MPs demand withdrawal of a controversial consultation

[OldCrone]

www.consultationinstitute.org/closing-date-politics-mps-demand-withdrawal-of-a-controversial-consultation/

Finally, this week, Members of Parliament began calling for the consultation to be withdrawn. David Davies, MP for Monmouthshire was among those who alleged that the exercise was “fundamentally flawed”. He was quite explicit, demanding that the consultation be thrown out and restarted once parliamentarians “have had a proper conversation with women’s groups about their rights to protection”.

What the Government has done is avoided making any attempt at an impact assessment at this stage. In its own words; “It is therefore not possible to conduct a full impact assessment on what the changes to the Act will be, as they have not yet been decided.”

What this means is that the impact assessment – when it comes – will be when the Government has taken its decision, and will not be available to inform the debate and the consultation. Lawyers will surely seek to argue that this may invalidate such a decision.

The Government contends that an impact assessment cannot be prepared as it has no clear proposals in mind. Again, in a statement from the Equalities Office, “This is an open consultation – we are not putting forward any specific proposals for how we want the system to change”

Yet in the Ministerial Foreword to the consultation, the Minister talks of being “conscious of concerns about the implications of our proposals.” Maybe they are ‘unspecific’ proposals?

The author seems to think it is "a professionally-prepared and comprehensive consultation". Yet on his own admission, the government has not put forward any specific proposals, has said that they will make their decision based on the results of the consultation, and only then will impact assessments be carried out.

Nobody knows what is being proposed, so we were all guessing when we responded to the questions. No impact assessments had been done of any proposed changes, because nobody knows what the proposed changes are. How can this be described as "a professionally-prepared and comprehensive consultation"?

Timely reminder of an earlier thread started by Pencils.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3274586-Big-research-project-to-decide-if-we-still-need-sex-as-a-legal-category

As a result of the 2016 enquiry £575,000 has been given by the government for a study which will draft a new Bill, ostensibly with the intention of removing birth registration of sex completely They obviously assumed SELF ID was a done deal and so started work on the next step due to come onstream in 2021.

Planned Impact
As a major piece of law reform research, this project is intended to significantly contribute to debates about gender identity reform. While current agendas focus on the experiences of people whose birth gender does not "fit", this research addresses more broadly the implications of reforming a binary legal structure currently anchored in gender designation at birth.

It will contribute timely, evidence-based research to benefit government, non-government and service-providing organisations and, in its concluding phase, produce a draft reform Bill to focus further policy and wider public discussion on the legal regulation and recognition of gender identity in England and Wales. It will also generate in-depth social psychological data from a demographically diverse sample on everyday experiences of legal gender, as well as on attitudes towards legal reform.

Collaboration as follows (see Pathways to Impact for full details):

A) Advisory Group (AG): Including representatives from the EHRC, Stonewall and EDF. It will meet at key stages to advise on research design, dissemination, and assessment of research methodology. Members will also assist in reaching research participants.
B) Stakeholder Involvement in Research Design: Key stakeholders (EHRC, EDF) have inputted into research design and will be consulted at each stage through the AG, expert meetings and stakeholder events. Lay participants will be involved in developing the survey (through a pilot); and data reflections in interviews (WP2C).
C) User-appropriate Activities/Dissemination: draft Bill presented at Policy & Practice event, fine-tuned and downloadable from website; 8 page non-academic summary of findings; organisational presentations, media coverage, website, and through social media.

Consultation institute eh? Never knew such a thing existed. Very interesting.

Yep I'd donate too btw.

The removal of sex registration is what the Loughborough University FLAGS study is about isn't it?

But how can anyone think it is a good idea to remove the existing sex registration. Surely it is fundamental to the provision of services and health care etc

It really should be binned. It is the most biased piece of crap.

Allowing children to complete it when most adult were confused be the bloody thing is disgraceful.

Allowing anyone who permanently resides outside the UK should have no say in our laws and policies.

Major changes like this should be a simple yes or no vote at polling stations, with a few months for both sides to campaign.
Not sneakily trying to change things before anyone notices.

