in the other place was that "the convention that we are now operating under … was introduced by Jack Straw in 2007. The intention of the guidance on using gender-neutral language was to avoid demeaning women by implying that only men could undertake certain roles, and that drafting convention has remained."—[Official Report, Commons, 11/2/21; col. 594.] Jack Straw used a ministerial Statement, and a future Parliament is not committed to a convention; it is not law. My personal experience of this was a ministerial Statement by Jack Straw when he was Lord Chancellor in 2008, specifically drafted to enable me to withdraw an annulment Motion, which has since been set aside. In December 2013, answering a short debate about wording and grammar in legislation, the much-respected noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, said from the very Dispatch Box in front of the Minister—it is worth repeating in full: "The guidance also recognises that there must be some flexibility and that there will be some Acts where only gender-specific drafting can be usefully applied. In a case where a person has to be of a particular gender—male or female—gender-neutral drafting does not require drafters to avoid referring to the gender. I think your Lordships would agree that that would be the case for legislation about maternity."—[Official Report, 12/12/13; col. 1014.] Does that clear statement not say it all Common sense, reflecting the biologically unique role of a mother who bears a child in her womb and brings it to term, says there is no conceivable discourtesy or demeaning of a woman or womanhood by using the correct wording in Clause 1(3). Clearly the Government and the drafters of this sensible Bill have anticipated the unease over the use of the word "person". The Minister in the other place called the word "jarring". Why introduce a jarring word, particularly in Clause 1(3), when a totally accurate phrase is to hand to clarify? I thank the Minister for his letter, but I wonder whether he is able to produce any greater defensive explanation than already mentioned, and whether he is prepared to gainsay the words of his ministerial colleague? Espousing the Explanatory Memorandum misses the point If Parliament wills it, a convention which may be totally reasonable and sensible in other contexts does not have to be slavishly followed in this Bill. That would make it legally sound. How can there be any grounds for legal challenge in the courts? As drafted, it only invites ridicule of a delusional Parliament, apart from the distress already expressed by many who object to so sensitive a condition as maternity being depersonalised in this way. I look forward to the Minister’s explanation and hope for a reconsideration, but failing that, this should be a matter for debate in Committee.