---

Richard Younger-Ross: Can the hon. Gentleman provide the philosophical argument that would explain why it would be right for a Church to allow someone into the church to practise their faith and to use the ladies' toilets, which is an example he has cited, but not to sit down with other women—because the person would legally be a woman—to debate religious matters.

Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman picks a specific example and it is not for us to speculate what would happen in an individual church—[Interruption.] No, I will address that point. It is, rightly, an established custom in many different Churches to have male prayer groups and female prayer groups. They are sensitive flowers, which grow up over a period of time and in
 
25 May 2004 : Column 1466
 
which confidences are shared. People do not share intimate details of their life unless they have confidence that what they share will be respected, and there are some issues that men prefer to discuss with other men and women prefer to discuss with other women.

Mr. Lammy: Oh, please!

Andrew Selous: The Minister seems to have an objection to that. It may not be the custom in the Churches of which he has knowledge, but it is the custom in Churches up and down the country. All I am saying is that we need a degree of sensitivity to the situation, which is not too much to ask.

Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab): Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that if a religious belief carries with it an acceptance of a practice—such as female circumcision, polygamy or stoning to death a woman taken in adultery—it should be outside civil law and this House should allow it to be part of the structure of this country or should not voice any criticism of other countries where such practices take place?

Andrew Selous: Of course it would be ridiculous to say that we could not have views about the strange practices of various faiths in different parts of the world. The hon. Gentleman—[Laughter.] I am sorry; I mean the hon. Lady. She is talking about religious views, but the new clause does not address the issue of theology, so that point is not germane to the argument.

I hope that the Government will come to realise the extent of the concern about this matter among good people, who do not seek to cause trouble. They just wish to ensure that they can run their Churches in a way that accords with their beliefs.

Mr. Colin Breed (South-East Cornwall) (LD): We have had a good debate on the new clause. I was pleased to add my name to the new clause because it has provided the opportunity for a wide-ranging debate. I have great sympathy for people diagnosed with gender dysphoria. In fact, I have also been contacted by a constituent who has suffered considerably and will be assisted by many of the provisions in the Bill.

The new clause focuses narrowly on the issue of religious liberty. In the past hour, we have seen that a fine balance must be struck between protecting the rights of certain individuals and maintaining the religious liberties that have been enjoyed by many churches over a long time. The issue concerns many hon. Members with widely varying perspectives. Of those who added their names in support of the new clause, some supported the Bill on Second Reading, some voted against it and many abstained. That shows that one can support the Bill and the new clause, because it does not go against any of the central principles. Instead, the new clause would add to the Bill's list of qualifications.

The majority of transsexual people who will take advantage of the Bill's provisions will just get on with the rest of their life. Many of them will find that going to church will pose no particular problem. The issue centres on those few who may take advantage of some of the provisions to pursue a litigious or vexatious case against a particular church, minister or official. I hope,
 
25 May 2004 : Column 1467
 
therefore, that we can strike a balance between protection of the individuals and protection of the rights of church members, who might be widely affected by a case against their church.

We often qualify rights and we are right to do so, because unqualified rights can be taken to extremes by some people. We are getting used to a certain amount of extremism in society. Some people utilise reasonable legislation that is meant to be used reasonably, to pursue extreme court cases that entail huge costs for those who have to defend them. That is why I support the new clause. It would not do the transsexuals' cause much good if vexatious cases were to be brought against various churches, because they would receive huge publicity and could undermine many of the good aspects of the Bill. It is regrettable that some people might take their rights to extreme lengths, not only under this Bill but under other legislation, because that undermines what might be called political correctness. That is unfortunate, but it is happening more and more frequently. People get their own back, as they see it, by pursuing matters to court, even if they do not necessarily have a great chance of success. However, they can significantly undermine—perhaps even bankrupt—individuals or organisations. I hope that the Minister can allay my fears on that point.

Yesterday, I met a group of ministers and they raised one specific fear that I wish to put to the Minister. It concerned the public disclosure aspect of baptismal records. They explained that baptismal records are public records and they wondered whether their disclosure would lead to any difficulties under the Bill.

Dr. Pugh: I agree with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who said earlier that this is an issue of the balance of rights—the rights of transsexuals and the rights of some churches that think they will be affected by the Bill. He is right to say that legislators frequently have to decide between rights with a view to the overall common good, and sometimes hard choices need to be made. However, in this instance a reasonable compromise may be available. We need to make a tough choice because both sides cannot have their own way.

I have been impressed by this debate—the sensitivity of the speakers, their passion and the way in which they have treated a profoundly moving and puzzling phenomenon. I am convinced that it is no part of the objectives of the Bill to discriminate against religion, to cause any religious furore, to trample on conscience or to make religious bodies feel that they will be treated worse than sporting bodies.

A compromise is possible, but I do not know whether new clause 1 will achieve it. I hope that it will. However, it would not—on this point I disagree with the hon. Gentleman—give an inalienable right to any religious body. It simply states that the Government should be mindful of freedom of conscience and religious belief. It asks only for mindfulness, not an inalienable right.

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): I have much sympathy with what my hon. Friend says, but I have a problem with the word "particular". It is difficult
 
25 May 2004 : Column 1468
 
for the courts to interpret correctly. To elevate one right above another in statute in that way is unhelpful to the interpretation of the intention of the legislation.

Dr. Pugh: I shall not take it on myself to comment on the perfection or otherwise of the wording of the new clause—

Mr. Leigh: It is simply taken from the Human Rights Act.

Dr. Pugh: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I do not want to comment on how far-reaching the proposal may be or how troublesome it might be at a later date; nor can I comment on a QC's advice. However, the Minister needs to give us powerful, clear and unequivocal reassurance. That is important, first, to people of genuine and benign religious conviction and, secondly, to the people the legislation seeks to help.

John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): I, too, have received reservations from local religious leaders about the disclosure of information aspects of the Bill. This is one of those Bills where never so many MPs met with never so many religious leaders; I hope that it has done us some good.

There are clearly anxieties about litigious individuals, especially as regards the disclosure of information—the particular point that has been raised with me. However, my understanding of the suggested amendments is that they could provoke more litigation than the existing provisions.

Can the Minister clarify my understanding of the provisions? Under subsection (5) of clause 22 the Government have provided for the Secretary of State to make specific orders to define what will or will not be an offence in relation to disclosure of information. They have also given assurances that they will look at the Dingemans advice and consider how it might be interpreted in the development of such orders, to avoid the risk of litigation that would bear heavily on individual religious institutions while preserving the balance of interest for the people the Bill would benefit. Subsection (5) thus gives us the opportunity to take a common-sense approach that would protect all interests, and would also enable us to introduce further orders to eradicate any problems that might arise in future. We should then be giving as much security as possible to all sides in the debate.

---