Source · Select Committees · Women and Equalities Committee
Recommendation 13
13
Rejected
Paragraph: 116
We have carefully considered the arguments for and against the spousal consent provision.
Recommendation
We have carefully considered the arguments for and against the spousal consent provision. The choice to transition by one spouse can, for some, fundamentally change the nature of the relationship and the marriage contract. The spouse of the person transitioning must be informed of their spouse’s decision to change their legal sex. We understand the importance of the spousal consent provision and the availability of the option for annulment for some individuals, including those from religious communities where divorce and same-sex marriage is not regarded favourably. On balance, we do not believe that the lack of consent from a spouse to remain in the marriage after the legal transition should lead to delay in an individual obtaining a full Gender Recognition Certificate. The current system places the burden for obtaining consent, or an annulment, on the parties to the marriage or civil partnership through the issue of an interim certificate. This has created delay and unfairness, which has led to trans people saying that this denies their basic rights and agency over their own bodies, and places it in the hands of their spouses.
Government response summary AI-generated
The government rejected the committee's implicit recommendation that spousal consent or annulment should not cause delay in obtaining a GRC. It maintained that its existing position, set out in September 2020, is correct, asserting that the current legislation strikes the right balance with proper checks and balances.
Summary of the government's response below — read the verbatim text to verify.
Paragraph Reference:
116
Government Response
Rejected
HM Government · verbatim extract
Rejected
For clarity, we are using the term ‘spouse’ to refer to legally-recognised partners within either a marriage or civil partnership. A marriage or civil partnership is a contract between two individuals, the nature of which cannot be changed without the consent of both parties. For this reason, we consider it is equitable for the “spousal consent” requirement to remain in place. Spousal consent does not mean that a spouse can prevent their partner from securing a GRC. It is a safeguard for the non-transitioning spouse to decide whether they want their marriage or civil partnership to continue before their partner is granted a GRC. It is right that both parties should have an equal say in the future of their marriage or civil partnership, given transition can fundamentally change its nature. More widely, we anticipate that the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which comes into force later this year, will help to reduce conflict in such circumstances.
Read the full response on Parliament ↗