Cross party amendment on recording crime perps/victims birth sex (live now)

[ConservativesForWomen]

In case anyone is still up you can watch this live on Parliament TV. It's a very late night as the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill has had hundreds of amendments and at least 2 extra days have had to be added to the debate (hence the late sitting to get through lots of amendments).

Should be coming up in the next few minutes, currently on 292F (Lord McColl amendment on 'Modern slavery through control of another's property'):

"LORD WASSERMAN (C)
BARONESS MORRIS OF YARDLEY (L)
BARONESS GREY-THOMPSON (XB)
BARONESS LUDFORD (LD)

292G Insert the following new Clause—
“Recording the sex and acquired gender of alleged victims and perpetrators of crime
After section 44 of the Police Act 1996 insert—
“44A Recording sex registered at birth and acquired gender
(1) Police forces in England and Wales must keep a record of the sex
registered at birth of each person who is—
(a) the alleged victim of a crime reported to that police force, or
(b) arrested for a crime by a member of that police force.
(2) Police forces in England and Wales must keep a record of the acquired gender of each person with a gender recognition certificate who is—
(a) the alleged victim of a crime reported to a member of that police
force, or
(b) arrested for a crime by a member of that police force.
(3) Provision by a police force to the Secretary of State of any protected information recorded under subsection (2) above does not constitute an offence under section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004.”

Member’s explanatory statement
This amends the Police Act 1996 to ensure that the sex registered at birth and acquired gender, if appropriate, of anyone who is the alleged victim of a crime or who is arrested for a crime will be recorded by police"

www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/85093260-1305-4215-8109-ed6f679bf0e6

We will post a clip of the debate as soon as we can after it ends.

Thank you. XX

Fingers crossed

Why Baroness Brinton takes the view she does on this is a mystery. It's an utterly morally indefensible view. Didn't anyone come up with the statement that it's impossible to tell what sex someone is anyway? That was the response I got after I'd signed the petition about this. You don't say if they voted on it, which I imagine would be the next stage.

What happened with this? Was the amendment withdrawn, as another site suggested?

I think this is where the Hansard record goes up, Cattenberg (nothing up for yesterday as yet): bills.parliament.uk/bills/2839/stages/15740

Seems to be up now:

Gah.

hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2021-11-22/debates/D4B6A6F3-A165-40EA-9485-BBDAADA7B42A/PoliceCrimeSentencingAndCourtsBill

Amendment withdrawn:

I recognise very much the problems of collecting this information, which is why I went out of my way to speak at some length about the Home Office counting rules. I happened to be involved with their development when I was at the Home Office. They are very much based on consultation with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, experts, think tanks, academics and so on. As I said, these rules ensure that the collection arrangements are easily amended in the light of practical experience on the ground. I have no doubt that any debate about the collection of such information will get careful consideration by the experts at the Home Office who run the counting rules, by the police, and others.

I still think that it is important to have national criminal information. One of the weaknesses of our system, as we said in an earlier debate on the Bill, is that we have 43 separate forces with 43 chief constables, each deciding how they will collect and maintain crime statistics. This is not the best way to do it. Some noble Lords will no doubt suggest a single police force, as in Scotland. That is not such a good idea, but there is another way of doing it—by Parliament setting clear rules at high level, and the experts then deciding how best to collect the information sensitively, with due respect to human rights and to people’s deepest feelings, ensuring that they take the population with them. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 292G withdrawn.

All discussed from about 11.20pm to past midnight.

Thank you Arabella. I hope Lord Falconer will carry on working on this.

What does withdrawn mean in the context of the HoL, does anyone know? It could mean permanently or we'll redraft and be back.

@Rightsraptor

What does withdrawn mean in the context of the HoL, does anyone know? It could mean permanently or we'll redraft and be back.

Yes in some cases it means they will redraft and return at report stage of the bill but many of these amendments are to provoke discussion; last night was particularly interesting as it got the views of certain LibDem peers into Hansard in black and white.

Which makes very interesting reading indeed.

Here is the whole debate from Parliament TV:

Thanks, ConservativesForWomen, will definitely watch that.

I haven’t had time to watch the video yet, but have read part of the transcript.

I agree there are real issues with making people supply their birth certificates in order to report a crime. And if someone’s birth certificate has been re-issued, it might not include their birth sex anyway.

But we do need accurate, standardised data in order to make evidence-based policy decisions. For example, what is the cause of the three-fold rise in sexual offences committed by women and how do we tackle it? No one seems to know.

Has anyone discussed the fact that we did not give our permission. Civil Servants have made many of these decisions and pushed forward an agenda. MP's can be lazy and just accept rather than ask important questions so that role back now is highlighting how difficult this is going to be

Having listened to this debate I thought Brinton made some good, nuanced, points. She was objecting to the blanket scope of the amendment not the need to collect accurate data where relevant.

Why should an individual who is transgender have to report their transgender status to the police if they are a VICTIM of an alleged crime? In 99% of cases eg theft, fraud etc their gender will have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Similarly why should someone ARRESTED for a crime automatically have to report their transgender status to the police. Again in 99% of cases - eg theft, fraud etc their gender will be irrelevant.

She specifically refers to rape as a crime where gender would be a relevant issue.

I am as gender critical as the next person but I think she is quite right to ask for this to be looked at again.

I think we need accurate data so we can accurately measure things like hate crimes, rather than relying on Stonewall style self selected surveys.