In the notes for the question about prisons etc. It basically said that safeguards were already in place to protect female prisoners from violent, rapist women so no probs letting males in! Seriously using the argument that women do it too!! Funny that those safeguards didn't apply to Karen white, an actual rapist and danger to women, isn't it?

There's no legal requirement to conduct a public consultation ahead of passing legislation - it's best practice (not least because it helps to create better policy) and can provide some protection against future legal action once the legislation has been passed, but there is no law that says a consultation is required.

I'm tending to think that the "head's down, get Brexit out of the way, then come back and see if it is still an issue to work on" is where this will end up.

Firstly the consultation deadline has been extended slightly. Next the government will say that the unexpectedly high response means that it will take much longer to consider the responses than originally anticipated (with soothing phrases like "it's right that we take our time to consider all the responses submitted on such an important and emotive issue"). Christmas will come and go, and occasionally an MP will ask the government for an update, to which the government will respond that they are still considering carefully how to proceed and (hopefully) talking to interest groups about specific issues.

Brexit stuff really hits the fan early next year, and the government line will change to something like "we are developing proposals for changes to the GRC application process and will conduct a targeted consultation with interested parties in due course"

Then we will get into a leadership challenge, possible snap election and there will be a new government

New government says that they are aware of the issues and strength of feeling; don't want to rush into changes whilst the priority is managing the fall-out from Brexit - and in any case there is no time in the legislative calendar to take a bill through Parliament.

If anything really substantive happens before Parliament rises for summer next year, I'd be amazed

Latest update from the lead researcher on the project linked above.

futureoflegalgender.kcl.ac.uk/2018/10/13/acting-as-if-other-law-reform-options-were-already-on-the-table/

Quote

Now is an exciting time to be asking the question: do we need an assigned legal gender.
Our recently started research project on gender’s legal future is situated in a swirl of critical and creative approaches to gender and its possible futures – in terms of what gender means, what it does, and how it can (or can’t) be lived. It is also situated in the midst of legal and political debates about gender transitioning. In different countries, amid social movement and activist pressure, governments are deciding how to reform the ways gender status is determined and altered.

And the last paragraph;
On the subject of gender law reform, progressives in Britain today are deeply divided. The conflict erupting over gender transitioning and wider questions to do with informalising gender are injuring many.
One challenge for prefigurative law reform is whether re-framing the questions posed can unsettle divisions that have entrenched. This isn’t a plea for harmony and consensus. But when a single division emerges and deepens, debate becomes consolidated around taking sides, with other positions becoming harder to think, articulate and be received.
Can discussing the longer-term futures for gender that are hoped for and feared give rise to new alignments and disagreements? And might these complicate current political divisions, making it possible for other views and questions to be discussed?

MPs plural or just David Davies?

Trousered, who is EDF. Not the energy company I assume.

If the consultation is withdrawn and, after consulting with women's groups, it is decided that the self id will not go ahead etc, I wonder what companies and organisations who have already implemented self id policies (e.g. Top Shop, GG) will do in response.

MPs plural or just David Davies?

The article suggests there were others, but they're not named.

who is EDF

Equality and Diversity Forum

www.edf.org.uk

OlennasWimple
I think you're right that there's been enough opposition to this to get it kicked into the long grass, but who knows what will happen if we have another election and Labour get in.

Survey now open

Attitudes to Gender

Our
@FutureGender
public survey is now open! This is open to ANYONE over the age of 18.

To access the survey, please click this link:

lboro.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/attitudes2gender

Project website:
futureoflegalgender.kcl.ac.uk

Event
futureoflegalgender.kcl.ac.uk/events-and-public-and-policy-engagements/

I wonder what companies and organisations who have already implemented self id policies (e.g. Top Shop, GG) will do in response.

Especially if lots of individuals contact them, telling them to walk their policies back.

Because, I still can't see any political parties or many women's groups being willing to do this...

EDF members (I recall the CEO attended the launch of the Equality Act review meeting and was adamant that all organisations involved believed that trans women were women.

