Mr Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

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

We have only three minutes left and I will be brief, as I would like to get a response from the Minister. At the end of the clause stand part debate on clause 19, the Minister spoke about balancing the rights of different sections in our society. The clause is about sports changing facilities and showers where there are no cubicles and no physical separation, such as in the armed services. I wonder whether the Minister has had any conversations with the Ministry of Defence on that point.

I served in the Army for 12 years and my concern is that a small minority could cause needless offence. I stress immediately that the majority of transsexuals would not want to do that, but there was a recent example along those lines in Northamptonshire, of which the Minister will be aware. It is a relevant issue. My concern is to make sure that the rights of third parties are respected. If the Minister does not do that, we could have a backlash. It could cause resentment that would achieve the reverse of what he is trying to do under the Bill.

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

The armed forces give detailed guidance for dealing with transsexual members. It will come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman that the Government oppose the new clause. We discussed

many of the issues on Thursday. We believe that there is no reason to require transsexual people to use separate changing or washing facilities.

Mr Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

That is not the purpose of the new clause; the Minister is completely misrepresenting it. Transsexual people should use the facilities appropriate to their adopted gender. The new clause addresses only those circumstances in which deep offence may be caused to other people if there is no cubicle separation. Will he address that point, and not another one?

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

I thought that I was addressing that point. As I said, we had extensive discussion—

It being Five o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D relating to programming [28 June 2001, as amended on 28 October 2001] and the Order of the Committee [9 March], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put and negatived.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at Five o'clock.