Knowing victim status (which would be tightly controlled in data protection terms) would allow proper funding and signposting to correct support services. It would allow medical evidence to be gathered appropriately (a trans man might prefer a female medic if sexually assaulted, or at least should be offered one).

Knowing perpetrator status for all, including non sexual crimes might support building a trans prison, rather than always responding to attacks in female prisons. The more information we have, the better we can direct funds and make good decisions.

There are a lot of relevant, but sensitive, details we collect. Victims might be pregnant, for example, or be particularly vulnerable due to learning difficulties. Those arrested have their mental capacity tested, have religions noted for prison meals. Being trans is no more special or different to any other characteristic, but the only one we pussyfoot around.

I think we need accurate data so we can accurately measure things like hate crimes, rather than relying on Stonewall style self selected surveys

I agree with the need for accurate data on hate crimes. Brinton would also agree with this. But would you be arguing for other groups with protected characteristics eg homosexuality, disability, race, religion etc ALWAYS to have to declare their protected characteristic when a VICTIM of ANY crime or an alleged perpetrator of ANY crime?

If a lesbian is a victim of cyber fraud should she have to inform the police that she is a lesbian when reporting the crime? If not why should someone with a GRC?

The proposed amendment needs redrafting to focus on instances where the protected characteristic is be relevant. The current draft is just too wide ranging.

If "gender", in its contemporary sense, is only to be relevant for certain classes of crime, then all violent crimes, including things like threatening behaviour and coercive control, need to be included.

The difference in the prevalence of these crimes amongst males and females needs to be accurately recorded.

@Weihnachtsmarkt

Having listened to this debate I thought Brinton made some good, nuanced, points. She was objecting to the blanket scope of the amendment not the need to collect accurate data where relevant.

Why should an individual who is transgender have to report their transgender status to the police if they are a VICTIM of an alleged crime? In 99% of cases eg theft, fraud etc their gender will have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Similarly why should someone ARRESTED for a crime automatically have to report their transgender status to the police. Again in 99% of cases - eg theft, fraud etc their gender will be irrelevant.

She specifically refers to rape as a crime where gender would be a relevant issue.

I am as gender critical as the next person but I think she is quite right to ask for this to be looked at again.

It's why we need to repeal the GRA, a person's sex as observed at birth is not a secret to be maintained by the state for certain individuals. It's just a basic neutral fact about a person.

In order to have accurate analysis of crime we need to start with accurate data.

It's why we need to repeal the GRA, a person's sex as observed at birth is not a secret to be maintained by the state for certain individuals. It's just a basic neutral fact about a person.

The debate made that very clear. The only reason it's remotely hard to identify a person's sex is because the records have been messed with to obscure that fundamental information.

If you'd screwed up the record of their birth date, accurately finding their age would be similarly complex, intrusive and possibly prohibitively difficult admin.

If we'd had a "birth date recognition act", the resulting difficulty in identifying age would not be a strong argument for stopping recording ages.

I've read the hansard transcript, alot of it anyway.

Those speaking for the amendment gave good points putting forward the arguments we're familiar with. Although I think they could have made the impact on data clearer. If only, say, 4% of a certain offence are committed by women, and 96% by men, then reclassification of just one in 96 men as female will hardly make a dint in the male figures, but will increase the number of women by 25%, so it will appear that women have become much more likely to commit that type of crime. Heads will be scratched about it and resources might be misdirected trying to address that. That's what Paddick didn't grasp.

It was good (and a change) that those who spoke against the amendment actually gave proper reasoning and dealt with the actual substance, rather than simply a cashman-esque morally affronted emotion-led disgust that this is even being discussed.

I thought chakrabati made some good points that can't be ignored. The use of "must" in
"Police forces in England and Wales must keep a record of the sex registered at birth of each person”,"how is that going to be executed and what will the consequences be?"
And she asked will it discourage trans people from reporting crimes? That would be a v negative consequence.

She, like brinton, raised thd issue of requiring victims of crime to state their sex. I want accurate data (eg sex plus gender identity) so that we get a good picture of who is being a victim of different types of crime and how that changes over time, but this has to be balanced against the limitations on the power of the state to require things of individuals which are not necessary for them. Is it in the victim's interest to state their sex even if they object? No, its in the interest of something else, eg the state's ability to keep accurate data on crime. Their rights as an individual have to be balanced against this. For once, it makes sense that a lib dem (brinton) would think in these terms. Chakrabati with her civil rights background too.

The minister replied, among other things:
"The Home Office has already started work with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to promote a standardised approach—a phrase that lots of noble Lords have used—to the recording of all protected characteristics, which is currently at an early stage. Further, the Office for Statistics Regulation has issued draft guidance for the collection of sex and gender data for public bodies. This work should bring greater accuracy and consistency of the recording of sex and gender and allow the police to understand how best to collect it. I think it is through these processes, rather than legislation, that it is appropriate to improve the accuracy of the recording of sex and gender."

It looks like there won't be a redraft of an amendment. What is significan, and makes me optimistic, is that there are quite a group of Lords who table amendments on these issues whenever some relevant legislation comes up. They are forcing it to be debated in parliament, and even if it doesn't result in a change of law, it does mean the government has to respond each time. There is an acknowledgement that there are problems that need addressing. The arguments are put, and the counter arguments too. It's years late but it's healthy.