Equality and Diversity Forum Membership Organisations
Members
Associates
Observers

Members
Action on Hearing Loss
Age UK
brap
British Institute of Human Rights
Children’s Rights Alliance for England (CRAE)
Citizens Advice
Disability Rights UK
Discrimination Law Association
End Violence Against Women Campaign
Equality Trust
Fair Play South West
Fawcett Society
Friends, Families and Travellers
Gender Identity Research and Education Society (GIRES)
Humanists UK
Law Centres Network
Mind
National AIDS Trust
National Alliance of Women’s Organisations (NAWO)
Press for Change
Race on the Agenda (ROTA)
RNIB
Runnymede Trust
Scope
Stonewall
Trades Union Congress (TUC)
Traveller Movement
UKREN (UK Race in Europe Network)
UNISON
Women’s Budget Group
Women’s Resource Centre

Associates
Amnesty International UK
Asylum Aid
British Muslims for Secular Democracy
Business Disability Forum
Caritas Social Action Network
Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales
Child Poverty Action Group
Churches Together in Britain and Ireland
Consortium of LGBT Voluntary and Community Organisations
Employers for Carers
Employers Network for Equality & Inclusion
EqualiTeach
Equal Rights Trust
Faith-based Regeneration Network
GALOP (Gay and Lesbian Policing Project)
HEAR
Inclusion London
Inspire
Just Fair
Law Society
Liberty
Migrants’ Rights Network (MRN)
Odysseus Trust
Refugee Council
Rene Cassin
Royal College of Nursing
Unite the Union
Unlock Democracy
YESS Law
Young Women’s Trust

Observers
COMPAS
Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)
Government Equalities Office
Greater London Authority
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
Joint Committee on Human Rights of the UK Parliament
JUSTICE
Local Government Association
Macmillan Cancer Support
Ministry of Justice
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Office of the Committee for Employment and Social Security, States of Guernsey
Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC)
The Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England
Unicef
Women and Equalities Select Committee

Fascinating thread, thank you.

Image in my head of the government running at full tilt like Wile E. Coyote, then realising over the past couple of weeks they've gone straight over the edge of a cliff. Just watching the legs start to spin to try and get themselves back to solid ground.

If anything really substantive happens before Parliament rises for summer next year, I'd be amazed

This.

Someone needs to get a legal ruling in, which has a judge make a point about the need to balance the needs of different vulnerable groups in the meantime...

Trousered

Wow that took me over an hour. Whoever did the survey seems to understand that sex and gender are different as its noted at the start, but the questions...they mix up gender and sex on loads of them. Making out its gender thats important. using the stupid 'sex assigned at birth' and such too. My blood pressure is just about settling now, but that was one of the most annoying things I have ever completed.

I commented on the impact assessment on another thread and got an interesting reply.www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3393674-To-think-impact-assessments-should-be-done-BEFORE-a-decision-is-made

One of the reasons I copied all my answers is in case they scrap this consultation and do another. I'm sure copy and paste will come in handy!

I suppose its simply taking views on the issue. They wouldn't be much different responses after the discussions they should have had. Lets hope they consider the responses properly.

Wow, look at the EDF lists.

Very happy to contribute to a legal crowdfunder. We are going to need to set up one hell of a large demonstration outside parliament on the day this gets discussed. Any doubt as to the degree of opposition to this needs to be put right to bed.

OlennasWimple Your post is really what my MP was saying. But even if nothing happens, that still leaves us with all the GG and YHA crap.

I worry about them just kicking it into the long grass. Whilst the LibDems and Labour are so consumed by the AWA ideology it will make me very afraid for the next general election.

It will be a lose-lose situation. If Conservatives get in and there is a good chance women will retain some rights. But we may lose the NHS and we'll have the on-going hardship of Universal Credit. Or Labour get in and woman ceases to have meaning, making the world a harder place for DD.

Hawkeye, I am starting to think that if Labour get in, women, to all intents and purposes, will "lose" the NHS and face ongoing hardship anyway.

As Labour believes TWAW, it is only a matter of time before women's concerns are supplanted by TW concerns, particularly if women's officers and reps become mostly TW. Who then will argue for female healthcare needs? Better obstetric care? Better support for gynaecological issues?

All that will be ignored. The impact of UC on females will be ignored because our circumstances aren't TW circumstances.

Any party that accepts TWAW inevitably does not care about biological female rights, needs or political representation. We will be Talibaned.