Mr Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee had a full and useful debate on clause 22 and disclosure of information. The new clause relates to a particular problem that may or may not arise in consideration of an individual and searches to be made by the Criminal Records Bureau. The overriding point was shown up by the recent case of Huntley, who changed his identity. Tragically, that change was not sequenced through and he was not identified as a person with a question mark or a history of complaints against him. That, sadly, led to the conclusion that it did. We need not go on about that; there may be other cases of equivalent or lesser importance. The principle is that it should be possible, despite a change of gender, to identify people with their history.

The issue raised by clause 22, as drafted, is who should handle that information and whether it should be in the hands of the people who carry out the checks or should go directly to the bureau from the registrar or person who issues the gender recognition certificate in the first place. We want to ensure that, whatever means are secured—perhaps the Minister can explain the mechanism he has in mind—someone who has changed gender, as well as someone who has changed identity, will be traceable through the system so that anyone who needs to know will know and anyone who needs to disclose that information to another person will be protected from any suit under clause 22.

The issue is important and it is essential that the Minister gives a clear assurance that the system will work, that no one will be put under unreasonable pressure and, in particular, that the voluntary bodies to which we referred earlier will be able to make use of the information if they need it, or pass it on to others.

Mr David Lammy (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Tottenham, Labour)

Clause 22 sets out the limited circumstances in which disclosure is permissible—for example, for the prevention or investigation of a crime. The suggestion in the new clause might be that there is potential for abuse of the gender recognition system in order to avoid detection by a number of official agencies. I begin by reiterating that acquiring a new gender under the criteria in the Bill is a long, difficult and painful experience that can often result in the loss of friends, family and even employment. The panels will require medical evidence of gender identity, disorder and a legal commitment to living permanently in the acquired gender. It is bizarre to suggest that a person who is not transsexual should put themselves through all that to avoid detection of some sort. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he spoke to the new clause, but it is important to put those matters on the record. Similarly, it is unfair to assume that transsexual people pose any more risk to children or the vulnerable than others. If the procedures for checking criminal records are suitable for other people, they are suitable for transsexual people.

I should clarify that before any person, not just a transsexual person, is cleared to work with children, the applicant is asked to complete a disclosure application form by the employer, voluntary organisation or registered body. The form asks for the surname at birth and for any other names used by the

applicant. The form is then forwarded to the Criminal Records Bureau, which triggers its usual background checks. I must stress that nothing in the Bill prevents the bureau from doing that.

In addition, information linking the previous identity and the new one will be held as a matter of course by both the Registrar General's offices and the gender recognition panel. That information will ordinarily be confidential, and will not be disclosed to anyone at all. As I said before, the Bill does not prohibit disclosure if it is for the purpose of preventing or investigating crime.

The Government do not, therefore, take the view that there is a need for a further clause in the Bill. Safeguards in existing provisions already provide the assurances sought by the hon. Member for Daventry. With that, I hope that he is able to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Boswell rose—

Mr David Lammy (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Tottenham, Labour)

I would just like to say, because we are now into the last few minutes of the sitting and I cannot be sure whether I shall have another opportunity, thank you, Mrs. Roe, for the manner in which you have conducted the Committee. I would also like to thank Mr. Taylor in his absence.

We have had an interesting debate. We have discussed some extremely difficult and complex issues, which are important to the constituents of us all throughout the country. We have had to balance the interests of faith communities and others who have taken an interest in what we are doing. As Minister, I have had to get to grips with some important pieces of legislation, and I am grateful for the work of my noble Friend Lord Filkin as the lead Minister in this policy area and as the Minister in another place. I am grateful for the opportunity to put that on the record.

Mr Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

Mrs. Roe, I think that we are still formally speaking to my new clause, but I do not think that I need add anything of substance to that at the moment. Before I withdraw the motion—other Committee members may wish to make a brief contribution to the debate—I should like to respond to what the Minister has said by reiterating our thanks to you and Mr. Taylor for your chairmanship of the Committee. I also thank the Clerks, who are invaluable in their assistance of Opposition Members, and all the people who have taken our notes, written down our jokes, comments and our abstruse references, and generally regulated our affairs.

I would like to add my personal thanks to the Minister. We happen to be in an unusual position in interpersonally agreeing about the merits of the Bill. However, it has been right to test some of the provisions, and he has been able to satisfy us on some of the points. Metaphorically throwing down the gauntlet, there may be one or two other matters to re-examine on Report that are important. Through the Minister, I thank his officials.

I thank all Committee members. Our proceedings have been a considerable joint effort. My hon. Friends and Government Back Benchers have had differences

of emphasis—notably, if I may without invidiousness single them out, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, and on the Opposition Benches, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. We have had some good debates; I am sure that we all feel that we have learned something from them. We may not always share exactly the same perspectives, but we unite in our wish to do a good job and produce legislation that is workable. In that respect, I would like to add my thanks to all those who have briefed us in this place. They have had different perceptions, but they have done their best to express their ideas sensitively and to contribute to what in my view—one cannot always say this—has been a very constructive Committee.

Dr Evan Harris (Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

I had not planned to speak to the hon. Gentleman's new clause, but to save time I identify myself with all that he has said. What a pleasure it has been to serve under you, Mrs. Roe, and Mr. Taylor, and to engage with both Ministers who have served on the Committee. Government Back Benchers have felt able to contribute to debate in a way that we do not always see. In fact, we very rarely see that.

I also thank those on the Opposition Benches for the way in which they have introduced their business. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge and the hon. Member for Daventry, who has exercised his duties in his usual polite and apposite way. I also thank other members of the Committee, including the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire, without whose contribution the Committee would not have been the same. I think that there is still more to come from him. I save other remarks for Third Reading.

Mr David Lammy (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Tottenham, Labour)

It would be remiss of me if I did not thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. On Second Reading, some important questions were raised about pensions. Those issues did not arise in the other place. I am grateful for the way in which my hon. Friend dealt with them in her usual way to—I think—the satisfaction of the Committee.

I also put on record my thanks for the work of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and particularly the work of my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak and for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) and of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon.

Mr Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

I think that we are still in the middle of debating my new clause. As it would be ungracious if I did not do so, I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. She threw light on an area that most of us prefer not to know too much about, and even those who know a bit about it know what we do not know.

This has been a constructive Committee. We have exchanged pleasantries, but in this case—if not quite always—we have meant them. In the spirit of what has been said to date, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Ms Bridget Prentice (Assistant Whip (funded by HM Treasury); Lewisham East, Labour)

On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. On the basis that everybody is congratulating and thanking everybody else, I wonder whether it would be appropriate at this time for me to thank my opposite number, the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), for the charming and co-operative way in which she has helped us through the Committee? When the Bill returns to the Floor of the House, she will not be dealing with it, as she has moved on to greater things. I hope that the Committee will be appreciative of the work that she has done here and wish her well in her new post.

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

That is not a point of order, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Upminster has heard what has been said.New Clause 6 Changing and washing facilities