New Clause 4 - Criminal Records Bureau checks
Gender Recognition Bill [Lords]
4:45 pm
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—