I suppose that it is an indulgence that we end up second-guessing the Minister’s response before we have finished with the Amendment. In this case, I did almost precisely that. The Minister understands why we tabled the amendment, and she has been generous about it. In effect, she has put the counter case in that such things are difficult to tie down without a fairly clear evidential test. I accept that, but I hope that I had at least entertained the possibility that any relevant evidence could be considered as part of the process of “considering undergoing”. We are really talking about what would be a test, and as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon has reminded the Committee, that is considered not only by the individual, but by the potential discriminator.

I probably have to give ground to the Solicitor-General. The only point that I would stick on with my amendment is that, in a sense, No. 1 for a gender discrimination counsellor or medic consulted by someone who is contemplating the process should be to say, “Sign a chit here, saying you are proposing a process of reassignment and that will protect you, otherwise you might get hit—discriminated against, or whatever.” That could trigger a decision or perceived decision that might not be helpful to the person’s interest.

We are going to have to leave the argument on that side of it, legally, except that the Solicitor-General has introduced some rather interesting additional tests, which go some way towards meeting the concerns of Liberal Democrat Members—clearly not far enough for them, but far enough for me.

My amendment is pinned on a specific issue: is the performative action saying, “I propose to undergo this”? The Solicitor-General has said that that could be one example. If I wrote that I was consulting a specialist about the situation, that would be incontestable. She also said that a number of actions, including cross-gender dressing, behaving in a way that is not consistent with the natal gender or whatever, might be regarded as similar performances and would activate the protections under Clause 7. If so—that is obviously her view—we should record that that is the case. That is a welcome advance, because it gives additional protections.

We need to come back to the real-world situation. People with considerable vulnerability may be treated badly in different ways, whether through formal discrimination or not. Often those people who are mistreating them are unfamiliar with such conditions and will not have the appropriate sensitivity. It may well be that the Solicitor-General is right and that we cannot capture all that in the anti-discrimination legislation without stretching the test of what is proposed beyond its normal limits or the possible evidence. However, it is important always to bear in mind that there are people who have such problems and need to be treated properly. Perhaps it cannot be done under anti-discrimination law; certain cases could be a matter of criminal law, if people are hit, threatened or abused, which is not acceptable.

Given the Minister’s assurances and the extension of what might be termed the literal-minded approach to take other factors into account, I am minded to withdraw my amendment on the understanding that the Solicitor-General will continue to review the matter. If she can come up with any better ideas that are a little more pointed but meet such cases, we would be grateful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.